THIS is why people need guns. Not semi-automatic Marine Corps rifles, but 16 gauge shotguns. Maybe a handgun in the purse, but there is no reason to be out buying military grade weapons. Especially since the 2 most common reasons for buying a gun is protection and hunting. You can't hunt anything with a rifle!
Did you know that Arizona is the 2nd highest ranked location for kidnapping in the WORLD?!? And that it's over drugs coming over the border. Apparently it's quite easy to walk into a gun shop and purchase one of those military grade weapons. What a vicious cycle. Maybe Arizona deserves to have all those kidnappings.
If you just want the thrill of shooting a machine gun or other military weapon, then find a shooting range and rent one. If none exist, start one. Get the licensing and make a ton.
Big boys like big toys and I'm about to quit caring when this country goes to hell in a hand basket because everyone wants to own power. Everyone thinks that Jurassic Park will be the ultimate destruction of the world (science going too far), but no. It's happening right now when the "bad people" get easy access to drugs and guns because the "good people" HAVE to have easy access to their hobbies. Obviously, no one cares about those "unintended" consequences or maybe there would be more regulation.
I'm all for getting rid of government regulation, but only when humans can prove that they are actually capable of monitoring themselves--of being good, moral citizens. We tried to deregulate the business world and they showed themselves to be just as greedy as they were 100 years ago--so, back to square one with high regulation. Maybe in 20 years we can breed morality back into that segment of the economy. Maybe if gun-shop owners would start caring less about a profit and more about who they are actually selling to, we could deregulate that industry.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
1767
You might wonder what's up with 1767 since I have it in the web address for most of my linked blogs. There are 2 reasons for this. The first is quite simply that I have to find a "random" number to differentiate between mine and another's sites. The reason I chose 1767 is because it's a very important date to me. It's in honor of the Proclamation of 1767 which stated that the English settlers in the New World were not allowed to venture past the Appalachian Mountains.
Why, you might ask, do I care about this proclamation? Well, it's because it's used as one of the reasons for declaring independence from the king of England--that the king had no right to make such a request of the settlers. That's the Conservative answer. The liberal, and practical, side of me knows why this proclamation was made--that it was costing the king an arm and a leg to protect the settlers from the Indians and various foreigners and if they didn't keep going where there was no one to protect them, there wouldn't be so much of an issue.
I find the Proclamation of 1767 to be the perfect example of a misunderstanding of law. Taxation without Representation is just as good--you see there was no voting for representatives in England--it was just understood that all members of parliament stood for all of England's citizens--including the settlers in the New World. While I can agree that they felt that the new laws being enacted weren't fair, there was no such thing as direct representation, so to claim it as a right is superfluous (I think I used that word correctly).
Why, you might ask, do I care about this proclamation? Well, it's because it's used as one of the reasons for declaring independence from the king of England--that the king had no right to make such a request of the settlers. That's the Conservative answer. The liberal, and practical, side of me knows why this proclamation was made--that it was costing the king an arm and a leg to protect the settlers from the Indians and various foreigners and if they didn't keep going where there was no one to protect them, there wouldn't be so much of an issue.
I find the Proclamation of 1767 to be the perfect example of a misunderstanding of law. Taxation without Representation is just as good--you see there was no voting for representatives in England--it was just understood that all members of parliament stood for all of England's citizens--including the settlers in the New World. While I can agree that they felt that the new laws being enacted weren't fair, there was no such thing as direct representation, so to claim it as a right is superfluous (I think I used that word correctly).
Friday, December 11, 2009
Gahh...still an idiot.
Remember that guy that cut his own arm off when it was trapped under a rock while hiking? Yeah, he's stupid.
I'm in Search and Rescue and rule number one for ANY outdoors adventure (and heck, it's a good rule for life in general--who knows when you'll need an alibi) is tell someone where you will be going--the more exact the directions the better and a close second is don't go alone. Half of our training is in SAR theory and figuring out how individuals react in certain situations. Did you know that Alzheimer's patients will walk in a straight line until they reach a barrier in which case they will follow said barrier until they can no longer walk anymore? A certain 80 year old man was out in the wilderness for 3 days and when he was found he thought he'd only been gone for 45 minutes and was fine, just dehydrated. Still we could judge where was the best place to put teams out to find people. Children are equally as easy to find--they will walk around in circles until someone finds them--they also "bounce" and can survive situations that older people wouldn't be able to.
"Professional" hikers are annoying. Granted, some people just get turned around and have no idea how to get out by themselves. That is perfectly fine. Someone in our organization actually did just this (although out of state, so at least it wasn't his friends going out to find him). There was a blind guy who missed his turn off and ended up just making camp until he was found. These are the REAL professionals--the ones who you can count on to have been lost for a week and will come out tired, hungry, dehydrated, but will be back to normal after a night in the hospital. The blind guy was actually out there for 3 weeks including the time before he got "misplaced" because he was hiking the Appalachian Trail. Amateur hikers are just as good as the real professionals--they stay on trails and don't do stupid stuff (like walk OFF the trails). Even if they fall off a mountain, at least we know which trail they were on which considerably shrinks the search area.
But those who think they know what they are doing are the one's we get most frustrated with. They are the ones who "follow their nose down a "shortcut"", do something they know they aren't ready for without preparing for the risks (such as bringing along someone who can bail them out) or making the most noobish mistake of going out for an adventure without telling anyone where they are going. Sigh. I most can't believe that he wouldn't change anything after getting stuck and having to cut off his arm--not even telling anyone where he was going so that he might have been found 3 days sooner. I shall have to read his book and if it doesn't start out with saying what he did wrong I will probably have to carry it along in my pack as a source of dry flint for my fire in case I ever get lost.
***Edit 3/31/2011:
I can't believe he got a movie deal out of this and that it made it to the Oscar nods. I really don't care to watch it, but as my newest goal is to watch every movie that got an Oscar nomination and/or Win (best picture category only) I unfortunately must. This is one case where I won't feel the least bit guilty pirating.
***Edit 3/31/2011:
I can't believe he got a movie deal out of this and that it made it to the Oscar nods. I really don't care to watch it, but as my newest goal is to watch every movie that got an Oscar nomination and/or Win (best picture category only) I unfortunately must. This is one case where I won't feel the least bit guilty pirating.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Jefferson agrees with me!
There is no such thing as a vegetable--just fruits, leaves, stems, roots, etc.
"The 1000-foot-long vegetable garden was carved into the protected south side of Monticello Mountain. The terraced beds were supported by a massive stone wall, so that one visitor described it as a "hanging garden." The methodical Jefferson divided the garden into twenty-four "squares," or growing plots, arranged according to which part of the plant was harvested -- whether "fruits" (tomatoes, beans), "roots" (beets, carrots), or "leaves" (lettuce, cabbage)."--from the Monticello website here.
"The 1000-foot-long vegetable garden was carved into the protected south side of Monticello Mountain. The terraced beds were supported by a massive stone wall, so that one visitor described it as a "hanging garden." The methodical Jefferson divided the garden into twenty-four "squares," or growing plots, arranged according to which part of the plant was harvested -- whether "fruits" (tomatoes, beans), "roots" (beets, carrots), or "leaves" (lettuce, cabbage)."--from the Monticello website here.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
It's sad when "The Onion" is dead on.
So, here's the real take on the 9/11 mastermind conclusions and why it's taken so long. Yeah, I'm that synical, today. It makes more sense than anything else I've heard.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Personal Weirdness
Okay. I've had friends who have been "followed" by a song that meant a lot to their life, but it's never happened to me before...until now. The song is "You Belong with Me" by Taylor Swift. Yeah, not sure why exactly this song is following me. I mean, it fits better with the friend who first blasted it 4 times while I was with her--though there might be a few lines which may relate to me. But yeah, it was playing in the car when I got in with another friend and then tonight when I was riding the bus to go to a concert with another friend (who I may or may not have a crush on ;-) ).
So, anyway. I don't generally plan to post personal stuff up here (or at least, stuff about other people), but when I heard the song on the bus earlier tonight I was just VERY confused. Oh well. It's just my luck, I guess.
So, anyway. I don't generally plan to post personal stuff up here (or at least, stuff about other people), but when I heard the song on the bus earlier tonight I was just VERY confused. Oh well. It's just my luck, I guess.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Here are some facts about the 1500s:
They used to use urine to tan animal skins, so families used to all pee in a pot & then once a day it was taken & sold to the tannery.......if you had to do this to survive you were "Piss Poor" But worse than that were the really poor folk who couldn't even afford to buy a pot...........they "didn't have a pot to piss in" and were the lowest of the low.
Most people got married in June because they took their yearly bath in May, and they still smelled pretty good by June. However, since they were starting to smell . .. . Brides carried a bouquet of flowers to hide the body odor. Hence the custom today of carrying a bouquet when getting married.
Baths consisted of a big tub filled with hot water. The man of the house had the privilege of the nice clean water, then all the other sons and men, then the women and finally the children. Last of all the babies. By then the water was so dirty you could actually lose someone in it. Hence the saying, "Don't throw the baby out with the Bath water!"
Houses had thatched roofs-thick straw-piled high, with no wood underneath. It was the only place for animals to get warm, so all the cats and other small animals (mice, bugs) lived in the roof. When it rained it became slippery and sometimes the animals would slip and fall off the roof. Hence the saying "It's raining cats and dogs."
There was nothing to stop things from falling into the house. This posed a real problem in the bedroom where bugs and other droppings could mess up your nice clean bed. Hence, a bed with big posts and a sheet hung over the top afforded some protection. That's how canopy beds came into existence.
The floor was dirt. Only the wealthy had something other than dirt. Hence the saying, "Dirt poor." The wealthy had slate floors that would get slippery in the winter when wet, so they spread thresh (straw) on floor to help keep their footing. As the winter wore on, they added more thresh until, when you opened the door, it would all start slipping outside. A piece of wood was placed in the entrance-way. Hence: a thresh hold.
