Happy Birthday, Fred Korematsu

Today, January 30, 2017, Google Doodle celebrates the birthday of activist Fred Korematsu, who fought the US government way back in 1942 on the internment of Japanese US citizens during World War II.

Korematsu refused to comply with the order and fled from his home in San Leandro, California to Oakland. Korematsu was soon captured and convicted, but he appealed the decision. Although the Supreme Court ruled against him 6-3, the decision was overturned in 1983.

In the original Supreme Court ruling, dissenting Justice Robert Jackson said that the only crime Korematsu committed was “being present in the state whereof he is a citizen, near the place where he was born and where all his life he has lived.” Justice Frank Murphy called the executive order “legalization of racism.”

“It is the case of convicting a citizen as a punishment for not submitting to imprisonment in a concentration camp, based on his ancestry, and solely because of his ancestry, without evidence or inquiry concerning his loyalty and good disposition towards the United States,” they wrote. “If this be a correct statement of the facts disclosed by this record, and facts of which we take judicial notice, I need hardly labor the conclusion that Constitutional rights have been violated.”

And now, more than 70 years later, history is almost repeating itself, where whole groups of people are being persecuted not because they did anything wrong, but because they are assumed to already be guilty just simply for who they are.

Zz.

US Congress Is Full Of Stupid People!

... and you, the voters, are directly responsible for putting them there!

In this latest instant, the US Congress overrode the President's veto on being able to sue Saudi Arabia for the 9/11 tragedy. This issue isn't about that, but rather, at how the members of the Congress DECIDED on what to vote on! It seems that many of them (i) didn't read what they were passing and (ii) didn't think BEYOND that at the possible consequences of their actions.

This news report describes what has just happened.

The White House had long raised concerns about the law, warning that it could have a chilling effect on Saudi Arabia's cooperation with the U.S. in fighting terrorism. Senior national security officials also argued that it could trigger lawsuits from people in other countries seeking redress for injuries or deaths caused by military actions in which the U.S. may have had a role.

But top lawmakers said the White House didn't press those warnings until it was too late and the popular bill was already barreling its way through Congress. Other lawmakers acknowledged that they didn't pay much attention to the bill.

That earned McConnell and others a scathing response from the White House, which said lawmakers didn't know what they were voting for.

"What's true in elementary school is true in the United States Congress: Ignorance is not an excuse," said spokesman Josh Earnest.

Now, people, let's think about this just a bit. You are voting on something. Isn't it YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to figure out what it says and what it will do? It is NOT the responsibility of someone else to tell you all these things! And what is scarier is that you guys are voting for something that you didn't "pay much attention" to! Holy cow! How many times has this happen and how many legislation have you guys voted in which you cast your vote in ignorance of what it will do? No wonder we have so many stupid laws!

We elect you guys to do just TWO things: enact sensible legislation, and come up with a yearly budget. You already screwed up the latter many, MANY times, and often come up with a budget LATE (try doing that in an ordinary job). And now, you guys have shown that you don't even pay attention to what you vote on.

How are you able to claim your income for failing to do what you've been paid to do?

PATHETIC!

Zz.

Kentucky's Clerk Kim Davis Might Be Violating The Bible Herself!

And interesting take on this ridiculous issue in an article from Huff Post. It comes from a passage in the Bible (Roman 13).

Based on that passage, this is what the author concluded:

Of course, this famous passage in Romans is in addition to other verses like 1 Peter 2:13 and Titus 3:1 and Jesus's own command to "Render unto Caesar" in Mark 12:17, Matthew 22:21, and Luke 20:25. Together they mean that if we're going to play the The Bible Is Clear™ game, then Kim Davis is clearly in violation of Scripture for the Bible clearly and repeatedly tell us to obey the government. Which obviously creates an incredibly awkward conundrum, for in her steadfast determination not to violate her biblical values, Davis has done just that.

Regardless of what she believes in, she is a PUBLIC SERVANT, and it is part of her job. The local government didn't refuse tax money from gay men and women, or give them partial refunds, because it would not provide some service to such citizens. So she is obligated to provide such a service.

If she can't, then she has not been performing the job she was hired to do. She should quit, or she should be fired!

It is as simple as that!

