That even sounds dirty to me...

Netflix has officially become a pronoun. You’ve been Netflixed! Before I get into the rational discussion of NETFLIX, I have to note the mass amounts of outrage spewing from former Netflix consumers. I’m not sure what made anyone at Netflix think a 50% increase in charges would just slide by. This is just the wrong time for that...

I love Netflix. Been a subscriber since 2003, before it became a household brand. I currently have almost 700 titles in my queue - 388 in DVD; 277 in instant. I’m not starting over again. The truth is, I found it a real-deal that I could have streaming for free. That was until I tried to actually watch streaming.

Netflix instant streaming blows. The picture quality is somewhat grainy, it doesn’t fast forward or rewind very well and it buffers constantly. Yesterday, it wouldn’t load at all. Currently, free means I’m getting my money’s worth. So, by September, will it be working better since I will be paying for it? I bet not...

While I’m not currently prepared to cut the chord, I am prepared to start looking around for other movie rental services. I may even go back to DVD’s in the mail because the streaming is not quality enough to pay for. This creates a perfect business opportunity for the competition. Netflix has basically leveled the playing field - Blockbuster needs to sieze the day.

Hypothesis: Netflix will retract the new charges for something in the middle. If they don’t, there will be a whole host of new players in the field. Just what I think...

I just don't know where to begin with this one. I mean, being a journalist is supposed to equal honesty, integrity, a responsibility to the consumer... What the F? I guess to be fair, News Corp has not been implicated in any of the activities of News of the World, but, if you're a journalist, you know how FOX NEWS operates and the answer to that querie is - start asking a lot of questions.

If you're not a journalist, some background: News International is the european media conglomerate owned by Rupert Murdoch. News Corporation is the American media conglomerate owned by Rupert Murdoch. Not 100% about how they are connected/if they are connected/how they fit - doesn't matter, they are both owned by RUPERT MURDOCH. Never met him, but, would rather meet a Bear. At least I'd know what was coming.

I'll give Rupert a little credit, however. He bought The Wall Street Journal and The New York Post, I think in an attempt to give Fox some credibility, but, I think it's just sullied the reputations of the former. NYP is just not what it used to be and having interviewed at WSJ/Dow Jones some years back, it is really not what it used to be. But, I don't know that they've turned to a life of crime. Speaking of crime, let's get back to Fox News...

To be clear, I am 100% non-partisan. Best candidate wins for me. But, there is an unconfirmed rumor of a liberal media bias. I disagree with that with exception of Fox News. I find that the problem is not an inherent liberal bias in the media as much as there is a political slant to the media which manifests itself in partisan individuals. I've witnessed this first hand in the field with other reporters and see it everyday on the news. My rule of thumb - if you can tell which side the interviewer is on, there is bias. Journalism is supposed to be unbiased.

Fox has taken this to a new level. They emphatically take the right, sometimes just for the sake of taking the right. Like News of the World, Fox attracts the people who will do ANYTHING for a story. But, politics aside, when Fox began growing here in the USA, many of the people who went to work for them were the people who lacked credibility in my newsrooms. Therefore, politics aside again, the level of quality they brought to this new network was low. It's still not there and those of us who regard journalism with only the highest standards consider Fox, “The red-headed stepchild.”

Criminal activity at a Rupert Murdoch publication? Should anyone who knows anything about the media be surprised? I don’t think anyone is surprised. I’ll be surprised if there is no criminal activity found at Fox or WSJ or NYP.

I’m curious to hear what people on the outside of the media think about this…

OKAY, I’m being overly dramatic. NASA is not actually going away, just the space program. But, that’s not clear in the way it’s being reported in the news. The news filter is clearly clogged. Important details are not making it to the final product - even I was slightly alarmed at the idea of no more NASA. But, I knew there was more to it than we were hearing as consumers. Full explanation:

NASA has four principal organizations: Aeronautics, Exploration Systems, Science and Space Operations. The organization that is essentially ending is Space Operations - for now. And because Space Operations gets the most coverage for NASA, it appears that there is nothing left for them to do. There is plenty for them to do.

Think about it like this: All those things we used to learn at the planetarium in grade school and in Astronomy 101 in college is what three-fourths of the people at NASA do. They research space, analyze atmospheric details like stars and planet alignment and constellations. They follow the Sun’s movements and patterns, research climate changes - they have plenty to do.

They also build robots and other technological apparatus to conduct research. Somebody has to build the next most powerful telescope, ‘cause, it aint me. The need for rocket scientists still exists. The question at this point is if there is still a need for Astronauts, which, is a bit disheartening. It’s like someone saying, we’re doing away with brain surgeons. Try taking your kid to a planetarium, getting them interested in Space and then telling them there used to be this position called Astronaut that is no longer available.

My thought is that in a year or so, someone will figure out that hitching a ride into space with the Russians is not the best idea. This sounds like we’ve resigned ourselves to taking a back seat in space technology. How is that at all progressive or forward thinking for the World’s foremost super-power?

Recently, the CEO of Dow Chemical did a series of interviews where he talked about how difficult it is to find top talent in the field of engineering and as much as it distressed him, he will need to go to other countries to recruit. Sad. This is why we have stagnant unemployment numbers. Jobs are available, we just haven’t been educated to be qualified for them. And putting the breaks on moving forward in technology is not going to get us qualified.