(Getting quite an education, aren't you?)
In those old days, they cooked in the kitchen with a big kettle that always hung over the fire. Every day they lit the fire and added things to the pot. They ate mostly vegetables and did not get much meat. They would eat the stew for dinner, leaving leftovers in the pot to get cold overnight and then start over the next day. Sometimes stew had food in it that had been there for quite a while. Hence the rhyme: Peas porridge hot, peas porridge cold, peas porridge in the pot nine days old.
Sometimes they could obtain pork, which made them feel quite special. When visitors came over, they would hang up their bacon to show off. It was a sign of wealth that a man could, "bring home the bacon." They would cut off a little to share with guests and would all sit around and chew the fat.
Those with money had plates made of pewter. Food with high acid content caused some of the lead to leach onto the food, causing lead poisoning death. This happened most often with tomatoes, so for the next 400 years or so, tomatoes were considered poisonous.
Bread was divided according to status. Workers got the burnt bottom of the loaf, the family got the middle, and guests got the top, or the upper crust.
Lead cups were used to drink ale or whisky. The combination would sometimes knock the imbibers out for a couple of days. Someone walking along the road would take them for dead and prepare them for burial. They were laid out on the kitchen table for a couple of days and the family would gather around and eat and drink and wait and see if they would wake up. Hence the custom of holding a wake.
England is old and small and the local folks started running out of places to bury people. So they would dig up coffins and would take the bones to a bone-house, and reuse the grave. When reopening these coffins, 1 out of 25 coffins were found to have scratch marks on the inside and they realized they had been burying people alive. So they would tie a string on the wrist of the corpse, lead it through the coffin and up through the ground and tie it to a bell. Someone would have to sit out in the graveyard all night (the graveyard shift.) to listen for the bell; thus, someone could be, saved by the bell or was considered a dead ringer...
Most people got married in June because they took their yearly bath in May, and they still smelled pretty good by June. However, since they were starting to smell . .. . Brides carried a bouquet of flowers to hide the body odor. Hence the custom today of carrying a bouquet when getting married.
Baths consisted of a big tub filled with hot water. The man of the house had the privilege of the nice clean water, then all the other sons and men, then the women and finally the children. Last of all the babies. By then the water was so dirty you could actually lose someone in it. Hence the saying, "Don't throw the baby out with the Bath water!"
Houses had thatched roofs-thick straw-piled high, with no wood underneath. It was the only place for animals to get warm, so all the cats and other small animals (mice, bugs) lived in the roof. When it rained it became slippery and sometimes the animals would slip and fall off the roof. Hence the saying "It's raining cats and dogs."
There was nothing to stop things from falling into the house. This posed a real problem in the bedroom where bugs and other droppings could mess up your nice clean bed. Hence, a bed with big posts and a sheet hung over the top afforded some protection. That's how canopy beds came into existence.
The floor was dirt. Only the wealthy had something other than dirt. Hence the saying, "Dirt poor." The wealthy had slate floors that would get slippery in the winter when wet, so they spread thresh (straw) on floor to help keep their footing. As the winter wore on, they added more thresh until, when you opened the door, it would all start slipping outside. A piece of wood was placed in the entrance-way. Hence: a thresh hold.
(Getting quite an education, aren't you?)
In those old days, they cooked in the kitchen with a big kettle that always hung over the fire. Every day they lit the fire and added things to the pot. They ate mostly vegetables and did not get much meat. They would eat the stew for dinner, leaving leftovers in the pot to get cold overnight and then start over the next day. Sometimes stew had food in it that had been there for quite a while. Hence the rhyme: Peas porridge hot, peas porridge cold, peas porridge in the pot nine days old.
Sometimes they could obtain pork, which made them feel quite special. When visitors came over, they would hang up their bacon to show off. It was a sign of wealth that a man could, "bring home the bacon." They would cut off a little to share with guests and would all sit around and chew the fat.
Those with money had plates made of pewter. Food with high acid content caused some of the lead to leach onto the food, causing lead poisoning death. This happened most often with tomatoes, so for the next 400 years or so, tomatoes were considered poisonous.
Bread was divided according to status. Workers got the burnt bottom of the loaf, the family got the middle, and guests got the top, or the upper crust.
Lead cups were used to drink ale or whisky. The combination would sometimes knock the imbibers out for a couple of days. Someone walking along the road would take them for dead and prepare them for burial. They were laid out on the kitchen table for a couple of days and the family would gather around and eat and drink and wait and see if they would wake up. Hence the custom of holding a wake.
England is old and small and the local folks started running out of places to bury people. So they would dig up coffins and would take the bones to a bone-house, and reuse the grave. When reopening these coffins, 1 out of 25 coffins were found to have scratch marks on the inside and they realized they had been burying people alive. So they would tie a string on the wrist of the corpse, lead it through the coffin and up through the ground and tie it to a bell. Someone would have to sit out in the graveyard all night (the graveyard shift.) to listen for the bell; thus, someone could be, saved by the bell or was considered a dead ringer...
Friday, December 4, 2009
Catholic Religion Proven?
Check out this episode of "Reaper"--watch all the episodes on http://www.hulu.com/reaper if you can--it's very philosophical.
But anyway. Here are a bunch of demons (fallen angels) who's philosophy is to do good works to win back the grace of God. Watch until the end to see what the hero (Sam) says about good works and the Devil. Good stuff.
Fox News as Bad as Liberal Media
Some people say it better than I could. See below.
Please ignore the conservative crack about the candidate Fox News attacked in favor or Dole. I'm NOT that conservative--I believe in a wide world effort, not isolationism--while I can appreciate Ron Paul, I believe that there is a purpose for government in global interactions--since it's obvious that big economic bosses screw up royally more often than not. The purpose of this video is that it is a better description of how I feel about Fox News.
Here's my 2 cents. News is News--not opinion. News is by my definition facts. There is no place to put "spin" or opinion. "8 year old boy is killed by stray bullet at 2am" can't get spun much, except from conjecture that it might be a gang killing (which, since I watch a LOT of "liberal" news, isn't conjecture). Giving a number of dead in Iraq also doesn't involve much spin, except that maybe the "liberal" news will actually give pictures to go along with names and numbers. To not do that is disrespectful to the dead in my opinion.
But I don't get much Fox News. You see, I'm poor. We spend $10 on cable a month and don't get those special channels. The way I look at it, the fact that Fox News loses most of it's potential fanbase because they can't afford to pay for the channel and/or choose not to. People already either love or hate Fox News--they aren't going to make any converts from those who already have access. By being on the expensive cable, they are choosing to limit their "fan base" and therefore, when Bill O'Reilly tells about how Fox News has the highest viewership out of all the news channels, I have to wonder how skewed the numbers are.
Another thing about Fox News is that they aren't much actual news--it's mostly opinion. Like I said, news is news. And Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh AREN'T news. They are commentators, not news casters. Fox News Sunday (which IS shown on the local fox station) isn't news either. It's a roundtable discussion much like "Ask the Press". They even bring in a guy from NPR and other "liberal" sources. They comment on this weeks news. Pointless in my opinion.
Besides. Pro-Life isn't conservative in my opinion because it's having big government dictate the rights of individual women...but that's just me.
Please ignore the conservative crack about the candidate Fox News attacked in favor or Dole. I'm NOT that conservative--I believe in a wide world effort, not isolationism--while I can appreciate Ron Paul, I believe that there is a purpose for government in global interactions--since it's obvious that big economic bosses screw up royally more often than not. The purpose of this video is that it is a better description of how I feel about Fox News.
Here's my 2 cents. News is News--not opinion. News is by my definition facts. There is no place to put "spin" or opinion. "8 year old boy is killed by stray bullet at 2am" can't get spun much, except from conjecture that it might be a gang killing (which, since I watch a LOT of "liberal" news, isn't conjecture). Giving a number of dead in Iraq also doesn't involve much spin, except that maybe the "liberal" news will actually give pictures to go along with names and numbers. To not do that is disrespectful to the dead in my opinion.
But I don't get much Fox News. You see, I'm poor. We spend $10 on cable a month and don't get those special channels. The way I look at it, the fact that Fox News loses most of it's potential fanbase because they can't afford to pay for the channel and/or choose not to. People already either love or hate Fox News--they aren't going to make any converts from those who already have access. By being on the expensive cable, they are choosing to limit their "fan base" and therefore, when Bill O'Reilly tells about how Fox News has the highest viewership out of all the news channels, I have to wonder how skewed the numbers are.
Another thing about Fox News is that they aren't much actual news--it's mostly opinion. Like I said, news is news. And Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh AREN'T news. They are commentators, not news casters. Fox News Sunday (which IS shown on the local fox station) isn't news either. It's a roundtable discussion much like "Ask the Press". They even bring in a guy from NPR and other "liberal" sources. They comment on this weeks news. Pointless in my opinion.
Besides. Pro-Life isn't conservative in my opinion because it's having big government dictate the rights of individual women...but that's just me.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
North-West Passage
I've heard a lot of people call global warming/climate change a hoax and of course I have my own opinion on the phenomena.
First off. The name change. Yeah, totally political. People are more willing to believe in "climate change" over "global warming" simply because when winter gets brutal, it makes no sense to think that the world is getting warmer. All it tells me is how ignorant a certain demographic of the population is. You see, weather and climate are two VERY different things. The definition of weather (from one of my envi.sci. textbooks) "includes an area's short-term temperature, precipitation, humidity, wind speed, cloud cover, and other physical conditions of the lower atmosphere over a short period of time--the atmospheric conditions we experience day by day". Climate (from the same book) is a "region's general pattern of atmospheric or weather conditions over a long time--years, decades, and centuries. Average temperature and average precipitation are the two main factors determining climate, along with the closely related factors of latitude and altitude. Many factors contribute to a local climate, including the amount of solar radiation reaching the area, the earth's daily rotation and annual path around the sun, air circulation over the earth's surface, the global distribution of landmasses and seas, the circulation of the ocean currents and the elevation of landmasses.
