Friday, October 20, 2006
Trouble with Its Trouble
Despite my best intentions, it appears I've only achieved an evil factor of 31% Phoowie!
California Proposition Nov 2006
Prop 83 - Known as Jessica's Law. This law is extremely unrealistic. Some of the provisions of the law are good, but many are simply ludicrous. The one thing that I find completely insane in the requirement for people tagged as "sex offenders" to wear a GPS tracking device for life. WTF? Not only is that completely pointless, it is a complete waste of public funds to maintain a system that has to keep track of these people. It is the first step to requiring more and more minor offenses to also have this GPS requirement limiting their freedoms. Sure, none of us like sex offenders, but I also don't like the fact that society feels it has the right to tell an undefined segment that it can go here, but can't go there, for LIFE! This is a slippery slop to totalitarianism. First it was repeat offender drunk drivers, now this nebulous class of sex offenders, then terrorist, then supposed gangbangers, then violent criminals, then any criminal, then any group who's views don't fit the social order. One day, it will be political opponents, and maybe the general population. Think I'm kidding or exaggerating? Just take a look at the end result just this kind of control over the population in North Korea! Already, the term "sex offender" has been expanded to include people that might be a bit surprising to many. It even has been applied to people that have never been convicted of a crime! How's that possible?! Imagine such limitations being applied to someone that has never been convicted of anything! It will happen. I'm reminded of the book 1984. Another fact that makes this prop just silly is that only 7% sexual assults are committed by registered sex offenders. Most incidents are perpetrated by someone that the victim knows from within their family or circle of friends. Should we next put GPS devices on everyone to prevent the other 93% of incidents? Jessica's law is far too broad. It needs to be more well thought out, and limited to increasing law enforcement's ability to catch perpetrators, increase of prison time, and increase of parole terms. It should also make medical treatment more dominate during and after prison terms. Anything else should be scrapped as unworkable or just ridiculous. NO!
Prop 84 - Proposition to protect and improve our water and natural resources infrastructure. I'm marginally yes. I don't have a strong opinion about this one though. Yes.
Prop 85 - This proposition seeks to establish a waiting period and Parental Notification before a minor can have an abortion. The previously rejected proposition for this same purpose attempted to define when life began in a first step to completely outlaw any abortions. I am in favor of requiring parental notification for any medical activity for a minor, but I'm against the attempts to erode away at a woman's right to choose. So, NO!
Prop 86 - Tax on cigarettes. One issue that hasn't been addressed is the fact that this proposition does remove some level of accountability by Hospitals. Why would a simple tax want to have any say in how Hospitals operate? It is very suspicious. No.
Prop 87 - This is a tax on California oil to fund Alternative Energy research, production and incentives. This is a very good idea. We need to pay for this now or later, and it is always more expensive later. Right now, Texas and Alaska get paid for the oil pumped from their states, but California does not. In fact, even though much of the oil we use is from our own state, we have traditionally paid much more for gas than any other state! We need to kick this oil habit, and this proposition is a big and correct step in the right direction to that goal. It will decrease our dependency on all oil (not just foreign). It takes money from oil company profits (billions of dollars) that should be paid to California anyway. For too long, the oil companies have been taking or oil, making too much money from us by selling it to us at the highest rates in the country. I'm voting Yes.
Prop 88 - I don't have a strong position on this one. So, since it is a tax without any strong purpose for me, I am voting no. (BTW, it's something to do with Education funding).
Prop 89 - It's called Political Campaigns. Public Financing. Corporate Tax Increase. Contributions and Expenditure Limits. Initiative Statute. It seeks to regulate public financing for campaigns, especially for all these propositions. However, it does go way to far. I like the idea of limiting corporation financing of political campaigns, but I'm against many of the other provisions, including taxing corporations to pay for public funding of political campaigns. I don't see the value in this. It would be much better to require TV and radio stations to provide certain amounts of free airtime dedicated to the political campaigns. This would go much farther to evening the playing field between the rich and powerful with grass roots. The more support one has by the people, the more airtime earned. So, while limiting corporations in their funding of pthingcal campaigns (a very good thang), this proposition is over reaching by forcing the bulk of all funding to come from the government. This can be used to eventually silence the minor or grass roots instead of helping them. In my opinion, this Prop is nothing more than a power grab attempt by particular unions. NO!