And since you brought up education, just a thought about how this pertains to future generations. It’s already a well known fact that we trail most other countries in science and math education. We’re just not producing the level or volume of quantitative thinking scholars here. So, is this us throwing in the towel and accepting that we are inferior in science and math? Decisions like this only confirm our hypocrisy about education. As a society, we preach about the importance of education, but, our actions reflect the opposite. No more Astronauts sounds like the opposite to me.

What does it sound like to you?

So, it is my understanding that the highest rated television program for the last 2 weeks has been the Casey Anthony trial. Let me come clean straight-away... I did not follow the antics of this trial because OJ was enough for me... followed by Jean-Benet Ramsay, then the Menedez brothers, then Susan Smith, then Scott Peterson, blah, blah, blah. Stay tuned for the next one...

BUT, having worked in the court system for a few long years, I can’t help but make some observations about this go-round. Now, having only experienced the most obviously available information about this case and avoiding too much detail, my guess is that I still understand more about how this case unfolded than the average person who watched it everyday. Why? Because justice is not blind - rather - justice turns a blind eye to reality. I learned that my first day in court as an intern with Judge Restivo.

Justice in the U-S of A is not about the reality of a situation, its about the facts that fall inside the confines of the law. Notice I said, CONFINES. Though it is now being revealed that most of the jurors thought she was guilty, they were not presented with conclusive - if any - evidence that she killed her daughter. And the law is very narrow. Innocent until proven guilty? NO! FYI - Most of the law enforcement community thinks the opposite; A person is guilty until proven innocent. That’s just the thinking. So, this is a REAL shocker for the law enforcement community. How could she go from guilty to innocent?

No perceptions about what happened... No appearances of what happened... No gut feelings about what happened... just the documented details of what happened. The average person, who has no exposure to the justice/court system in this country won’t be able to make sense of this. Therein lies the problem - what makes sense to you as a human being, won’t be allowed in a trial. It is a disheartening way of doing business, but, the law is very clear about how the process must unfold.

And for the mothers out there - no part of this can make sense. No verdict like this can ever make sense, even given the above explanation of how the system works. A child is a part of you and to lose a part of you doesn’t put you in the mood to hit the clubs. Ever. A part of you dies and I think most mothers look at Casey Anthony and don’t get that. I look at Casey Anthony and don’t get that and I don’t have kids or a womb. THAT makes her guilty to them...

I’m going to forego the explanation of common law and precedent and just say - nothing ever changes about the law. Hundreds of years later, we’re still using the same standards and falling back on what someone else had to say about a similar situation. There is no original thinking in the law and no room for independent interpretation. This is one for a higher being. If you don’t believe in a higher being of some sort - you will just have to suck it up that the bad guy/girl won this round...

SO, what’s going to happen when she gets released in a few days?

Anthony Weiner was a congressman representing the State of New York - Brooklyn/Queens. I think that’s all most people knew about Anthony Weiner until about a month ago. Now we know his wife is Huma Abedin, who, is the right-hand to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton; We know they’ve been married for 11 months and she is pregnant. We also know Mr. Weiner wears boxer briefs. Gray ones...

What we don’t know about Anthony Weiner is that he’s a virgo, 47-years-old and the middle child of a lawyer and a teacher - all boys; the oldest killed in a hit and run accident in 2000. He played hockey in college and actually aspired to be a television weatherman though he earned his bachelor’s degree in Political Science. He’s also been friends with The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart since 1987. That explains some of this.

By most accounts, Anthony Weiner did a great job for the people of Brooklyn/Queens. I’m sure he had a great time when in his district, but, as a congressman in Washington, his day consisted of boring hearings on the hill intertwined with lots of forced schmoozing. Add in a wife who travels constantly and a shutter-bug complex and we have our most recent political scandal. It’s almost formulaic.

This is a double-edged sword. I’ll start with what’s wrong in this scenario...
Weiner is married and a public figure. There is no good reason for him to think he has the anonymity to pull off something like this. Twitter is a public forum; computers can be hacked, as he so evasively pointed out. Even as a single man, shooting suggestive pictures across a public forum is just not a good idea for a public figure.

As a married man, I’m not so sure shooting suggestive pictures to your wife would go over well either, but, maybe I just predicted the next big political scandal. :-)

All puns intended, Weiner’s brain was not doing the thinking. THIS is a no-brainer...

The other side of this scenario is mostly based on comparisons. Many people said Weiner should resign not because of the pictures, but, because he lied. President Clinton lied - recanted - was impeached and still didn’t resign. And there was actual sex in his case, not to mention, he was THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. I would kill to hear what Bill had to say to Anthony about this. We know what Hilary said...

Democratic leadership said he should resign because he created the pictures utilizing elements of his official capacity. Bill and Monica had their fun in the oval office... at the desk. Doesn’t get more official capacity than that. And Clinton did not resign.

They also said the whole thing was too much of a distraction from the work that needed to get done. Congress doesn’t like to get interrupted in the middle of their no-results bickering. That is, when they are actually there. No wonder Anthony Weiner was taking pictures of himself... He was bored.

This should have been left to the people of Booklyn/Queens to decide. Maybe this is a sign that Anthony Weiner should be the mayor of New York City. They seem to be the only people who are willing to give him a rating based on his work, not his gender.

So, Should Anthony Weiner run for Mayor of New York City?
If he doesn't run for Mayor, what is his next step?