Second: The environment is a LOT like the economy. You change something and there is an affect in what feels like an unrelated area.
For example. If you lose 100 jobs in production of refrigerators, you will lose 50 jobs in the production of refrigerants and 25 jobs in production of steel. With 175 jobs lost you will find a decrease in demand for luzury goods like big screen tvs. Then you lose jobs in that area as well. This is of course, a very simple model. The environment is just as wide spread. The death of honey bees in Europe will cause a decrease in food supplies that would normally be sent to Africa. You would think that it would just mean the death of more Africans. Nope, because American's will take up the slack. Our food supplies would decrease, increasing our prices.
Now for the "real" environment. Water is amazing--it absorbs an amazing amount of energy without changing temperature. Ocean currents are probably the most important influencer on climate. It's why England doesn't freeze while Greenland does. But the oceans can only take so much. Watch a pot of water boil. In a split second the water goes from 99.9C and not boiling to 100C and is boiling. If you increase temperatures, you increase evaporation of oceans, thus increasing the salt concentration of the oceans because salt is not evaporated. Increased salt concentrations will make them reach levels that fish and other sea life cannot survive. If the fish die, then humans can't eat them. Also, if the fish die, the other sea predators, whales for example cannot eat them. The whales will die and thus can't be used by individuals for food or oil--whalers will go out of business. Also, increasing ocean temperatures causes some funky things to happen with ocean current systems. You see, there are layers to the ocean with lower levels with temperatures holding at a pretty constant amount (kept warm by the Earth's core). The surface is warmed up by the sun. But there are certain physical properties that get messed up as temperatures change. The yearly turn-over of the oceans is caused by changes in temperatures--if temperatures are screwed up, they won't happen. If you're studying a lake, you can watch every fish die when the lake doesn't turn over and replinish oxygen into the lower levels of the water and put nutrients into the upper level.
So, what causes an increase in temperatures? Who cares. Doesn't matter. Be green because it's economical and sustainable. Be green because it doesn't destroy the environment and kill off the beautiful bugs that make it possible to have food, the animals that clean up our wastes, or the plants that give us the oxygen that we breathe.
Still don't believe me that the climate is changing? How about this fact. We now have a North-West Passage that was the dream find in 1600. Had there been a NW passage back then, life as we know it would be very different. England might not have decided to send settlers to this new world, or would have at least not have invested so much money--their focus was on getting to Asia. Recently, (within the last 2 years) the NW passage was crossed. This is probably the most visible example of how the sea-ice up there has melted and probably the most widely noticible examples of visible climate change. Weather change wouldn't cause that much ice to melt--only sustained increased temperatures would be enough to cause it.
Latest article on carbon levels here.
First off. The name change. Yeah, totally political. People are more willing to believe in "climate change" over "global warming" simply because when winter gets brutal, it makes no sense to think that the world is getting warmer. All it tells me is how ignorant a certain demographic of the population is. You see, weather and climate are two VERY different things. The definition of weather (from one of my envi.sci. textbooks) "includes an area's short-term temperature, precipitation, humidity, wind speed, cloud cover, and other physical conditions of the lower atmosphere over a short period of time--the atmospheric conditions we experience day by day". Climate (from the same book) is a "region's general pattern of atmospheric or weather conditions over a long time--years, decades, and centuries. Average temperature and average precipitation are the two main factors determining climate, along with the closely related factors of latitude and altitude. Many factors contribute to a local climate, including the amount of solar radiation reaching the area, the earth's daily rotation and annual path around the sun, air circulation over the earth's surface, the global distribution of landmasses and seas, the circulation of the ocean currents and the elevation of landmasses.
Second: The environment is a LOT like the economy. You change something and there is an affect in what feels like an unrelated area.
For example. If you lose 100 jobs in production of refrigerators, you will lose 50 jobs in the production of refrigerants and 25 jobs in production of steel. With 175 jobs lost you will find a decrease in demand for luzury goods like big screen tvs. Then you lose jobs in that area as well. This is of course, a very simple model. The environment is just as wide spread. The death of honey bees in Europe will cause a decrease in food supplies that would normally be sent to Africa. You would think that it would just mean the death of more Africans. Nope, because American's will take up the slack. Our food supplies would decrease, increasing our prices.
Now for the "real" environment. Water is amazing--it absorbs an amazing amount of energy without changing temperature. Ocean currents are probably the most important influencer on climate. It's why England doesn't freeze while Greenland does. But the oceans can only take so much. Watch a pot of water boil. In a split second the water goes from 99.9C and not boiling to 100C and is boiling. If you increase temperatures, you increase evaporation of oceans, thus increasing the salt concentration of the oceans because salt is not evaporated. Increased salt concentrations will make them reach levels that fish and other sea life cannot survive. If the fish die, then humans can't eat them. Also, if the fish die, the other sea predators, whales for example cannot eat them. The whales will die and thus can't be used by individuals for food or oil--whalers will go out of business. Also, increasing ocean temperatures causes some funky things to happen with ocean current systems. You see, there are layers to the ocean with lower levels with temperatures holding at a pretty constant amount (kept warm by the Earth's core). The surface is warmed up by the sun. But there are certain physical properties that get messed up as temperatures change. The yearly turn-over of the oceans is caused by changes in temperatures--if temperatures are screwed up, they won't happen. If you're studying a lake, you can watch every fish die when the lake doesn't turn over and replinish oxygen into the lower levels of the water and put nutrients into the upper level.
So, what causes an increase in temperatures? Who cares. Doesn't matter. Be green because it's economical and sustainable. Be green because it doesn't destroy the environment and kill off the beautiful bugs that make it possible to have food, the animals that clean up our wastes, or the plants that give us the oxygen that we breathe.
Still don't believe me that the climate is changing? How about this fact. We now have a North-West Passage that was the dream find in 1600. Had there been a NW passage back then, life as we know it would be very different. England might not have decided to send settlers to this new world, or would have at least not have invested so much money--their focus was on getting to Asia. Recently, (within the last 2 years) the NW passage was crossed. This is probably the most visible example of how the sea-ice up there has melted and probably the most widely noticible examples of visible climate change. Weather change wouldn't cause that much ice to melt--only sustained increased temperatures would be enough to cause it.
Latest article on carbon levels here.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Is it the Government or the greedy individuals?
Stella Awards
It's time again for the annual 'Stella Awards'! For those unfamiliar with these awards, they are named after 81-year-old Stella Liebeck, who spilled hot coffee on herself and successfully sued the McDonald's in New Mexico where she purchased coffee.. You remember, she took the lid off the coffee and put it between her knees while she was driving. Who would ever think one could get burned doing that, right? That's right; these are awards for the most outlandish lawsuits and verdicts in the U.S. You know, the kinds of cases that make you scratch your head. So keep your head scratcher handy. Here are the Stella's for the past year:
* SEVENTH PLACE*
Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas was awarded $80,000 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running inside a furniture store. The store owners were understandably surprised by the verdict, considering the running toddler was her own son.
Start scratching!
* SIXTH PLACE *
Carl Truman, 19, of Los Angeles , California won $74,000 plus medical expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda Accord. Truman apparently didn't notice there was someone at the wheel of the car when he was trying to steal his neighbor's hubcaps.
Scratch some more....
* FIFTH PLACE Calibri, sans-serif; ">
Goes to Terrence Dickson, of Bristol , Pennsylvania , who was leaving a house he had just burglarized by way of the garage. Unfortunately for Dickson, the automatic garage door opener malfunctioned and he could not get the garage door to open. Worse, he couldn't re-enter the house, because the door connecting the garage to the house locked when Dickson pulled it shut. Forced to sit for eight, count 'em, EIGHT days, and survive on a case of Pepsi and a large bag of dry dog food, he sued the homeowner's insurance company, claiming undue mental anguish. Amazingly, the jury said the insurance company must pay Dickson $500,000 for his anguish. We should all have this kind of anguish. Keep scratching. There are more.
Double hand scratching after this one..
* FOURTH PLACE Calibri, sans-serif; ">
Jerry Williams, of Little Rock, Arkansas, garnered 4th Place in the Stella's when he was awarded $14,500 plus medical expenses after being bitten on the butt by his next door neighbor's beagle - even though the beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced yard. Williams did not get as much as he asked for, because the jury believed the beagle might have been provoked at the time of the butt bite, because Williams had climbed over the fence into the yard and repeatedly shot the dog with a pellet gun.
Pick a new spot to scratch, you're getting a bald spot..
* THIRD PLACE Calibri, sans-serif; ">
Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania wins, because a jury ordered a Philadelphia restaurant to pay her $113,500 after she slipped on a spilled soft drink and broke her tailbone. The reason the soft drink was on the floor: Ms. Carson had thrown it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument. What ever happened to people being responsible for their own actions?
Only two more, so ease up on the scratching...
*SECOND PLACE*
It's time again for the annual 'Stella Awards'! For those unfamiliar with these awards, they are named after 81-year-old Stella Liebeck, who spilled hot coffee on herself and successfully sued the McDonald's in New Mexico where she purchased coffee.. You remember, she took the lid off the coffee and put it between her knees while she was driving. Who would ever think one could get burned doing that, right? That's right; these are awards for the most outlandish lawsuits and verdicts in the U.S. You know, the kinds of cases that make you scratch your head. So keep your head scratcher handy. Here are the Stella's for the past year:
* SEVENTH PLACE*
Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas was awarded $80,000 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running inside a furniture store. The store owners were understandably surprised by the verdict, considering the running toddler was her own son.
Start scratching!
* SIXTH PLACE *
Carl Truman, 19, of Los Angeles , California won $74,000 plus medical expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda Accord. Truman apparently didn't notice there was someone at the wheel of the car when he was trying to steal his neighbor's hubcaps.
Scratch some more....