The claim of religious freedom is bogus. Did she check if the straight couple she issued marriage licenses to have had premarital sex? Has she ever issue licenses to a pregnant woman? Does that mean that she actually endorses all of these behaviors?

Once again, we have an example of people using religion to hide and justify their bigotry and stupidity.

Zz.

Businesses Being Allowed To Discriminate Against GLBT

I don't know if everyone who is a proponent of this simply drawing a blind eye, or if the rest of the population is not seeing this.

As more and more states in the US and in various parts of the world start to accept and legalize gay marriages, there are now laws in other parts trying to allow various private organizations and businesses to refuse serving people or activities that these entities think are "contrary to their beliefs". Of course, they word it that way so that it doesn't sound as if they are targeting gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgender community. But they are.

But there is a side effect to this and everyone seems to have missed! Let's look at the case of this baker in Ireland who refused to make a silly cake:

"We just didn't want to be forced to use our creative skills to help endorse and promote a campaign message that went against our sincerely held religious beliefs," he said.

"We are just trying to be faithful to the Bible. We think it is wrong to use the law to force anyone to say something that they oppose, and we hope the court will take the same view."

OK, let's run with that, shall we? What if a Muslim person walks into this bakery, and requested a cake for "Happy Eid Fitr"? Will he also refuse to do such a cake? After all, it is "promoting" a festival of another religion, and what is more offensive to his Christian belief than the promotion of another religion that clearly claims that his belief is false?

The same can be applied to all those laws in the books in various states in the US. Are people of various religions can now refuse to serve those of the opposite religion? Keep in mind that the most serious attack on one religion is another religion, considering that each considers the others to be false! So who should you be most offended with, a GLBT person, or someone who practices another religion?

Yet, if this baker or if the laws were to say that we can refuse to serve someone just because of his or her beliefs, everyone will be up in arms and shouting religious discrimination! But that is what such beliefs and such laws allow! So why aren't people seeing and addressing that?

Zz.

Apple Stores Can Be A Hazard To Your Nose

An elderly woman is suing apple for $1 million because she broke her nose when she accidentally walked into the clear Apple glass door.

However, Paswall's attorney claims that it's simply far too hard to see Apple's sleekness. Derek T. Smith was quoted by CBS News York as saying: "Apple wants to be cool and modern and have the type of architecture that would appeal to the tech crowd, but on the other hand, they have to appreciate the danger that this high-tech modern architecture poses to some people."

In most countries, this would have been thrown out and laughed at. But in the litigious US of A, if someone can sue and win because she got burnt due to a very hot coffee, anything can happen.

Zz.

25% of Traffic Accidents Tied To Electronic Use

The use of cell phones and other electronic devices have been linked to 25% of all traffic accidents in the US.

The study by the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA), a nonprofit group that works to improve traffic safety, assessed research from more than 350 scientific papers published since 2000.

It showed that drivers are distracted up to half the time and that crashes caused by distractions range from minor damage to fatal injury. Cellphone use raises the risk of crashing, but texting is likely to increase crash risk more than cellphone use.

I've mentioned before of numerous studies that showed that drivers using cell phones while driving has the same reaction rate as someone who is legally drunk. I am at a loss for any rational explanation on why using a cell phone while driving has not been banned. To me, it is more of an issue than someone not using a seatbelt. At least someone who isn't using a seat belt is a danger to him/herself. Someone who is using a cell phone is a danger to ME!

BAN CELL PHONE USE WHILE DRIVING ALREADY!

Zz.

Is Google Responsible For Giving Bad Directions?

This is a rather interesting review of a lawsuit filed by a woman who used Google "Walking Directions" on her Blackberry.

The case, Rosenberg v. Harwood, was filed in Utah, in the US District Court’s Central Division (Gary Price of ResourceShelf tipped us to it today). Harwood is Patrick Harwood, the person who actually hit Rosenberg, according to the suit. Both Harwood and Google are being sued in the same case, for damages “in excess of $100,000.”

Rosenberg used Google Maps on January 19, 2009, via her Blackberry, to get directions between 96 Daly Street, Park City, Utah and 1710 Prospector Avenue, Park City, Utah. Google provided these, telling her as part of the route to walk for about 1/2 mile along the calm-sounding “Deer Valley Drive.”