Prop 90 - This proposition seeks to limit State and Local government use of eminent domain for any other purpose other than public use. It also narrowly defines public use. It does a few other things too, which make the proposal a bit more palatable. I'm pretty much dead set against this proposition. In an attempt to limit government powers regarding eminent domain, it in fact opens the door for developers to do pretty much whatever they want, increasing urban sprawl, while allowing inner city degradation. Cities must develop both by expanding at reasonable rates and by urban renewal. Taking away a government's authority to carry out its responsibility to the people to keep our cities vital, this proposition tries to pull us back to a period in which cities expanded without regard, ignoring their interiors without any an organized overall plan. It puts communities at the mercy of large land owners and developer by taking away the public's right to have any say in the process. It will cost money strapped communities millions to revitalize city interiors, and open them up to unlimited lawsuits regarding any move towards urban renewal. Someone thought, "hey, it would be a good idea to limit government power." But what this proposition really does is limit the people's power to determine the course of their community's future. This is libertarianism taken to an unrealistic and poorly executed extreme. NO!
Prop 1A - This proposition strengthens Prop 42 on how sales tax revenue can be used for transportation purposes. Limiting government's power to fund projects is normally well intentioned, but usually has consequences. A marginal No from me.
Props 1B, 1C, 1D and 1E or all much needed bond measures. I'm marginally Yes on these.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Sharing spaces
I’ve been living with my fiancé for about a month or so now. She was already living in the place I moved into, so it was kinda like me moving into her space. It’s taken her a bit to realize just what’s involved to share space with another person, but physically and emotionally. But for the most part, everything is going pretty well. Not much else on this topic to talk about. :)
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Metaphors of Religion
What are my religious views? Metaphors are created to explain what is currently unknowable. Religion is formalization of those metaphors into a belief system that often involves the necessity for particular practices. Far too often, religion takes their metaphors as fact. When knowledge is increased and what was previously unknowable is finally discovered, a religion will often cling to their metaphors. They may reinterpret them to conform to the new knowledge, or may oppose the new knowledge.
Imagine a person who has never seen or heard of a banana. Now imagine that person is hungry. A kind stranger walks along and hands that person a banana and tells them that it is food. The person tries to taste it without peeling it, but really doesn’t know what to do with it. All they know is that they’ve been told is that they can eat it. So, another kind stranger walks along seeing this hungry person looking at the banana. That stranger walks up and peels the banana for the hungry person. But now imagine that instead of eating the newly exposed banana flesh, the person throws the flesh aside and continues to grasp the peel as though the peel well feed them somehow.
This is kinda how religion tends to respond to new knowledge. When the metaphor is found to no longer be useful (peeled away to reveal knowledge), a religious system will often still hold on to it instead of taking in the newly discovered knowledge.
To break free from this, a person must realize that the metaphor has its place, not as factual representation of knowledge, but as a way to explain what is currently unknown. If one can admit that they do not know something, then the metaphor can be used effectively until such knowledge is obtained. This can be an empowering position.
Imagine a person who has never seen or heard of a banana. Now imagine that person is hungry. A kind stranger walks along and hands that person a banana and tells them that it is food. The person tries to taste it without peeling it, but really doesn’t know what to do with it. All they know is that they’ve been told is that they can eat it. So, another kind stranger walks along seeing this hungry person looking at the banana. That stranger walks up and peels the banana for the hungry person. But now imagine that instead of eating the newly exposed banana flesh, the person throws the flesh aside and continues to grasp the peel as though the peel well feed them somehow.
This is kinda how religion tends to respond to new knowledge. When the metaphor is found to no longer be useful (peeled away to reveal knowledge), a religious system will often still hold on to it instead of taking in the newly discovered knowledge.
To break free from this, a person must realize that the metaphor has its place, not as factual representation of knowledge, but as a way to explain what is currently unknown. If one can admit that they do not know something, then the metaphor can be used effectively until such knowledge is obtained. This can be an empowering position.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Lorono
[The following is outdated]
Family hearsay suggests some origin in the northern area of Spain normally associated with Castile. However, I was contacted a few years ago by someone who had some sort of familiarity with the name Lorono. That person provided a digital copy of an old regional map which showed the location of a little populated area that bore the name. What was interesting is that he associated the name with the Basque population in the area (north central coast of Spain, near France).