* FIFTH PLACE Calibri, sans-serif; ">
Goes to Terrence Dickson, of Bristol , Pennsylvania , who was leaving a house he had just burglarized by way of the garage. Unfortunately for Dickson, the automatic garage door opener malfunctioned and he could not get the garage door to open. Worse, he couldn't re-enter the house, because the door connecting the garage to the house locked when Dickson pulled it shut. Forced to sit for eight, count 'em, EIGHT days, and survive on a case of Pepsi and a large bag of dry dog food, he sued the homeowner's insurance company, claiming undue mental anguish. Amazingly, the jury said the insurance company must pay Dickson $500,000 for his anguish. We should all have this kind of anguish. Keep scratching. There are more.
Double hand scratching after this one..
* FOURTH PLACE Calibri, sans-serif; ">
Jerry Williams, of Little Rock, Arkansas, garnered 4th Place in the Stella's when he was awarded $14,500 plus medical expenses after being bitten on the butt by his next door neighbor's beagle - even though the beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced yard. Williams did not get as much as he asked for, because the jury believed the beagle might have been provoked at the time of the butt bite, because Williams had climbed over the fence into the yard and repeatedly shot the dog with a pellet gun.
Pick a new spot to scratch, you're getting a bald spot..
* THIRD PLACE Calibri, sans-serif; ">
Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania wins, because a jury ordered a Philadelphia restaurant to pay her $113,500 after she slipped on a spilled soft drink and broke her tailbone. The reason the soft drink was on the floor: Ms. Carson had thrown it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument. What ever happened to people being responsible for their own actions?
Only two more, so ease up on the scratching...
*SECOND PLACE*
Kara Walton, of Claymont , Delaware sued the owner of a night club in a nearby city because she fell from the bathroom window to the floor, knocking out her two front teeth.. Even though Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the ladies room window to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge, the jury said the night club had to pay her $12,000....oh, yeah, plus dental expenses. Go figure.
OK. Here we go!!!!!
* FIRST PLACE
This year's runaway First Place Stella Award winner was: Mrs. Merv Grazinski, of Oklahoma City , Oklahoma , who purchased a new 32-foot Winnebago motor home. On her first trip home, from an OU football game, having driven on to the freeway, she set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the driver's seat to go to the back of the Winnebago to make herself a sandwich. Not surprisingly, the motor home left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Also not surprisingly, Mrs. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not putting in the owner's manual that she couldn't actually leave the driver's seat while the cruise control was set. The Oklahoma jury awarded her, are you sitting down?
$1,750,000 PLUS a new motor home. Winnebago actually changed their manuals as a result of this suit, just in case Mrs. Grazinski has any relatives who might also buy a motor home.
Are we, as a society, getting more stupid.... or are more members of Congress serving on juries these days?
Remember, a government big enough to do everything for you, is also big enough to take everything from you.
OK. Here we go!!!!!
* FIRST PLACE
This year's runaway First Place Stella Award winner was: Mrs. Merv Grazinski, of Oklahoma City , Oklahoma , who purchased a new 32-foot Winnebago motor home. On her first trip home, from an OU football game, having driven on to the freeway, she set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the driver's seat to go to the back of the Winnebago to make herself a sandwich. Not surprisingly, the motor home left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Also not surprisingly, Mrs. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not putting in the owner's manual that she couldn't actually leave the driver's seat while the cruise control was set. The Oklahoma jury awarded her, are you sitting down?
$1,750,000 PLUS a new motor home. Winnebago actually changed their manuals as a result of this suit, just in case Mrs. Grazinski has any relatives who might also buy a motor home.
Are we, as a society, getting more stupid.... or are more members of Congress serving on juries these days?
Remember, a government big enough to do everything for you, is also big enough to take everything from you.
My question is...........what's wrong with these stupid juries who awarded all the money??????
***Who cares about the government involvement, I want to know why our "Christian" society breeds these types of people.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Argentine judge stops gay marriage
Article here.
This is so sad. I think I've already given my view on marriage and politics (or maybe I haven't-- I can't find the post if there is one).
If you're going to get government (political) benefits (to be able to make decisions about your decided spouse) then the government cannot descriminate! When gay couples have to spend $10,000 on lawyers and filing paperwork to get the same rights that a man and women get for just signing a piece of paper (marriage license) there is something fundamental that isn't right. I don't care if the church doesn't agree with gay marriage--the church isn't the one that gives these rights.
But the article comes from Argentina, not the US.
This is so sad. I think I've already given my view on marriage and politics (or maybe I haven't-- I can't find the post if there is one).
If you're going to get government (political) benefits (to be able to make decisions about your decided spouse) then the government cannot descriminate! When gay couples have to spend $10,000 on lawyers and filing paperwork to get the same rights that a man and women get for just signing a piece of paper (marriage license) there is something fundamental that isn't right. I don't care if the church doesn't agree with gay marriage--the church isn't the one that gives these rights.
But the article comes from Argentina, not the US.
What is wrong with Africa?
I was chatting with my friend yesterday and he made a statement that surprised me--that the Pope needs to do a better job in Africa because their population is getting out of control. The millions of people living in 90% of the area are living unsustainably off of whatever foreign aid they can get without the corrupt governments stealing it all for themselves. My friend (who thinks very lowly of religion in general) said that they need to get more word out about condoms to decrease the surplus populaion and that the Pope needs to switch his position that they should be practicing abstinance and that condoms are what is holding the Africans down.
This made me think. Many Protestants dislike the Catholic Church (dislike, distrust, whatever) so my thoughts automatically went to what they were doing in Africa. And I made some startling revelations:
1) The Evangelical Protestants ALSO teach Abstinance only. They are the ones who do the most to influence sex education policies in many US states. So, whether they like it or not, the Evangelical Protestants are "preaching" a policy much like the Catholics.
2) Being Catholic (or at least, fomerlly being Catholic and living in a Catholic based family) I started thinking about all that I know and what their birth practices are--they have small families and use birth control. My mother, when she had her "tubes tied" after the birth of my brother, went with my father to confession, feeling guilty about doing such an un-Catholic thing, and was told that they should do 10 "Our Fathers" and a "Hail Mary" and be done with it. They were doing what was right for their family and was not sinning further by having a dozen children of which they cannot take care of. Of all the Catholic families I know of (of my parents generation--seeing as how birth control wasn't used much in my grandparents generation, though after 8 children in 10 years my Grandfather had a vasectomy) they have 2 or 3 children, choosing to stop rather than have more children than they can care for. They teach their children about birth control, though of course expressing a wish that they remain abstinant. I've noticed that the "quiverfull" movement is a Protestant movement. True, those families are able to care fully for their children, but there is still a matter of expressing a policy that not everyone can fulfill in the way that everyone expects. There will always be parents who just can't afford to feed 12 children--such is the nature of a capitalist society. To think otherwise is sadly naive.
3) The notion of the Jesuit Missionary (a Catholic Missionary) is from the long forgotten past. Catholics do not go out and convert the heathens anymore. Set up Churches in 3rd world countries, yes, but actively seeking converts, no. That has become the domain of the Protestants (I actually wonder what the fallout would be should a group of Catholics stand in an open forum and preach like the Protestants do). However, Africa was/is a Catholic influenced continent. This is why the Pope's comments on condoms actually means something. BUT, this doesn't mean that the Protestants can't venture over there and teach the importance of condom use to protect against AIDS and other STDs. But I guess, based on the previous thought, there doesn't seem to be much of a Protestant will to get birth control into areas that are over populated and need to learn sustainability before the rest of the world faces the shortages that will cause a cease in foreign food aid since we will have our own shortages to deal with. The population in Africa will crash in most areas, where only those able to farm a little will be left alive. Isn't it better to teach them about condoms and contriception, to help them survive from AIDS so that they can move forward--so that their innovators won't die before they come up with their next big idea. Every child is born with promise, which only with proper care and nurturing will they be able to reach their full potential--if they die from AIDS contracted at birth or starve to death because their government is too corrupt and there is no one alive who knows the old ways when they were able to survive under their own will. Is it humane to teach practices which support the birth of children that you know will die in less than 5 years because of the other conditions? We've already failed when it comes to fixing governments and economics in Africa, why can't we do a small part to at least ensure that at least those who are there now won't die from AIDS and food shortages caused by over population?
This made me think. Many Protestants dislike the Catholic Church (dislike, distrust, whatever) so my thoughts automatically went to what they were doing in Africa. And I made some startling revelations:
1) The Evangelical Protestants ALSO teach Abstinance only. They are the ones who do the most to influence sex education policies in many US states. So, whether they like it or not, the Evangelical Protestants are "preaching" a policy much like the Catholics.
2) Being Catholic (or at least, fomerlly being Catholic and living in a Catholic based family) I started thinking about all that I know and what their birth practices are--they have small families and use birth control. My mother, when she had her "tubes tied" after the birth of my brother, went with my father to confession, feeling guilty about doing such an un-Catholic thing, and was told that they should do 10 "Our Fathers" and a "Hail Mary" and be done with it. They were doing what was right for their family and was not sinning further by having a dozen children of which they cannot take care of. Of all the Catholic families I know of (of my parents generation--seeing as how birth control wasn't used much in my grandparents generation, though after 8 children in 10 years my Grandfather had a vasectomy) they have 2 or 3 children, choosing to stop rather than have more children than they can care for. They teach their children about birth control, though of course expressing a wish that they remain abstinant. I've noticed that the "quiverfull" movement is a Protestant movement. True, those families are able to care fully for their children, but there is still a matter of expressing a policy that not everyone can fulfill in the way that everyone expects. There will always be parents who just can't afford to feed 12 children--such is the nature of a capitalist society. To think otherwise is sadly naive.
