The Jorge Zone

Media drops ball regarding ACORN tapes, shows it in coverage.

jlv0628 — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:35:18 +0000

You can’t deny that the way the mainstream media is handling the ACORN tape scandal [LINK to YouTube search] is a bit…odd.

Lets face it, it’s not secret that ACORN is a shady organization whose ties to the democratic party hurt, but didn’t hinder President Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential bid. Evidence of the organization’s dealings has been known, again, since 2008 and these series of videos obviously prove that.

However, my post isn’t about the video itself, because in the end, I really don’t care what ACORN does. They didn’t invent voter/tax fraud and they aren’t the first to do it. My post is more about what the media didn’t see.

Last night, Jon Stewart made a very good point regarding this story. The media totally didn’t see this coming and ultimately got “scooped” by two students with $3,000 and a hidden camera. In their coverage of this, it’s apparent that they aren’t pleased.

Other than FOX News, who is flaunting this with their usual swagger, I have had to do more foraging than normal on the interwebs to find some stuff about this.

I really don’t think this has to do with bias, it is pretty well known that ACORN will show you various ways to declare your Ecuadorian sex slave as a dependent in your tax forms. But rather, I think the media realized that this whole “citizen journalism” is a pretty large gorilla in a very small room.

As a current student journalist and writer, I think that this is good for us, the little guys who put together a 12-page paper three times a week or update a blog. It evens the playing field a bit for us, and lets us know that just because we don’t have the vast resources of some of the bigger players doesn’t mean we can’t get things done. But this is also good for the media, the big dogs who we one day aspire to work for.

In the end though, people like us want to work for a big player one day. Entering the jobs of writers and editors with this mindset will put a fire under our asses to get the big stories and not get scooped by a bunch of kids. I think this is a great wake-up call for not only mainstream journalists but those who aspire to be mainstream journalists. We will have to comepete.

Hey, AT&T. Summer is almost over, where’s my MMS?

jlv0628 — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 12:58:37 +0000

At WWDC, Apple made a note that MMS would be coming to the iPhone, well…to every iPhone except those on AT&T.

With the end of summer, the deadline imposed by AT&T, rapidly approaching I have yet to be able to send and receive video and pictures on my device. So I decided to take matters in to my own hands…here is what I asked @ATTNews last night.

@ATTNews Guys the summer is almost over. Where is MMS for the iPhone? I can order pizza to my GPS coordinates but I can’t receive pics?

I’ll keep tweeting until I get an answer…or MMS, whichever comes first. I am starting to think that an update opening MMS up for AT&T will be announced at the iPod event on September 9th that I keep hearing about.

If only Verizon had an iPhone…I’ll keep you posted

The Internet and First Amendment rights: Is freedom of speech really free?

jlv0628 — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 01:49:54 +0000

According to CNN this morning, model Liskula Cohen sued Google for the identity of a commenter who defamed her on a Blogger site. Here is a quote from the CNN’s Newsroom blog:

Cohen went to court after a user of Google’s blogging service, Blogger.com, created a site called “Skanks in NYC.” The blog featured photos of Cohen with insulting captions. The judge ruled that Google had to turn over any identifying information it had (in this case an IP address and an e-mail address) on this blogger, and Google has complied.

After Don Lemon read a few comments on the air (one of those comments being mine, many thanks to Don) he asked a question that I think sums up this entire situation. Does “hatespeak” count as freedom of speech?

The argument in this case is that the blogger’s comments about Cohen are defamatory, and they are. According to Gawker, the blog “Skanks of NYC” labeled Cohen as well, a New York City skank. I would quote the blog, but I don’t quote gossip and smut.

Americans today throw freedom of speech around heavily. However, we can’t pick and choose what we are free or not free to say. When white supremacists spew ignorance and hatred, they have a right to do it. In the end I disagree with it, I criticize it, but I will not challenge their right to be stupid.

I once had a high school teacher who would pretentiously quote Voltaire every time students disagreed with each other, and it rings true now:

“I may not approve of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

In actuality, that was said by Evelyn Beatrice Hall in “The Friends of Voltaire”, but that’s neither here nor there.

In the end, freedom of speech is a take it, or leave it issue. People will hate and defame, but in the end unless they have definitive proof, most people are smart enough to dismiss it. If you want to live in a country where you are free to say whatever you want, you need to be able to take the good with the bad.

This ruling is going to set an ugly precedent for the Internet. This is a huge set back for the blogging community, who is heavily based on opinions and Op-Ed commentary. I have a feeling this is going to be the first of many.