More recently, I did some digging online to find another little populated area that also bore the same name, but in Galicia (north western tip of Spain). I found that the name is listed as being of native origin in Galicia. This is kinda stunning. It’s not a commonly known fact that the people of Galicia are Gaelic. At this point, I'm not sure If the name Lorono has its origin in Galicia, there’s a good chance it may have Gaelic origins.
Since the name also appears in the area associated with the Basque peoples in Pias Vasco, the suggestion might be that there is some link between the use of Lorono there and with Galicia.
The Gaelic link intrigues me because I am also part Irish. (Ireland is the only independent Gaelic country in the world.) It means that my heritage has some very interesting twists and turns, and may have yet to reveal some very surprising links across the three continents that my family tree derives from: Europe, Asia and North America.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Interviewed by the Devil?
Q: Do you believe in God?
A: No. I believe in things that are tangible or that can be proven.
Q: Do you have a car?
A: Do I have a car? Yeah, sure.
Q: What make is it?
A: What make? It’s a Ford.
Q: So Ford made your car?
A: Well, yeah. the company Ford.
Q: So your car had a maker? That maker was Ford. Your house has a maker too, just as everything must have a maker. (This statement is sometimes followed by a biblical reference). [Note: Normally, this isn’t actually a question, but a preaching point to link to the next topic, which is usually started before the interviewee can reply.]
Q: Are you a good person?
A: Sure, yeah, I’m a good person.
Q: Have you ever lied?
A: Sure, who hasn’t?
Q: What does that make you?
A: A liar.
Q: Have you ever stolen anything?
A: Sure, I guess.
Q: What does that make you?
A: A thief?
Q: Have you ever looked at or lusted after a woman?
A: Well, yeah, kind of, I guess.
Q: The bible says if someone looks at a woman with lust, they have already committed adultery in their heart. [No pause or opportunity is usually allowed before the next question is asked.]
Q: Have you every used God’s name in vain?
A: Sure.
Q: That’s blasphemy. The bible says that sinners are going to hell. Given your sins, where does the bible says you are going once you die?
A: Well, I don’t believe in the bible, but I guess if you believe in such things, it says you are going to hell. But do you think hell is a reasonable expectation for such minor things. I’m a good person and always do what I’m supposed to do. I’ve never been punished for anything I’ve done by the law, nor have I intentionally tried to hurt anyone. Do you think someone like that should go to hell?
Q: The bible only offers only one way out from going to hell. That is through our Lord Jesus Christ who came down and did something amazing for us. Do you know what he did?
A: Well, again, if you believe in such things, he died for us.
Q: He suffered for us on the Cross to pay for all of our sins and buy our way to heaven. Only by accept him can we escape hell… [At this point, it turns pretty much in to a preaching session. The interviewee is usually left a little confused and frustrated at the fact they just allowed them-self to be preached to by some thickheaded bible thumping dumb ass. If the interviewee iterates being an atheist or brings up any further counterpoints, the interviewer will excuse them-self and abruptly cut the interview short, often iterating comment about going to hell.]
The important thing to note is that the interviewer is employing conversation and thought manipulation. If the person were weak minded (or even just undereducated), they may be influenced into accepting the preached message (even if it’s just a little bit), leaving that person open to being controlled by further suggestions.
Even experienced and educated persons will be trapped in this conversation. There is no real point to this interview other than to find someone who is impressionable or to make the audience feel justified in their belief system by harassing what they consider to be willful unbelievers.
One way to engage in the conversation and make it two-sided is to break up the rote pattern that is being used by the interviewer. Force them to acknowledge answers to their questions instead of just running through a list of questions culminated with a preaching service. Bring them into the conversation by holding them accountable for their questions and answers to your questions. If they are inexperienced, they will be suckered into a pointless point for point debate that they cannot win. If they are experienced, they will excuse them-self and move on to the next hapless victim. This will prevent them from using the interview in their sermons later on. Of course, avoiding the interview altogether is the best choice, but how much fun is that?
So, how about if the interview went something like this?
Q: Do you believe in God?
A: Nope. The existence of a god cannot be proven.
Q: Do you have a car?
A: Sure. It’s a Ford.
Q: So Ford made your car?
A: Yup. In a manner of speaking.