3) The notion of the Jesuit Missionary (a Catholic Missionary) is from the long forgotten past. Catholics do not go out and convert the heathens anymore. Set up Churches in 3rd world countries, yes, but actively seeking converts, no. That has become the domain of the Protestants (I actually wonder what the fallout would be should a group of Catholics stand in an open forum and preach like the Protestants do). However, Africa was/is a Catholic influenced continent. This is why the Pope's comments on condoms actually means something. BUT, this doesn't mean that the Protestants can't venture over there and teach the importance of condom use to protect against AIDS and other STDs. But I guess, based on the previous thought, there doesn't seem to be much of a Protestant will to get birth control into areas that are over populated and need to learn sustainability before the rest of the world faces the shortages that will cause a cease in foreign food aid since we will have our own shortages to deal with. The population in Africa will crash in most areas, where only those able to farm a little will be left alive. Isn't it better to teach them about condoms and contriception, to help them survive from AIDS so that they can move forward--so that their innovators won't die before they come up with their next big idea. Every child is born with promise, which only with proper care and nurturing will they be able to reach their full potential--if they die from AIDS contracted at birth or starve to death because their government is too corrupt and there is no one alive who knows the old ways when they were able to survive under their own will. Is it humane to teach practices which support the birth of children that you know will die in less than 5 years because of the other conditions? We've already failed when it comes to fixing governments and economics in Africa, why can't we do a small part to at least ensure that at least those who are there now won't die from AIDS and food shortages caused by over population?
China or England?
is a culture which has been heavily influenced and run by the methodology that everything must be done to keep anarchy from occurring?
BOTH.
England in 1660 when they reinstated the King with Charles II was a country where moderation only became the norm because they did not want the Civil War to happen again. There were NUMEROUS religious factions which would like nothing more than for English law to insist that the one religion of England be Puritan, whether it be Quaker, Leveler, or some other dissenting Protestant sect.
China in the 20th century was one in which a tyrannical government was preferred. Every time demonstrations occurred, all Hell broke loose and chaos was the norm. The Chinese do not like chaos, they are traditionally a society of order, and with 1+ billion citizens, any chaos results in the death of millions of people and a disruption in the entire economic system. It is better to give up freedoms than fear death from overzealous neighbors. At least the government is calculated risk--you know that if you speak badly of Mao you will be killed, not like with the neighbors of which you can never be sure which statement will get you beheaded.
BOTH.
England in 1660 when they reinstated the King with Charles II was a country where moderation only became the norm because they did not want the Civil War to happen again. There were NUMEROUS religious factions which would like nothing more than for English law to insist that the one religion of England be Puritan, whether it be Quaker, Leveler, or some other dissenting Protestant sect.
China in the 20th century was one in which a tyrannical government was preferred. Every time demonstrations occurred, all Hell broke loose and chaos was the norm. The Chinese do not like chaos, they are traditionally a society of order, and with 1+ billion citizens, any chaos results in the death of millions of people and a disruption in the entire economic system. It is better to give up freedoms than fear death from overzealous neighbors. At least the government is calculated risk--you know that if you speak badly of Mao you will be killed, not like with the neighbors of which you can never be sure which statement will get you beheaded.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Full Metal Jacket
I watched this movie while home for Thanksgiving. OMG!! SUCH a good movie. I highly recommend it to EVERYONE, though beware, the rated R version is VERY bloody and vulgar, but nothing too surprising given the rating.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Wacky News
The Lambert Kiss:
I'm not surprised, and yet I'm confused. So. Would they have complained if he'd kissed a woman on stage? We should get petition together for the next time he performs he should be using a female back-up dancer (completely on the down-low) so that no one can stifle their need to complain by being informed ahead of time.
I'm not surprised, and yet I'm confused. So. Would they have complained if he'd kissed a woman on stage? We should get petition together for the next time he performs he should be using a female back-up dancer (completely on the down-low) so that no one can stifle their need to complain by being informed ahead of time.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Wow...so much done, so many thoughts
A lot has crossed my mind in the past 12 hours--it happens when you have 2 papers to write both due at 10am today. So, I'm just going to make a list of topics that I often think about but never have time to write about--today just happen to remind me of it. I'll give full blogs of them later when I'm a bit more awake.
1)Why do "common folks" give definitions to the terms liberal and conservative that are the complete oppsosite to what EVERY academic book, paper, and professor I've ever 'met' use. For example. Why do the books speak of liberalizing China when they are describing China's transformation into a more capitalistic society? Common folks would say that to be more liberal economically would mean a transformation into socialism. I guess both are techincally true if the real definition of liberal is a change in the traditional way. So I guess a better question would be not so much why they use this term to describe two very different situations, but whether there someone would dare disagree that a liberal China is capitalist (that they would call it conservative).
2)On this same note, but in England in 1650 (right after the execution of Charles I), the liberal minded parliament ruling England (they would have to be liberal minded seeing as a conservative minded parliament would have been royalist ) swung more towards the right, not nearly enough to be considered conservative. In the US, I guess it would be strange to think of conservative being royalist, but definitionally it would be correct. It sure makes me question certain people who say that conservatism is the only way to be--I don't want to be a royalist or wear skirts all the time.....But many I take things too literally, haha.
My brain is fuzzy. Maybe I'll add more topics later....or maybe this is a full blog post. I'm not sure. Leave comments and I'll add more if necessary.
1)Why do "common folks" give definitions to the terms liberal and conservative that are the complete oppsosite to what EVERY academic book, paper, and professor I've ever 'met' use. For example. Why do the books speak of liberalizing China when they are describing China's transformation into a more capitalistic society? Common folks would say that to be more liberal economically would mean a transformation into socialism. I guess both are techincally true if the real definition of liberal is a change in the traditional way. So I guess a better question would be not so much why they use this term to describe two very different situations, but whether there someone would dare disagree that a liberal China is capitalist (that they would call it conservative).
2)On this same note, but in England in 1650 (right after the execution of Charles I), the liberal minded parliament ruling England (they would have to be liberal minded seeing as a conservative minded parliament would have been royalist ) swung more towards the right, not nearly enough to be considered conservative. In the US, I guess it would be strange to think of conservative being royalist, but definitionally it would be correct. It sure makes me question certain people who say that conservatism is the only way to be--I don't want to be a royalist or wear skirts all the time.....But many I take things too literally, haha.
My brain is fuzzy. Maybe I'll add more topics later....or maybe this is a full blog post. I'm not sure. Leave comments and I'll add more if necessary.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Ah.....Procrastination....
So, This has become my epic FAIL picture of probably the century. You see in the upper left hand corner that dark shape where all the grass is bent down? No? Look closer...closer.....it's a snake.
Honestly, I had NO idea it was there when I took this picture. I thought the flower was much to pretty to be bothered with the grass in the background. I guess he wasn't too preoccupied with me either.
But anyway. I took this picture back in I guess June. I didn't think much about it until I was bored and just happened to be browsing through my pictures with them blown up rather big so that I could see the details. Not sure what drew my eyes to the dark shape, but when I did notice it I got quite a scare. So yeah, this picture will definitely go into the history books of how unobservant I really am.
Thomas Jefferson--10 "rules"
So, we all know about his most important 10 rules for daily life:
1. Never put off tomorrow what you can do today.
2. Never trouble another for what you can do yourself.
3. Never spend your money before you have earned it.
4. Never buy what you don't want because it is cheap.
5. Pride costs more than hunger, thirst and cold.
6. We seldom repent of having eaten too little.
7. Nothing is troublesome that we do willingly.
8. How much pain the evils have cost us that never happened.
9. Take things always by the smooth handle.
10. When angry, count ten before you speak, if very angry, count a hundred.
I REALLY wanted to link to a website to view them because there are so many contexts in which they are used, but alas, in the short amount of time I'm taking to write this, I don't have time to find the perfect link. Anyway. I'd like to add a bit of the narrative which I heard while I was at Monticello back in mid-October.
So, without ado, here's what I think Jefferson REALLY meant when he wrote a few of these 10 rules:
2. Never trouble another for what you can do yourself.
***Unless it's your (son or grandson--I can't remember that specific--I'm going to say son in future and if I'm wrong don't shoot me) and it's about unpaid debts. Jefferson inherited a huge debt with his Monticello estate, but never bothered to actively pay it down or off. YES, he paid off all debts as they came due, but he never set aside the money to pay off the debts that he KNEW were going to come due. He spent all extra cash on luxuries and curiosities, never saving for a rainy day (or even the flood that he KNEW was coming). When a debt would come due, he would sell off a slave, or two, or some land and would purchase the replacement, if needed, when he received his next income. When he died, still HEAVILY in debt, his son inherited this debt and it was HE that lived the frugal life working his butt off to pay off the debt. He had to sell off all of Jefferson's estate (thank-goodness Monticello only spent, like, 40 years in private hands before becoming a historical site--you should see Montpelier--it was PINK at one point!) and that still only paid off about half of the debt. Monticello currently houses only, like, 2 shelves of ACTUAL Jefferson owned books because he had to sell them to the US for some extra cash.
3. Never spend your money before you have earned it.
***So far as I know, he didn't literally break this one, but I consider debt to be debt no matter when it was incurred. He might not have been the one to take out the loans that he should have paid off (or at least have accounted for), but I think that all his extra money should have been considered spent before he earned it in that it should have been used to pay the debt.
***I mean, think about the national debt--Yes, the government is racking up more debt every year, but isn't the general consensus that we should pay it down before spending that money on other stuff? Isn't this why so many people worry about their childrens' future living under that debt--that one day it will come due and there will be no way to pay it off?
***And how about when wages are garnished--the wages (except enough to live off of) are used to ONLY pay off debt, not for luxuries. But I guess we shouldn't hold Jefferson to such a standard?
4. Never buy what you don't want because it is cheap.
***Jefferson went into debt (or rather, he didn't pay off the debt he already had) because he bought the best that he could to impress his dinner guests. So, what Jefferson REALLY should have written was "Always buy what you want no matter the cost"
5. Pride costs more than hunger, thirst and cold.
***Jefferson never went hungry, thirsty, or cold--but he was quite proud of his table-scape and intelligent conversation. But maybe I'm reading too much into this particular rule. I'll leave it with him.
