Bad vision

So, I went into the eye doctor the other day to have my eyes checked. I've been noticing that over the past few years, they've degraded a bit. My vision degraded all the way down to 20/20 in one eye and "20/15" in the other. (I used quotes because I think the doctor just used a familiar term, as the normal correct term is 20/16.) Normal uncorrected human vision is actually 20/12 to 20/16. 20/20 is considered the low end of normal, but it is actually slightly off. This is what've been noticing. My eyes being slightly off. So, as it seems, I've just been spoiled with really good vision before, and now I just have good vision.

Superman vs. Spider-man Mac/PC Spoofs

Here's some funny Superman vs. Spider-man Mac/PC Spoofs on YouTube.com.

Paris Hilton back to jail?

What a bum rap. I got to go against the main stream on this one. It seems ridicious to waste tax payer dollars to teach Paris Hilton a lesson. She is getting specially harsh treatment for what she's done in comparison to others (not famous people) who have done the exact same thing in the exact same way. The normal punishment for first time DUI offenders is house arrest. The normal punishment for someone driving on a suspended license is...get this...a ticket! Even with Paris' nose-thumbing to the law, 45 days or even the lesser 23 days in jail is hefty for this charges. Not only they, they choose to put her high security type prison cell? Normally (from my understanding) for "special" persons, they are put up at the "country clubs". She is totally getting shafted here in two ways. Ok, and who's complaining that house arrest isn't harsh enough? I've had a friend under house arrest for a DUI. Sure, it's not jail, but it's also no picinic either. It's not getting off easy by any means. She is getting special treatment; it's especially harsh! This is more an example of a judge who's trying to prove a pointless point, rather than a rich girl getting away with something.
That said, I do believe she does have to pay for her crimes, but that punishment should be in line with punishments handed down to her peers and normal folks for the same charges and behavior.

Miriam's Non-birthday

I took Miriam out for a one-on-one dinner in downtown Mountain View last Friday. We don't get to spend quality time with each other much these days. She's been busy with her daughter and her b/f and her new job. In fact, she's been quite the stranger recently. Well, anyway, we met up at Zucca's in the mid-afternoon, but didn't stay long since the rest'rant she really wanted to go to was turned out to be open, Fiesta Del Mar Too.
Dinner was good and we did do some catching up. We are starting to get back to normal, one step at a time. I know we aren't going to have a lot of personal time from here on out, but it's always feels good when we do, and we are getting more time with each other in group, couplish activities. ...looking forward to the official non-birthday gathering (back in Mountain View) on Saturday. It's non-birthday cuz she's now in her late 20's, and the looming 3-0 is knocking on the door. She's trying not to count the years. :)

I Memorialize

This Memorial Weekend was spent with family and friends. Allie has been fighting a cold all weekend. Even still we were a little over booked for the weekend. Friday we got off work a little bit early to catch Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End. On Saturday, we got a little bit of a late start, but did end up in a quaint little downtown of Menlo Park. We then had great dinner at Straits in San Francisco.

On Sunday, we met up with Miriam, her kid and her b/f for a day at the "new" Six Flags Discovery Kingdom. It's really the same as the former Six Flags Marine World, so don't let the new name fool you. The day slipped away. I only got on two rides twice, and saw one short show. Kinda unfulfilling. However, Allie did get a little sicker from being out and about all day.

On Monday, my cuzin and her new husband visited us for lunch at Khans Garden. We then walked around nearby Santana Row. Afterwards, while Allie recovered (still a bit sick with a cold), I spent a couple hours with with couple of other friends at their BBQ. Allie slept. We later met up at her folks place for a BBQ dinner. uhgghghghg, I was so stuff.

Pray for our Schools

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

I witnessed a lie just now. While channel flipping, I caught a preacher talking about the "Wall separating the Church and State" (in the context of a discussion about our schools and government buildings) and how the First Amendment of the United States Constitution does not mention a "wall", a "separation", the "Church" or the "State". Those words themselves do not appear in the First Amendment. So, how is this a lie? Well, yes, there is no mention of a wall. That was a metaphor created to Thomas Jefferson regarding a specific proposed Bill in his day. However, there is a statement that prevents the Congress (the "State") from making laws establishing or prohibiting (a "separation") religion (which includes the "Church"). There's the lie. It means that the government has not right to force someone to worship; it does not endorse any form of worship; and it does not prevent anyone from worship.

Of course, there is some leeway inheritant to this separation. It is wrong for a public school to endorse prayer on its premises because prayer is a form of worship. However, where some have taken this to far is that they feel the school has to prevent worship in order not to endorse it. This idea is also a lie. It is a lie that fuels Churches in their lie. "See, they don't allow us to worship in schools!" Both positions are extreme. The interested parties on both extremes of this issue feed off of each other.

There is no wall. But there is designated limits on the authority of our government to impose its will upon the people. This is one of several cornerstones built into the Constitutional Amendments that prevents the majority of our population from oppressing any minority.

It also serves as a rule against the supporting of religion by public deeds or use of public funds. Again, some have taken this too far. Some have interpreted this prohibition of support to mean prohibition of religious activities on public school premises. They don't understand the difference between endorsement and equal access to public properties. As long as a Church pays the same as any other similar group renting a school auditorium, there is be no prohibition against that Church from renting it. If the school gave some sort of special "Church discount", then that would be an endorsement. The discount itself would be unconstitional, not the Church using the school facilities. This applied misunderstanding is more fuel for Churches to preach about how our system is being used to oppress religion. It gives them the opportunity to propagandize their lie about the First Amendment.