Q: So your car had a maker? That maker was Ford. Your house has a maker too, just as everything must have a maker. [Interrupt them at this point.]
A: Do you have a psychology degree with a license to practice?
Q: No. I’m asking you if it is reasonable to say that your car had a maker, but not the Universe, because…[Interrupt them again at this point.]
A: No, you are using psychology conversational tools used to direct one’s thought. But instead of using it to help someone, you are using it as a brainwashing technique. That is wrong, and in your terms, it is sinful to try to control someone’s mind. If your god was real, he wouldn’t need mind tricks to try to con people into being followers. Trust me, if there is an afterlife, you are going be held more accountable for your mind control deeds than any one else you claim is a sinner only because they don’t know Christ. You know what? I’m going to report you to the authorities for practicing psychology without a license. What is your name again?
Of course, it doesn't matter whether anything you say make 100% sense, or is even true (I'm sure there aren't any laws linking flawed arguments with "practicing psychology". The point is to take up their time so they can't harass anyone else, and to maybe scare them a bit so they think twice before continuing to practice their technique on unwitting people.
Another method is to take the line of rote questions away from them.
Q: Do you believe in God?
A: Nope. I find it hard to believe in something that can't be proven. I mean, that's the difference between a car, which has a known maker, and the Universe. You can see that a car was made by humans because it is assembled to fulfill a particular role. But you don't see that in nature. In nature, everything is random. Cars and houses don't just come into being by themselves. If this Universe was created by a nurturing and caring god, one of the main things we should expect is that all of our corporeal needs are directly addressed. For example, people who raise animals feed that animal, groom it, raise it, protect it, and even clean up after its dirty business. Imagine what would happen if a cat owner didn't clean the litter box. Yuk! Yet, this Universe doesn't do any of that for us. We have to find our own food. We have to cook our own meals. We have to build the houses we live in and the cars we drive in. We even have to wipe our own asses. [At this point, the interviewer should be pretty red in the face and trying to cut the interview short. Bate them as long as possible into a pointless argument to keep them from pouncing on some other unwitting victim.]
Yet another way to ask for an insane amount of detail to explain their questions, then use their answers to prove they are not the true religion. This requires some knowledge of the bible, but can be particularly fun.
Q: Do you believe in God?
A: Which god?
Q: The God of the bible.
A: Which god in the bible. There’s several mentioned. Elohim, Yahweh, Jesus is referred to as a god, and Jesus himself calls Satan a god.
Q: The Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. That is the only true God.
A: Oh, the Trinity. Which type? Do you believe in three persons, one god? Or is it one god with three facets?
Q: God is three persons and one God. [Of course, the answer doesn’t matter cuz either way, this is the answer:]
A: That's odd, I thought you said you believe in the god of the bible. There’s no mention of that god in the bible. When the bible goes into talking about the nature of god, it only mentions one person. Well, OK. You are a sinner and a blasphemer. I'm sorry. It's against my faith to talk to you about the bible. Christ makes it clear not to associate with bad apples.
Q: [If they are dumb enough to try to argue your points, let them have it.]
A: Nope, I'm sorry. You are the devil appearing as an angel of light. You use god's name, but you do not know him. Get away from me, Satan! Only by accepting the true god can you be saved. Repent now, SINNER!
Any other ideas? :)
A: No. I believe in things that are tangible or that can be proven.
Q: Do you have a car?
A: Do I have a car? Yeah, sure.
Q: What make is it?
A: What make? It’s a Ford.
Q: So Ford made your car?
A: Well, yeah. the company Ford.
Q: So your car had a maker? That maker was Ford. Your house has a maker too, just as everything must have a maker. (This statement is sometimes followed by a biblical reference). [Note: Normally, this isn’t actually a question, but a preaching point to link to the next topic, which is usually started before the interviewee can reply.]
Q: Are you a good person?
A: Sure, yeah, I’m a good person.
Q: Have you ever lied?
A: Sure, who hasn’t?
Q: What does that make you?
A: A liar.
Q: Have you ever stolen anything?
A: Sure, I guess.
Q: What does that make you?
A: A thief?
Q: Have you ever looked at or lusted after a woman?
A: Well, yeah, kind of, I guess.
Q: The bible says if someone looks at a woman with lust, they have already committed adultery in their heart. [No pause or opportunity is usually allowed before the next question is asked.]