6. We seldom repent of having eaten too little.
***Jefferson liked his dinner parties. He had 3 or so regularly every week inviting whichever great thinkers happened to be in the neighborhood (either in Charlottesville or Washington D.C.). So, what Jefferson REALLY meant was "Never feel guilty for eating good food so long as there is intellectual gain in the process--and don't skimp on the quality"
7. Nothing is troublesome that we do willingly.
***Yes, spending all our income on current debts and luxuries without a care for the future really isn't troublesome. Of course, having a moral conscience for leaving the debt to future generations can be troublesome when it's unwillingly left to you (in other words: Jefferson chose to not be troubled by the debt he was unwillingly given; his son on the other hand was troubled and that is why he decided to pay it off instead of leaving it to the next generations).
9. Take things always by the smooth handle.
***Do things the easy way--it's much to difficult to set aside cash that could be used to pay off debts that will be due when the tempting French wine is right there waiting to be purchased. Did you know that he brought back like 86 CRATES of stuff from France to fill Monticello on ONE trip? How much debt do you think he could have paid off instead? Might Monticello have been able to stay in his family's hands if things had been done otherwise?
----------
Please, don't get me wrong, I appreciate Jefferson's intentions, but I think he could have executed them better. Mostly, I criticize because going to school at Mr. Jefferson's university (the University of Virginia) located less than a 30 minute drive from Monticello leaves a lot of people who practically worship him--when clearly, even the historians at Monticello want to know that there is more to the story. I WANT people to follow his 10 simple rules, but realize, he didn't always follow them in the context of what we've come to believe.
I was quite shocked when someone in the tour group I was with asked this simple question--How could Jefferson with all that we know about him, have died heavily in debt? I didn't even think of this conundrum before. In today's context, the fact that he was quite ill in his last years of life makes some wonder if medical bills could have been the cause (it's almost the cop out answer for frugal people today who die leaving many debts) but this was in the 1830s--medical bills were NOT an issue.
I feel that #8 could be criticized, but I couldn't figure out even what it would literally mean--or at least not enough to figure out a coherent sentence to explain it. If you have any idea of what it might mean or the critique, feel free to comment with it. Thanks.
I think 1 and 10 are safe :-). Gosh, if I could make records like Jefferson I would be set for life--If I'd been him, I would have been regularly weeks behind on the records because I would have so many better things to do with my time than to sit inside and keep records--have you seen Monticello?!?! Gosh! And as a plantation back in 1800 it would have only been more of a fascinating place to explore! As for 10--this is why describing Jefferson as a slave holder is so complicated. :-)
So, I invite each and everyone of you to Charlottesville, Virginia to visit Mr. Jefferson's home and his university. Don't take my word about the history told there--see it for yourself.
Here's the website for Monticello. If you take the virtual tour of the house, I'll say it right now--those rooms that you can view are the only rooms that are currently open for visit as part of the house tour--except the dome room--it is off limits in the house. I got stuck in the "north stair well" while taking the virtual tour (I kept going 'up' and 'down' the stairs while trying to explore the hallway). I thought it was just a reckless 'driver' with my mouse--nope--that stairwell is REALLY that small and I think that if I was able to explore the actual house I would end up doing the same thing as there is just no space to turn around. Alas, you can't venture up the stairs either :-(.
1. Never put off tomorrow what you can do today.
2. Never trouble another for what you can do yourself.
3. Never spend your money before you have earned it.
4. Never buy what you don't want because it is cheap.
5. Pride costs more than hunger, thirst and cold.
6. We seldom repent of having eaten too little.
7. Nothing is troublesome that we do willingly.
8. How much pain the evils have cost us that never happened.
9. Take things always by the smooth handle.
10. When angry, count ten before you speak, if very angry, count a hundred.
I REALLY wanted to link to a website to view them because there are so many contexts in which they are used, but alas, in the short amount of time I'm taking to write this, I don't have time to find the perfect link. Anyway. I'd like to add a bit of the narrative which I heard while I was at Monticello back in mid-October.
So, without ado, here's what I think Jefferson REALLY meant when he wrote a few of these 10 rules:
2. Never trouble another for what you can do yourself.
***Unless it's your (son or grandson--I can't remember that specific--I'm going to say son in future and if I'm wrong don't shoot me) and it's about unpaid debts. Jefferson inherited a huge debt with his Monticello estate, but never bothered to actively pay it down or off. YES, he paid off all debts as they came due, but he never set aside the money to pay off the debts that he KNEW were going to come due. He spent all extra cash on luxuries and curiosities, never saving for a rainy day (or even the flood that he KNEW was coming). When a debt would come due, he would sell off a slave, or two, or some land and would purchase the replacement, if needed, when he received his next income. When he died, still HEAVILY in debt, his son inherited this debt and it was HE that lived the frugal life working his butt off to pay off the debt. He had to sell off all of Jefferson's estate (thank-goodness Monticello only spent, like, 40 years in private hands before becoming a historical site--you should see Montpelier--it was PINK at one point!) and that still only paid off about half of the debt. Monticello currently houses only, like, 2 shelves of ACTUAL Jefferson owned books because he had to sell them to the US for some extra cash.
3. Never spend your money before you have earned it.
***So far as I know, he didn't literally break this one, but I consider debt to be debt no matter when it was incurred. He might not have been the one to take out the loans that he should have paid off (or at least have accounted for), but I think that all his extra money should have been considered spent before he earned it in that it should have been used to pay the debt.
***I mean, think about the national debt--Yes, the government is racking up more debt every year, but isn't the general consensus that we should pay it down before spending that money on other stuff? Isn't this why so many people worry about their childrens' future living under that debt--that one day it will come due and there will be no way to pay it off?
***And how about when wages are garnished--the wages (except enough to live off of) are used to ONLY pay off debt, not for luxuries. But I guess we shouldn't hold Jefferson to such a standard?
4. Never buy what you don't want because it is cheap.
***Jefferson went into debt (or rather, he didn't pay off the debt he already had) because he bought the best that he could to impress his dinner guests. So, what Jefferson REALLY should have written was "Always buy what you want no matter the cost"
5. Pride costs more than hunger, thirst and cold.
***Jefferson never went hungry, thirsty, or cold--but he was quite proud of his table-scape and intelligent conversation. But maybe I'm reading too much into this particular rule. I'll leave it with him.
6. We seldom repent of having eaten too little.
***Jefferson liked his dinner parties. He had 3 or so regularly every week inviting whichever great thinkers happened to be in the neighborhood (either in Charlottesville or Washington D.C.). So, what Jefferson REALLY meant was "Never feel guilty for eating good food so long as there is intellectual gain in the process--and don't skimp on the quality"
7. Nothing is troublesome that we do willingly.
***Yes, spending all our income on current debts and luxuries without a care for the future really isn't troublesome. Of course, having a moral conscience for leaving the debt to future generations can be troublesome when it's unwillingly left to you (in other words: Jefferson chose to not be troubled by the debt he was unwillingly given; his son on the other hand was troubled and that is why he decided to pay it off instead of leaving it to the next generations).
9. Take things always by the smooth handle.
***Do things the easy way--it's much to difficult to set aside cash that could be used to pay off debts that will be due when the tempting French wine is right there waiting to be purchased. Did you know that he brought back like 86 CRATES of stuff from France to fill Monticello on ONE trip? How much debt do you think he could have paid off instead? Might Monticello have been able to stay in his family's hands if things had been done otherwise?
----------
Please, don't get me wrong, I appreciate Jefferson's intentions, but I think he could have executed them better. Mostly, I criticize because going to school at Mr. Jefferson's university (the University of Virginia) located less than a 30 minute drive from Monticello leaves a lot of people who practically worship him--when clearly, even the historians at Monticello want to know that there is more to the story. I WANT people to follow his 10 simple rules, but realize, he didn't always follow them in the context of what we've come to believe.
I was quite shocked when someone in the tour group I was with asked this simple question--How could Jefferson with all that we know about him, have died heavily in debt? I didn't even think of this conundrum before. In today's context, the fact that he was quite ill in his last years of life makes some wonder if medical bills could have been the cause (it's almost the cop out answer for frugal people today who die leaving many debts) but this was in the 1830s--medical bills were NOT an issue.
I feel that #8 could be criticized, but I couldn't figure out even what it would literally mean--or at least not enough to figure out a coherent sentence to explain it. If you have any idea of what it might mean or the critique, feel free to comment with it. Thanks.
I think 1 and 10 are safe :-). Gosh, if I could make records like Jefferson I would be set for life--If I'd been him, I would have been regularly weeks behind on the records because I would have so many better things to do with my time than to sit inside and keep records--have you seen Monticello?!?! Gosh! And as a plantation back in 1800 it would have only been more of a fascinating place to explore! As for 10--this is why describing Jefferson as a slave holder is so complicated. :-)
So, I invite each and everyone of you to Charlottesville, Virginia to visit Mr. Jefferson's home and his university. Don't take my word about the history told there--see it for yourself.
Here's the website for Monticello. If you take the virtual tour of the house, I'll say it right now--those rooms that you can view are the only rooms that are currently open for visit as part of the house tour--except the dome room--it is off limits in the house. I got stuck in the "north stair well" while taking the virtual tour (I kept going 'up' and 'down' the stairs while trying to explore the hallway). I thought it was just a reckless 'driver' with my mouse--nope--that stairwell is REALLY that small and I think that if I was able to explore the actual house I would end up doing the same thing as there is just no space to turn around. Alas, you can't venture up the stairs either :-(.
Grammar Police
Everyone knows when the grammar police show up on a site. I'm sure icanhascheeseburger.com gets such a visitor frequently enough.
Well, I'm writing a paper for my English history to 1688 course (we've been given an original document that we must bring into the context of the other books we've been assigned to read for the course) and it hasn't been "translated" into modern English at all. It's from c. 1625 England about the colony of Jamestown.