Bringing rifles to health care rallies is the new black

jlv0628 — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 04:15:30 +0000

You know, I am all for the Second Amendment, but what the hell is this? According to basically every major news outlet, people are going to health care town hall meetings brandishing 9mm handguns and, as of late, AR-15 assault rifles.

I really don’t get the correlation between health care and second amendment rights, unless they are talking about how Obama’s Public Option plan will cover gun shot wounds.

I am not really surprised, however seeing how heated these rallies and town halls are getting, is this really a good idea? I find it hard not to imagine a worse case scenario where different groups of protestors clash in a hail of gunfire started by those in the crowd with high power assault rifles.

Oddly enough, the Secret Service seems cool with it? Here’s a interview with a Secret Service spokesman from CNN:

U.S. Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan acknowledged the incidents in New Hampshire and Arizona, but said he was not aware of any other recent events where protesters attended with open weapons. He said there was no indication that anyone had organized the incidents.

Asked whether the individuals carrying weapons jeopardized the safety of the president, Donovan said, “Of course not.”

The individuals would never have gotten in close proximity to the president, regardless of any state laws on openly carrying weapons, he said. A venue is considered a federal site when the Secret Service is protecting the president and weapons are not allowed on a federal site, he added.

A lot of people are forgetting that the problem is not that he is open wielding and firearm near the president. The Secret Service obviously has Obama so locked down that they are cool as cucumbers.

Local police forces in the area are in a unique position here as well. These protestors are obviously protected by the law, and confiscating, detaining, or arresting these individuals would only add fuel to the fire. However they still have to consider the safety of the crowd.

The problem here is that people are walking around with these things in high traffic areas no doubt steeped in heated political debate. Frankly, I don’t trust people enough to be responsible and, most importantly, calm. This is trouble waiting to happen.

President Obama considers F-22 “inexcusable waste of money”

jlv0628 — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:00:29 +0000

According to CNN.com, the Senate today voted to no longer fund the F-22 fighter program, effectively capping the amount of fighters to be built at 187 planes. Here is an excerpt:

WASHINGTON (CNN) — The Senate voted Tuesday to block expansion of one of the country’s most controversial and expensive defense programs, the F-22 fighter jet program.

The vote gave the White House and Pentagon a key victory over congressional supporters of the F-22, many of whom represent states and districts where jobs are tied to the production of the jet.

The vote, which stripped $1.75 billion for an additional seven F-22s from the fiscal year 2010 budget, was a reversal of an earlier Senate committee decision to include money for the program. The change came in a response to strong pressure from President Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and several key senators who argued that the additional planes are not needed or wanted by the military.

The 58-40 vote, which did not break down along typical partisan lines, was the culmination of a classic confrontation between the president and Congress over who is the best judge of the country’s military needs.

The reason a lot of senators are a big fan of this aircraft are twofold. First, the aircraft keeps a lot of people employed as it relies on parts and labor from 44 states, which keeps constituency pockets filled, and senators and local reps happy.

The second reason they give is that the aircraft will serve as a defense not so much for our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq but against more challenging enemies that could pose a threat in the future, such as China or Russia…or Britain. Seriously you never know.

Look, at this time spending cash on defense may look like, as President Obama said, “an inexcusable waste of money”. However, I think this specific program is vital not only for the reasons listed above but also because this aircraft contributes to this country’s image.

The F-22 keeps America safe and employed, and in the end isn’t that a good thing?

Jon minus Kate, plus some other chick, divided by eight?

jlv0628 — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:23:54 +0000

Douchebag sighting.

This can get confusing. Anyway it seems Jon Gosslin has found a new flame to fill the void left by Kate.

Her name is Hailey Glassman, she is 22 years old, she is kind of hot, and she is the daughter of the plastic surgeon who performed Kate’s tummy tuck procedure. If that’s not enough, according to HuffPost she is also his “business partner” and the two plan on designing a line of children’s clothing. Jon’s already got the divorced dad thing down:

Get your ear pierced. Check.
Buy and wear a large amount of Ed Hardy t-shirts not knowing that no one wears that atrocious nonsense anymore. Check.
Secure a young girlfriend with questionable morals and parade her around town. Double Check.

Who’s side am I on? Well it would have to be Jon’s and here is why. First of all Kate has basically belittled and demeaned him over the course of the entire show. I don’t know if it’s because of the cameras being around (because as we all know people tend to be different when the cameras are on) or what but she was an unnecessary bitch. Second of all lets face it, the guy really didn’t want eight kids. That’s not to say he doesn’t love them, but lets be logical here, unless you are the OctoMom who wants eight kids?