Q: Have you every used God’s name in vain?
A: Sure.
Q: That’s blasphemy. The bible says that sinners are going to hell. Given your sins, where does the bible says you are going once you die?
A: Well, I don’t believe in the bible, but I guess if you believe in such things, it says you are going to hell. But do you think hell is a reasonable expectation for such minor things. I’m a good person and always do what I’m supposed to do. I’ve never been punished for anything I’ve done by the law, nor have I intentionally tried to hurt anyone. Do you think someone like that should go to hell?
Q: The bible only offers only one way out from going to hell. That is through our Lord Jesus Christ who came down and did something amazing for us. Do you know what he did?
A: Well, again, if you believe in such things, he died for us.
Q: He suffered for us on the Cross to pay for all of our sins and buy our way to heaven. Only by accept him can we escape hell… [At this point, it turns pretty much in to a preaching session. The interviewee is usually left a little confused and frustrated at the fact they just allowed them-self to be preached to by some thickheaded bible thumping dumb ass. If the interviewee iterates being an atheist or brings up any further counterpoints, the interviewer will excuse them-self and abruptly cut the interview short, often iterating comment about going to hell.]
The important thing to note is that the interviewer is employing conversation and thought manipulation. If the person were weak minded (or even just undereducated), they may be influenced into accepting the preached message (even if it’s just a little bit), leaving that person open to being controlled by further suggestions.
Even experienced and educated persons will be trapped in this conversation. There is no real point to this interview other than to find someone who is impressionable or to make the audience feel justified in their belief system by harassing what they consider to be willful unbelievers.
One way to engage in the conversation and make it two-sided is to break up the rote pattern that is being used by the interviewer. Force them to acknowledge answers to their questions instead of just running through a list of questions culminated with a preaching service. Bring them into the conversation by holding them accountable for their questions and answers to your questions. If they are inexperienced, they will be suckered into a pointless point for point debate that they cannot win. If they are experienced, they will excuse them-self and move on to the next hapless victim. This will prevent them from using the interview in their sermons later on. Of course, avoiding the interview altogether is the best choice, but how much fun is that?
So, how about if the interview went something like this?
Q: Do you believe in God?
A: Nope. The existence of a god cannot be proven.
Q: Do you have a car?
A: Sure. It’s a Ford.
Q: So Ford made your car?
A: Yup. In a manner of speaking.
Q: So your car had a maker? That maker was Ford. Your house has a maker too, just as everything must have a maker. [Interrupt them at this point.]
A: Do you have a psychology degree with a license to practice?
Q: No. I’m asking you if it is reasonable to say that your car had a maker, but not the Universe, because…[Interrupt them again at this point.]
A: No, you are using psychology conversational tools used to direct one’s thought. But instead of using it to help someone, you are using it as a brainwashing technique. That is wrong, and in your terms, it is sinful to try to control someone’s mind. If your god was real, he wouldn’t need mind tricks to try to con people into being followers. Trust me, if there is an afterlife, you are going be held more accountable for your mind control deeds than any one else you claim is a sinner only because they don’t know Christ. You know what? I’m going to report you to the authorities for practicing psychology without a license. What is your name again?
Of course, it doesn't matter whether anything you say make 100% sense, or is even true (I'm sure there aren't any laws linking flawed arguments with "practicing psychology". The point is to take up their time so they can't harass anyone else, and to maybe scare them a bit so they think twice before continuing to practice their technique on unwitting people.
Another method is to take the line of rote questions away from them.
Q: Do you believe in God?
A: Nope. I find it hard to believe in something that can't be proven. I mean, that's the difference between a car, which has a known maker, and the Universe. You can see that a car was made by humans because it is assembled to fulfill a particular role. But you don't see that in nature. In nature, everything is random. Cars and houses don't just come into being by themselves. If this Universe was created by a nurturing and caring god, one of the main things we should expect is that all of our corporeal needs are directly addressed. For example, people who raise animals feed that animal, groom it, raise it, protect it, and even clean up after its dirty business. Imagine what would happen if a cat owner didn't clean the litter box. Yuk! Yet, this Universe doesn't do any of that for us. We have to find our own food. We have to cook our own meals. We have to build the houses we live in and the cars we drive in. We even have to wipe our own asses. [At this point, the interviewer should be pretty red in the face and trying to cut the interview short. Bate them as long as possible into a pointless argument to keep them from pouncing on some other unwitting victim.]