So, I guess my real point for this post is my frustration that it's taking me 5+ minutes to read a single page because I must understand just what is being talked about while suffering through the different spellings, lack of punctuation, and just the general other-worldliness of the language. Where are my grammar police?!?!? [wahhahaha--why am I history major?!??!]
Here's the link to the document (pg. 259; but we didn't get the book, so we don't get that handy introduction that books.google does--cheeky professor I have) and here's the link to the book we're relating it to.
Here's a copy I just found of the original which has at least been transcribed into a modern font--but I actually think that it makes it harder to read (click the link to read it).
Well, I'm writing a paper for my English history to 1688 course (we've been given an original document that we must bring into the context of the other books we've been assigned to read for the course) and it hasn't been "translated" into modern English at all. It's from c. 1625 England about the colony of Jamestown.
So, I guess my real point for this post is my frustration that it's taking me 5+ minutes to read a single page because I must understand just what is being talked about while suffering through the different spellings, lack of punctuation, and just the general other-worldliness of the language. Where are my grammar police?!?!? [wahhahaha--why am I history major?!??!]
Here's the link to the document (pg. 259; but we didn't get the book, so we don't get that handy introduction that books.google does--cheeky professor I have) and here's the link to the book we're relating it to.
Here's a copy I just found of the original which has at least been transcribed into a modern font--but I actually think that it makes it harder to read (click the link to read it).
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Bones of Contention: The Repatriation of Native American Human Remains
I wonder why I keep getting surprised by the ignorance of humanity--past, present, and future.
Here's an essay that I had to read for a class this semester. It's about the practice of Indian bone collection and how it's history relates to getting the bones back to the Indian tribes.
Read chapter 22:
Here's an essay that I had to read for a class this semester. It's about the practice of Indian bone collection and how it's history relates to getting the bones back to the Indian tribes.
Read chapter 22:
Friday, November 20, 2009
From answers.yahoo.com
The top ten misunderstandings about ISLAM! :D RAMADAN?
http://islam.about.com/od/commonmisconce…
1. Muslims worship a moon-god
Some non-Muslims mistakenly believe that Allah is an "Arab god," a "moon god," or some sort of idol. Allah is the proper name of the One True God, in the Arabic language. The most fundamental belief that a Muslim has is that "There is only One God," the Creator, the Sustainer -- known in the Arabic language and by Muslims as Allah. Arabic-speaking Christians use the same word for the Almighty.
2. Muslims don't believe in Jesus
In the Qur'an, stories about the life and teachings of Jesus Christ (called 'Isa in Arabic) are abundant. The Qur'an recalls his miraculous birth, his teachings, and the miracles he performed by God's permission. There is even a chapter of the Qur'an named after his mother, Mary (Miriam in Arabic). However, Muslims believe that Jesus was a fully human prophet and not in any way divine himself.
3. Most Muslims are Arabs
While Islam is often associated with Arabs, they make up only 15% of the world's Muslim population. The country with the largest population of Muslims is Indonesia. Muslims make up 1/5 of the world's population, with large numbers found in Asia (69%), Africa (27%), Europe (3%) and other parts of the world.
4. Islam oppresses women
Most of the ill-treatment that women receive in the Muslim world is based on local culture and traditions, without any basis in the faith of Islam. In fact, practices such as forced marriage, spousal abuse, and restricted movement directly contradict Islamic law governing family behavior and personal freedom.
5. Muslims are violent, terrorist extremists
Terrorism cannot be justified under any valid interpretation of the Islamic faith. The entire Qur'an, taken as a complete text, gives a message of hope, faith, and peace to a faith community of one billion people. The overwhelming message is that peace is to be found through faith in God, and justice among fellow human beings. Muslim leaders and scholars do speak out against terrorism in all its forms, and offer explanations of misinterpreted or twisted teachings.
6. Islam is intolerant of other faiths
Throughout the Qur'an, Muslims are reminded that they are not the only ones who worship God. Jews and Christians are called "People of the Book," meaning people who have received previous revelations from the One Almighty God that we all worship. The Qur'an also commands Muslims to protect from harm not only mosques, but also monasteries, synagogues, and churches -- because "God is worshipped therein."
7. Islam promotes "jihad" to spread Islam by the sword and kill all unbelievers
The word Jihad stems from an Arabic word which means "to strive." Other related words include "effort," "labor," and "fatigue." Essentially Jihad is an effort to practice religion in the face of oppression and persecution. The effort may come in fighting the evil in your own heart, or in standing up to a dictator. Military effort is included as an option, but as a last resort and not "to spread Islam by the sword."
8. The Quran was written by Muhammad and copied from Christian and Jewish sources
The Qur'an was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad over a period of two decades, calling people to worship One Almighty God and to live their lives according to this faith. The Qur'an contains stories of Biblical prophets, because these prophets also preached the message of God. Stories are not merely copied, but the oral traditions are referred to in a way that focuses on the examples and teachings that we can learn from them.
9. Islamic prayer is just a ritualized performance with no heartfelt meaning
Prayer is a time to stand before God and express faith, give thanks for blessings, and seek guidance and forgiveness. During Islamic prayer, one is modest, submissive and respectful to God. By bowing and prostrating ourselves to the ground, we express our utmost humility before the Almighty.
10. The crescent moon is a universal symbol of Islam
The early Muslim community did not really have a symbol. During the time of the Prophet Muhammad, Islamic caravans and armies flew simple solid-colored flags (generally black, green, or white) for identification purposes. The crescent moon and star symbol actually pre-dates Islam by several thousand years, and wasn't affiliated with Islam at all until the Ottoman Empire placed it on their flag.
--♫ νινα ℓα ∂ινα ♪ (иα∂ια)
1. Muslims worship a moon-god
Some non-Muslims mistakenly believe that Allah is an "Arab god," a "moon god," or some sort of idol. Allah is the proper name of the One True God, in the Arabic language. The most fundamental belief that a Muslim has is that "There is only One God," the Creator, the Sustainer -- known in the Arabic language and by Muslims as Allah. Arabic-speaking Christians use the same word for the Almighty.
2. Muslims don't believe in Jesus
In the Qur'an, stories about the life and teachings of Jesus Christ (called 'Isa in Arabic) are abundant. The Qur'an recalls his miraculous birth, his teachings, and the miracles he performed by God's permission. There is even a chapter of the Qur'an named after his mother, Mary (Miriam in Arabic). However, Muslims believe that Jesus was a fully human prophet and not in any way divine himself.
3. Most Muslims are Arabs
While Islam is often associated with Arabs, they make up only 15% of the world's Muslim population. The country with the largest population of Muslims is Indonesia. Muslims make up 1/5 of the world's population, with large numbers found in Asia (69%), Africa (27%), Europe (3%) and other parts of the world.
4. Islam oppresses women
Most of the ill-treatment that women receive in the Muslim world is based on local culture and traditions, without any basis in the faith of Islam. In fact, practices such as forced marriage, spousal abuse, and restricted movement directly contradict Islamic law governing family behavior and personal freedom.
5. Muslims are violent, terrorist extremists
Terrorism cannot be justified under any valid interpretation of the Islamic faith. The entire Qur'an, taken as a complete text, gives a message of hope, faith, and peace to a faith community of one billion people. The overwhelming message is that peace is to be found through faith in God, and justice among fellow human beings. Muslim leaders and scholars do speak out against terrorism in all its forms, and offer explanations of misinterpreted or twisted teachings.
6. Islam is intolerant of other faiths
Throughout the Qur'an, Muslims are reminded that they are not the only ones who worship God. Jews and Christians are called "People of the Book," meaning people who have received previous revelations from the One Almighty God that we all worship. The Qur'an also commands Muslims to protect from harm not only mosques, but also monasteries, synagogues, and churches -- because "God is worshipped therein."
7. Islam promotes "jihad" to spread Islam by the sword and kill all unbelievers
The word Jihad stems from an Arabic word which means "to strive." Other related words include "effort," "labor," and "fatigue." Essentially Jihad is an effort to practice religion in the face of oppression and persecution. The effort may come in fighting the evil in your own heart, or in standing up to a dictator. Military effort is included as an option, but as a last resort and not "to spread Islam by the sword."
8. The Quran was written by Muhammad and copied from Christian and Jewish sources
The Qur'an was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad over a period of two decades, calling people to worship One Almighty God and to live their lives according to this faith. The Qur'an contains stories of Biblical prophets, because these prophets also preached the message of God. Stories are not merely copied, but the oral traditions are referred to in a way that focuses on the examples and teachings that we can learn from them.
9. Islamic prayer is just a ritualized performance with no heartfelt meaning
Prayer is a time to stand before God and express faith, give thanks for blessings, and seek guidance and forgiveness. During Islamic prayer, one is modest, submissive and respectful to God. By bowing and prostrating ourselves to the ground, we express our utmost humility before the Almighty.
10. The crescent moon is a universal symbol of Islam
The early Muslim community did not really have a symbol. During the time of the Prophet Muhammad, Islamic caravans and armies flew simple solid-colored flags (generally black, green, or white) for identification purposes. The crescent moon and star symbol actually pre-dates Islam by several thousand years, and wasn't affiliated with Islam at all until the Ottoman Empire placed it on their flag.
--♫ νινα ℓα ∂ινα ♪ (иα∂ια)
If it happened in America?
Do you think that if the US had a policy like they have in the UK where EVERY SINGLE dead soldier was brought through the center of town in a parade people would change the way they feel about war? It's terrible how our soldiers are treated when they come home. It's impossible to REALLY understand the costs of war when all we hear is a name on the nightly news (you skip a few days and you've missed a dozen deaths), so maybe we should parade each and every body down main street so people REALLY get a clue.
Also should be done with gang violence, domestic violence, and pretty much ANY death caused by another person. To many victims are quietly laid to rest and no one learns from their story.
Article here.
Also should be done with gang violence, domestic violence, and pretty much ANY death caused by another person. To many victims are quietly laid to rest and no one learns from their story.
Article here.