I am a product of a divorced family, so trust me if anyone can say this its me. Every divorce isn’t mutual, there is always someone to blame. Here there are two people to blame; TLC for basically making every facet of this family’s life public, and Kate for letting it get to her head.

I read somewhere that Jon wants full custody of all the children. If he does I hope he doesn’t market them like Kate did and just lets them be kids.

Chris Brown apologizes, tries to save career.

jlv0628 — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:07:40 +0000

Chris Brown released a public apology regarding the incident that landed Rhianna in the hospital and him in a jail cell. Please do enjoy:

This is obviously an attempt to salvage his already shattered career. Chris Brown made the mistake of hitting a woman, especially a well known singer such as Rhianna, and thinks this YouTube apology will suffice. I think not. People who beat women to me are less than scum, and should be treated as such. Five years probation is too light of a penalty, which seems to be the norm when celebrities break the law.

MMA takes one step forward. The Ultimate Fighter brings it two steps back.

jlv0628 — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:30:03 +0000

I have written many posts about the UFC and MMA in general on this blog so I will spare you my “love for the sport” speech. I am grateful for what the UFC has been doing for the sport in terms of allowing it to gain momentum in the United States. Since Royce Gracie in UFC 1, I think this has been a long time in the works. Though I do currently have a lot of differences with the way the UFC is currently run, I didn’t feel that it was affecting the image of the sport so badly as I do now. I think the SPIKE TV show The Ultimate Fighter is absolute poison to the public image of an elegant and complex sport.

The Ultimate Fighter started off as a pretty reputable, solid opportunity for up-and-coming fighters to make a name for themselves in a short amount of time. It was this show that discovered successful fighters such as Rashad Evans and Forest Griffin which have made their own marks on the sport. But as of late, The Ultimate Fighter has become less about the sport, about finding athletes worthy of a contract who otherwise wouldn’t get one and more about locking the craziest, angriest alcoholics in a house and letting the drama and shenanigans ensue.

TUF has come a long way, but with the way the show is now, how can anyone take MMA seriously? Seeing fighters get sauced and punch each other or ram their heads in to doors and drywall isn’t the image I want this awesome sport to have.

Uneccessary Layoffs Worsen a Bad Economy

jlv0628 — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:30:05 +0000

During times of economic difficulty it isn’t unnatural for companies to tighten the belt. Lay off workers, cut salaries, reduce work weeks, there are many options for ailing companies. Recently I have been reading (and hearing) stories of companies who continue to perform very well, but are still making drastic cuts in overtime, salaries, and bonuses.

I spoke to someone the other day who was talking about how their employer was cutting all overtime and bonuses while the company continued to post excellent numbers. The overall sentiment at her office was that the owners had lost portions of personal money and are simply reacting to it by improving profits at the cost of their employee benefits.

I have always been a believer in the idea that “if you take care of your employees, they will take care of you”. During and after the 2008 presidential elections, small and medium business owners were constantly discussed as one of the most important groups of people in America.

However, small business owners have a tremendous amount of freedom when it comes to how they handle their businesses. Most of the time, that’s a good thing. Considering a good amount of successful small business owners provide their employees good health care, bonuses and incentives. On the other hand, that could be a bad thing.

Back when I entertained the idea of being a business major my financial accounting professor stressed the importance of a business owners obligation to keep their personal finances separate from their business’.

I am sure Neitzche would scold me for my “slave moralist” view, or Limbaugh would call me a socialist, but I think my point is reasonable. Whether you like it or not, a business may legally belong to one person, but in a way it belongs to everyone who works for it. These people feed and support themselves and their families with what they earn there. All the accomplishments and accolades are earned as a whole.

In times like these most people tend to huddle together. Some would rather see a 10% cut in salaries rather than watching a few esteemed co-workers walk away. Greed was what got us in to this mess in the first place, and people realize that.

We can’t afford to see hard working employees get cut due to the misfortunes of a few. If you lost money because of a few investments that went south, that is unfortunate. But don’t make your employees feel it as well.

Current iPhone 3G users with a far off upgrade eligible for 3GS?

jlv0628 — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:00:31 +0000

When Apple dropped the iPhone 3GS I quickly sprinted to my nearest computer to see if I was eligible for the subsidized price. I was not.

I was okay with it, I actually was saving up to buy a Nikon D60, however out of curiosity I went to the Apple site and checked my eligibility and it now says I can purchase an iPhone 3GS despite my upgrade date not being until March 2010.

I might go snag one next month, we’ll see. But I just thought I would pass this along on the off chance that AT&T has decided to be cool and maybe let everyone with a 3G upgrade at a reasonable price.