Yet another way to ask for an insane amount of detail to explain their questions, then use their answers to prove they are not the true religion. This requires some knowledge of the bible, but can be particularly fun.
Q: Do you believe in God?
A: Which god?
Q: The God of the bible.
A: Which god in the bible. There’s several mentioned. Elohim, Yahweh, Jesus is referred to as a god, and Jesus himself calls Satan a god.
Q: The Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. That is the only true God.
A: Oh, the Trinity. Which type? Do you believe in three persons, one god? Or is it one god with three facets?
Q: God is three persons and one God. [Of course, the answer doesn’t matter cuz either way, this is the answer:]
A: That's odd, I thought you said you believe in the god of the bible. There’s no mention of that god in the bible. When the bible goes into talking about the nature of god, it only mentions one person. Well, OK. You are a sinner and a blasphemer. I'm sorry. It's against my faith to talk to you about the bible. Christ makes it clear not to associate with bad apples.
Q: [If they are dumb enough to try to argue your points, let them have it.]
A: Nope, I'm sorry. You are the devil appearing as an angel of light. You use god's name, but you do not know him. Get away from me, Satan! Only by accepting the true god can you be saved. Repent now, SINNER!
Any other ideas? :)
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
I figured out what ACURA stands for
ACURA stands for A Car Under Repair Always. OMG, this is crazy. I was taking my car in the dealership for routine service, and on my way there, the transmission broke down. This is the third transmission to break down on my car since I got it back in 2003. Very annoying.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Tap the Top of a Soda can
We've all dropped our soda can or been the victim of someone shaking it before giving it to us or something similar. The desire is to not let that slow us down from enjoying the tasty beverage contained within the soda can.
So, I one time, I saw someone tapping the top of his soda can after dropping it, and I was like, "What are you doing?" I mean, how does that have anything to do with the released carbon dioxide from creating pressure in the can, right?
Everything "official" I've found on the topic also says that it doesn't work. This person or that person supposedly did this or that test which never shows any difference between tapped and nontapped shook soda cans. But that doesn't change the fact that it does work. Remember, I used to laugh at people who did this. With basic cola like Pepsi and Coke, I've never had overflowing fizz blow out of the can if I tapped it. Since I started using this technique myself, I have amazed others with full on demonstrations.
Of course, there are others who are proponents (backup link) of this technique.
So basically, I've had nothing but success using this method on regular colas. (I've seen results with A&W Root Beer, and me own experience says that no trick works with it cuz it is designed to foam and foam it does!)
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Urbandictionary.com
In case you've not heard of it, there's a great place to find out the meaning of the newest words or phrases being used, called Urban Dictionary. Fellow users frequently update the Urban Dictionary with new words and definitions, including yours truly. So far, I have added 6 words that have been accepted, 5 of which have been met with significant thumbs up peer approval.
I'm also a frequent user of Dictionary.com too, which has recently improved its site content.
Oh, and also, on many online searches I do nowadays, I follow up the search text with "wiki" to make sure wikipedia entries show up, as these are often more concise and useful than traditional news or database sources.
I'm also a frequent user of Dictionary.com too, which has recently improved its site content.
Oh, and also, on many online searches I do nowadays, I follow up the search text with "wiki" to make sure wikipedia entries show up, as these are often more concise and useful than traditional news or database sources.
Friday, September 15, 2006
Google or Yahoo? Well, I use both, but mostly Yahoo for immediately available content. There, there's also Clusty that organizes my search results. That's all.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Unusual attention on an old post
Sometime last year, I posted a light-hearted commentary on the idea of viewing human history in human-centric terms titled Something about Evolution Just Occured to Me. What's odd is that this posting has just recently provoked a healthy array of comment responses.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Al-Qaida must be scratching their heads
Recently Al-Qaida leadership has offered a hand out to Americans to join the Muslim faith. Then days later, they go about making more threats against us. I say it now, truly, if every American was a Muslim, Al-Qaida would still be a terrorist organization fighting against us. They are so hypocritical, that it is just ludicrous. One has to wonder why they haven't figured out why 1.2 million Muslims within the U.S. haven't stooped to join their cause.