WHAT THE?!??!
I'm both shocked and amazed...and completely horrified! I can't believe that I'm actually less shocked than I should be. This is disgusting!
I guess I should be clear. This article is about a gang who kill fat people to sell the fat for cosmetic surgery. Wow....I'm at a loss for words.
But I can't help but also think about a certain "X-files" episode where the guy's main food source was fat women.
I guess I should be clear. This article is about a gang who kill fat people to sell the fat for cosmetic surgery. Wow....I'm at a loss for words.
But I can't help but also think about a certain "X-files" episode where the guy's main food source was fat women.
Lady Gaga
I've heard a lot of people say that they feel guilty for enjoying her music. This saddens me because I too enjoyed her music before I watched one of her music videos [read: pornos]. I mean, if you listened just to her lyrics as they are, then they are quite clean. I mean, compare it to "Birthday Sex" and all the other music that blatantly goes into detail. It was only when seeing her music videos that I got disgusted. I now pay more attention to what she's actually talking about, just so I don't feel like an ignorant 12 year old yet to learn the rules of writing.
But here is where I'd like to make a comparison and see if those who dislike the sexuality are convinced that 1) hiding sex in poetry (yes, music is poetry) and prose is NOTHING new and 2) It's okay to read things at face value if reading between the lines makes you blush.
But here is where I'd like to make a comparison and see if those who dislike the sexuality are convinced that 1) hiding sex in poetry (yes, music is poetry) and prose is NOTHING new and 2) It's okay to read things at face value if reading between the lines makes you blush.
"Clear and sweet is my soul....and clear and sweet is all that is not my soul
Lack on lacks both....and the unseen is proved by the seen.
Till that becomes unseen and receives proof in its turn.
Showing the best and dividing it from the worst, age vexes age,
Knowing the perfect fitness and equanimity of things, while they discuss I am silent and go bathe and admire myself.
Welcome is every organ and attrribute of me, and of any man hearty and clean
Not an inch nor a particle of an inch is vile, and none shall be less familiar than the rest
I am satisfied....I see, dance, laugh, sing;
As God comes a loving bedfellow and sleeps at my side all night and close on the peep of the day,
And leaves for me baskets covered with white towels bulging the house with their plenty,
Shall I postpone my acceptation and realization and scream at my eyes.
That they turn from gazing after and down the road,
And forthwith cipher and show me to a cent,
Exactly the contents of one, and exactly the contents of two, and which is ahead?"
--From Leaves of Grass; "Song of Myself"; by Walt Whitman (1855)
Thursday, November 19, 2009
BWAHAHAHAAA!
From BBC News:
Will Ferrell is "most overpaid star". It totally figures. I mean, people either love him or hate him and I'm definitely not a fan.
Ewan McGregor shocked me though, but he's probably in more movies than I've ever cared to see. This seems true for most actors--I'm always shocked that they would choose to be in movies which are considered such flops. But I guess not every movie can be a blockbuster...
Will Ferrell is "most overpaid star". It totally figures. I mean, people either love him or hate him and I'm definitely not a fan.
Ewan McGregor shocked me though, but he's probably in more movies than I've ever cared to see. This seems true for most actors--I'm always shocked that they would choose to be in movies which are considered such flops. But I guess not every movie can be a blockbuster...
Favorite Quotes:
"If you can't convince them, confuse them"
-Harry Truman
"Dance....consists of stylized movements whose significances configure and affect a people’s existence in time."
"Love a challenge"
-Me
"it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."
-W.K. Clifford
"Keep Moving Forward"
-Walt Disney
"I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it."
-Thomas Jefferson
"Don't try to solve serious matters in the middle of the night"
-Philip K. Dick
"Hanging is too good for a man who makes puns; he should be drawn and quoted."
-Fred Allen
"I don't listen to Rap; I listen to Par"
-Annonimouse
" 'Cause I'm just a little girl you see
But there's a hell of a lot more to me
Don't ever underestimate what I can do
Don't ever tell me how I'm meant to be"
- "Just A Little Girl", Amy Studt
Not really a quote, but something my history prof said in class Tuesday...
Apparantly the original feminists from the 19th century would disagree with the way of feminists today. They disagreed with abortion, divorce, and fornication; anything that made life in anyway easier for the man. They didn't agree with a double standard, but when it came to which standard should be set, it is the woman whose ideal is better. Women should not sink to the mans level, but should expect men to rise to the standard of woman.
"Beauty is in the imperfections"
"By 1798, voters had formed two parties, each of which accused the other of threatening republican liberty"-- Enduring Vision--USHist 201 textbook. Things really don't change do they?!?
"Science explains the what; Religion explains the why"
--condensed version of something my anth. prof. said.
"When I use a word [...] it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less"
--Humpty Dumpty, Through the Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll
People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People’s heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool.
--Wizard's First Rule; book by the same name, Terry Goodkind
"Truth and falsehood have both alike countenances...Wee beholde them with one same eye"
--Montaigne
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
--Albert Einstein
"If the English language made any sense, a catastrophe would be an apostrophe with fur."
--Doug Larson
(actually, I think an apostrophe with fur would be a catastrophe--or would at least scare me silly)
-Harry Truman
"Dance....consists of stylized movements whose significances configure and affect a people’s existence in time."
"Love a challenge"
-Me
"it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."
-W.K. Clifford
"Keep Moving Forward"
-Walt Disney
"I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it."
-Thomas Jefferson
"Don't try to solve serious matters in the middle of the night"
-Philip K. Dick
"Hanging is too good for a man who makes puns; he should be drawn and quoted."
-Fred Allen
"I don't listen to Rap; I listen to Par"
-Annonimouse
" 'Cause I'm just a little girl you see
But there's a hell of a lot more to me
Don't ever underestimate what I can do
Don't ever tell me how I'm meant to be"
- "Just A Little Girl", Amy Studt
Not really a quote, but something my history prof said in class Tuesday...
Apparantly the original feminists from the 19th century would disagree with the way of feminists today. They disagreed with abortion, divorce, and fornication; anything that made life in anyway easier for the man. They didn't agree with a double standard, but when it came to which standard should be set, it is the woman whose ideal is better. Women should not sink to the mans level, but should expect men to rise to the standard of woman.
"Beauty is in the imperfections"
"By 1798, voters had formed two parties, each of which accused the other of threatening republican liberty"-- Enduring Vision--USHist 201 textbook. Things really don't change do they?!?
"Science explains the what; Religion explains the why"
--condensed version of something my anth. prof. said.
"When I use a word [...] it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less"
--Humpty Dumpty, Through the Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll
People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People’s heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool.
--Wizard's First Rule; book by the same name, Terry Goodkind
"Truth and falsehood have both alike countenances...Wee beholde them with one same eye"
--Montaigne
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
--Albert Einstein
"If the English language made any sense, a catastrophe would be an apostrophe with fur."
--Doug Larson
(actually, I think an apostrophe with fur would be a catastrophe--or would at least scare me silly)
Palin
From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8367633.stm
"She's one of us," he said simply. "We're hard-working, 9-to-5 Joes and like her we didn't go to the elite universities that other politicians went to. She understands real life and she understands America."
----------
Little to they realize that this is what put fire under the abuse of intellectuals during China's Cultural Revolution......
"She's one of us," he said simply. "We're hard-working, 9-to-5 Joes and like her we didn't go to the elite universities that other politicians went to. She understands real life and she understands America."
----------
Little to they realize that this is what put fire under the abuse of intellectuals during China's Cultural Revolution......
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
"APPLE CORE....."
"BALTIMORE."
"Who's your friend?"
"John"
**Chuck the apple core at "John"
Why do no kids my age know this saying? Is my dad really that old?!?!
Anyway, it's an "oldie but goodie" that every 10 year old should know by heart.
Ahahaha....as with everything it is explained better on Wikipedia. Wow, I didn't know that there are those additional lines--I learn something new everyday.
"Who's your friend?"
"John"
**Chuck the apple core at "John"
Why do no kids my age know this saying? Is my dad really that old?!?!
Anyway, it's an "oldie but goodie" that every 10 year old should know by heart.
Ahahaha....as with everything it is explained better on Wikipedia. Wow, I didn't know that there are those additional lines--I learn something new everyday.
2012
Gosh, that new movie sounds kinda freaky, but I think the premise is too fanciful. I mean, I haven't seen the movie yet, but it sounds like just another unpredictable destruction of the world based on the fact that the Mayan calendar happens to end that day. I like measurable facts, myself. That's why, when I want a world destruction scare, I read Robert Heinlein's "The Year of the Jackpot". I mean, here's a guy who's hobby is to track world changing (and not so much) events, and while everyone goes about their regular lives, he notices the trends indicating that things are getting more frequent and more dangerous.
I notice that a lot of people (for every generation going back centuries) have always claimed that "things have never been so bad as they are today". I just wonder whether anyone has taken the time to actually look at the trends instead of making such open statements.
Anyway, I'll let you be the judge. Here's the link to read this story:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20578281/Heinlein-Robert-A-Year-of-the-Jackpot
ENJOY!!!
I notice that a lot of people (for every generation going back centuries) have always claimed that "things have never been so bad as they are today". I just wonder whether anyone has taken the time to actually look at the trends instead of making such open statements.
Anyway, I'll let you be the judge. Here's the link to read this story:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20578281/Heinlein-Robert-A-Year-of-the-Jackpot
ENJOY!!!
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Hello.
Pretty much this is just a compilation of all the random stuff that I come across during a typical day in my life.
I'm always reading passages, finding pictures, and having random thoughts that I just want to be kept in a central place and shared. Real original thought for a blog, right? haha.
So yeah, this is more for me than anyone else, but I welcome all to follow along on my wacky journey through life.
I'm always reading passages, finding pictures, and having random thoughts that I just want to be kept in a central place and shared. Real original thought for a blog, right? haha.
So yeah, this is more for me than anyone else, but I welcome all to follow along on my wacky journey through life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)