That’s an alternative name for that section of Utah State Route 224, a highway that lacks sidewalks, the case says. Rosenberg wasn’t warned about this, putting Google directly at fault in the accident, the case claims:

There's of course, a lot of things going on here, including what is being displayed on the web versus the mobile version. And the same route is also being given by other map applications.

In the end, we all have to use a bit of a common sense in these situations. I've used GPS's and other maps where the directions being given make no sense. Still, I guess if one doesn't know where one is going, or one is in a very unfamiliar territory, how is one to know if something makes no sense? In this case, my guess would be the lack of a pedestrian sidewalk.

It would be interesting to see how this plays out in court.

Zz.

Hang Up And Drive, Before You Kill Someone!

A woman was texting while driving when she slammed into stopped vehicles, killing one person when one of the vehicles burst into flames.

If this doesn't break your heart for a senseless and PREVENTABLE tragedy, then nothing will. I mentioned earlier about all the studies and statistics that clearly indicated that the use of cell phones, be it hands-free or not, has been attributed to so many accidents, and in fact, as dangerous if not more, than driving while intoxicated, that it is mindboggling that cities, states, and federal laws are not not in the books to stop this silly practice, AND to enforce it as diligently as drunk driving laws.

The state of Illinois just passed a law that makes it unlawful to do texting while driving. BIG FREAKING DEAL! The city of Chicago already has a law against using hands-on cell phones, and I see people yapping on their phones all the time! So if such a law is not, or can't be, enforced, how is another law in the books on texting would make any difference? How is one going to enforce it when it is less obvious than yapping on cell phones? The city has all these cameras installed all over the city trying to catch people running red lights. Maybe they should also train those cameras on the driver inside these vehicles to see if they are on their cell phones. You want extra revenue from fines? There's one there!

Zz.

Hang Up And Drive!

I'm starting to see many more of that bumper stickers on cars nowadays, and yes, damn it, Hang Up and Drive!

It is one of those things that continue to puzzle me. We are so adamant about enforcing drunk driving laws, and seat belt laws (in Illinois, there's the "Click It Or Ticket" campaign), etc.. etc. Yet, when it comes to banning cell phone use while driving, everyone is either dragging their feet, or not doing anything. The National Safety Council has collected plenty of evidence and research to indicate that driving while talking on a cell phone, even hands free, is the same as driving while legally intoxicated. The driver has the same response. In fact, there has been NO respected research or studies that have concluded that such a practice isn't dangerous.

So why hasn't anyone done anything to ban such a practice? They seem to care more about enforcing seat belt laws and child seat laws. While I can see how accidents involving someone not wearing a seat belt may indirectly cost me, as a taxpayer, more tax dollars, it really does not have a direct impact on my safety while I'm on the streets. But someone driving while intoxicated, or while yapping non-stop on a cell does! Their very act endangers me, not just them. And to make it worse, there are MANY of them doing that each second of the day!

80 percent of crashes are related to driver inattention. There are certain activities that may be more dangerous than talking on a cell phone. However, cell phone use occurs more frequently and for longer durations than other, riskier behaviors. Thus, the #1 source of driver inattention is cell phones. (Virginia Tech 100-car study for NHTSA).

But even if such a law is put in the books, it doesn't mean everyone will stop talking on their cell phones while driving. It requires ENFORCEMENT! In Chicago, they banned hand-held cell phone conversation while driving a couple of years ago. But stand by any street corner in Chicago and I will bet you that roughly 1/4 of the drivers you see will be on their cell phones while driving. I've stopped at a red light in front of a police station at the corner of Addison and Halsted, and I counted 5 or 6 cars either waiting to make left-turns, or driving past me with driver yapping on their cell phones - right in front of the cops! What does that tell me? Either they are ignorant of the law (unlikely), or they know that this is such a low priority item that the police is not even enforcing it most of the time! It's a joke!

And don't even get me started about those morons driving on the expressway while engaging in some phone conversation. I've seen several that would have caused some major collisions behind them simply from the erratic way they drove (hint: they can seldom maintain their speed!).

Ban the use of cell phones while driving already! How many more accidents and deaths does it take? And you, you over there who are yapping away on your cell phone while driving. You know who you are. Hang Up and Drive Already!

Zz.