America isn't a place that people live so much as it is an idea we hold valuable. Freedom isn't a sin. It is God's gift to those who are willing to give trust to a system that at least tries to treat everyone with equality, even if we do fall short of that goal in reality. What does Al-Qaida offer? Freedom from freedom? Laughable.
America isn't a superpower because strove to be. We did not seek this out. It was thrust upon us. And, history will show, we have acted most responsibility amongst any other nation that has held this position in any time in history.
Al-Qaida is nothing more than a power lusting organization that is covering over their sins under the banner of jihad. Watching them work is like watching a mediocre online RTS game play out. It's as though they got their world strategy by playing Command and Conquer. Seriously, if you've play any of those games, you can see the pattern.
There will always be a yin and a yang, with two opposing sides. But Al-Qaida has done nothing except make the U.S. more powerful and drove us to become an even greater superpower. ::sigh:: I've never seen the U.S. be able to wield so much force with so little effort. We are waging two wars at the same time on a peacetime economy! Imagine what would happen should America convert our economy over to wartime again (as we did in WWII). This is not the direction we should be taking the world in. Yet, it is Al-Qaida which is driving the America to become such a force. As much as the Japanese underestimated America in the 40's, Al-Qaida is underestimating us much much worse now. The Japanese awoke a sleeping dragon. Al-Qaida has sharpen that same dragon's claws and given it steroids.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Friday, September 01, 2006
So, a bit more on Pluto's demotion
It is appropriate that their are already scientists that are rebuffing the recent supposed demotion of Pluto as a planet. I mentioned there would be embarrassment on this decision within 20 years. Well, one week is certainly within 20 years. lol
Reuters reports:
This is pretty funny and pretty much matches the point I made previously. These people don't own our solar system and they don't own the English language.
Fact of the matter is, the new definitions of "planet" actually are poorly worded to specifically exclude both Ceres and Pluto as planets.
Furthermore, these rules fail to recognize the differences between the accepted planets. Gas Giants like Jupiter or Saturn have very little in common with Terrestrials like Earth or Venus. Instead of playing political games with how words are used, these scientist should be working to create meaningful classifications of planets that describe their general make-up and origins.
Once we start exploring other solar systems, I think we will find the familiar order of our own solar system is quite rare, and that our current understanding of what a planet is not resemble its future definition. There will be planets that share orbits in one fashion or another. There will be protoplanets larger than Earth, but residing within an Asteroid field. There will be double planets that are similar in size and that orbit either other. There will smashed planets, rogue planets, comet tail planets, double Gas Giants, heavy element planets, obround planets the size of Mars, empty planets, planets that look like the Virgin Mary or Abraham Lincoln, hard surface planets bigger than Neptune, and planets where it really is easy being green. All of this makes the current politically motivated discussion, of what deserves to be called a planet, all very silly.
Reuters reports:
"The IAU can say the sky is green all day long and that doesn't make it so," said Stern, a planetary scientist at the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado. "The IAU created a definition which is technically flawed, linguistically flawed and scientifically embarrassing," Stern said in a phone interview.
This is pretty funny and pretty much matches the point I made previously. These people don't own our solar system and they don't own the English language.
Fact of the matter is, the new definitions of "planet" actually are poorly worded to specifically exclude both Ceres and Pluto as planets.
A "planet" [1] is a celestial body that: (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit.
Furthermore, these rules fail to recognize the differences between the accepted planets. Gas Giants like Jupiter or Saturn have very little in common with Terrestrials like Earth or Venus. Instead of playing political games with how words are used, these scientist should be working to create meaningful classifications of planets that describe their general make-up and origins.
Once we start exploring other solar systems, I think we will find the familiar order of our own solar system is quite rare, and that our current understanding of what a planet is not resemble its future definition. There will be planets that share orbits in one fashion or another. There will be protoplanets larger than Earth, but residing within an Asteroid field. There will be double planets that are similar in size and that orbit either other. There will smashed planets, rogue planets, comet tail planets, double Gas Giants, heavy element planets, obround planets the size of Mars, empty planets, planets that look like the Virgin Mary or Abraham Lincoln, hard surface planets bigger than Neptune, and planets where it really is easy being green. All of this makes the current politically motivated discussion, of what deserves to be called a planet, all very silly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)