Young Master

This is one of my favorite Jackie Chan movies. 

Sitting on the Shoulders of Giants

We are like dwarfs sitting on the shoulders of giants. We see more, and things that are more distant, than they did, not because our sight is superior or because we are taller than they, but because they raise us up, and by their great stature add to ours.

While this thought is attributed to Isaac Newton, it was not original to him. It goes back at least to John of Salisbury in the 12th century. It has a lot of truth in it. I often think of a book I read as good if it adds one useful idea to my thinking. Most books do not even do this.

While I have been thinking I do stand on the shoulders of giants, another thought occurred to me as well, I am also standing on the graves of people whose death contributed to my well-being.

A Great Documentary available on YouTubeYou might think I feel guilty, a typical liberal. No, that would be a laugh to my regular readers and those who know me personally. I am just pointing out the way the system works naturally engenders murder and theft. What passes for capitalism in the modern world is a different animal entirely, I would call it Corporate Mercantilism.

Is my point that we stand on the corpses of those who went before exaggerated?

If you think so I suggest you read the blog series on the Cherokee nation written by Pam Dewey, the beloved editor of the Prophecy Podcast.

Even though I have a degree in history, Pam's series provided many details, especially personal details of the people involved. It contains many new ideas and thoughts.

But whatever you do, do not click on this link to the first in this series of the Trail of Tears unless you want your illusions you were taught in American history to be exposed as untrue. It is up to you.

Media Bias

Most media bias is too subtle to easily see. It is often the story you don't see. Or the story you do see that the news outlet was paid to air, such as the recent example of CNN receiving money for their coverage of Bahrain. 

There have been two stories recently, not well-covered of course, that illustrate my point. Both stories involve CBS. 

A few years ago CBS bought the tech website CNET. I used to listen to a few of their podcasts—I am not sure why I stopped. CNET reviews various tech and entertainment hardware. Every year at the electronic show CES they give awards. 

Here is how a website that competes with CNET put it. 

I’m not going to pretend that the Dish/CNET debacle is a major news story. I can assure you that it isn’t and next week we’ll still be reading a CNET camera review from 2011 to decide which ultra zoom to buy (or, arguably, you’ll just end up on Amazon and read those reviews, which, I’d argue, are supplanting traditional gadget reviews). The whole thing stinks, but it doesn’t take a super sleuth to figure out what happened. It probably shook down like this: a CBS lawyer got wind of the award, saw the damage it would do to the case against Dish, and told the board. The board made a few calls, the editors cried, and the Hopper was pulled. News got out because someone who is close to a number of CNET and Dish folks tweeted about it. This would have been a quiet kill if hadn’t been for those pesky kids.

First, I agree that this is not a major news story, but I disagree in that it should have been. The Hopper is a product that automatically records TV shows, and when you watch the show later, it automatically removes the commercials—my kind of product. The Hopper was going to win best of show, but CBS, as they own CNET, stopped this. 

I have no idea of the merits of CBS' suit against Dish. I certainly understand that CBS' business plan is more and more in the toilet because of the DVR. I would not be surprised if they won. The Hopper certainly violates the spirit of Dish Network's agreement to air CBS on the satellite network. 

Another incident happened this last weekend. Forbes describes it: 

CBS banned Soda Stream’s Super Bowl spot because, apparently, it was too much of a direct hit to two of its biggest sponsors, Coke and Pepsi.

Please pause and read that sentence again.

I am shocked that CBS would ban a spot for being too competitive. But I’m even more shocked that the advertising world isn’t up in arms about it. 

SodaStream is a product to make your own soda. I have it. It is OK if you want cola, but its carbonated water product is awful. Unfortunately this is why I bought it. 

What these two stories tell us is that the Media conglomerates will be keeping what they perceive as their own best interests. This should come as no surprise. The advertisers are the boss. Will Faux News ever point out that the gold sellers who advertise on Faux are paying a fortune for these ads, and they must pay for it with higher commissions or larger spreads/markup?  Will Faux News ever do investigative reporting on the Pharmaceutical industry as they are big buyer of ads? 

Are you that naïve? 

I know you are not. 

The first step is to be aware of the problem.  The second step is that you will be able to concentrate on those outlets where you can ignore the ads, either by a printed or internet Media, or by a DVR.  The third step is to reduce advertiser-supported media. I wish there was a fourth step of being able to buy your news media without ads. I personally am looking for that fourth step.

The irony is that in both these instances CBS actually managed to make the situation worse for them. In particular SodaStream is getting more buzz from the rejection of their Superbowl ad than they would have gotten from the ad itself. I want to do my part in this, so here is the ad. 

What the NFL Really Says on the Sidelines

Faction Colors

The Steeler Fan on my tech podcast of choice.I saw my usual tech podcast this week. The host was wearing 49ers paraphernalia, as was only expected for a resident of Silicon Valley. He was sitting next to a Stealers fan, who for some reason did not express much interest in the game. I assumed from this that the 49ers were in the Super Bowl, but the Steelers were not. I am not sure. 

There were riots in Egypt over a soccer game that resulted in a loss for the favored faction. Many died. The government arrested and convicted the murders to hang. The result? More riots and over 100 dead. That game must have been very important. The riots associated with a soccer game are the strongest argument that could be made against expecting people unprepared culturally for democracy to govern themselves. 

Such faction thinking is old. The gladiator games in Rome had it.

The drivers of the chariots (aurigae or agitatores) that raced in the circus wore team (faction) colors. Originally, the factions were the White and Red, but Green and Blue were added during the Empire. Domitian introduced short-lived Purple and Gold factions. By the fourth century A.D., the White faction had joined the Green, and the Red had joined the Blue. The factions attracted fanatically loyal supporters.

The more I think about the sports world, the more I understand that it is a part of the system designed to distract us with trivialities. Does it matter in the least who wins tomorrow's game? Wll the 49ers or their opponents win? (I did not bother to google to see who their opponent will be.) Who cares? I do not have cable or broadcast TV, so I have no easy way to watch it. Last year I went to the trouble to use my iPad and broadcast the game to my TV. I understand I can do the same this time. I may. But if you decide to watch tomorrow's big game, and I am as much in favor of mindless entertainment as the next guy, understand that this is a distraction from far more important matters. Does it matter who won the Super Bowl 5 years ago? Do you remember? I do not even remember last year's game. That being the case, I suggest that tomorrow's game does not matter either. 

While an afternoon of mindlessness will not harm you, ask yourself a question, "Is this afternoon of mindlessness a symptom of a life of mindlessness?" If the answer is yes, I suggest you make some changes. Would Jesus waste his time with professional sports?