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.
Friday, June 08, 2007
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. :)
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. :)
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
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.
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.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Environmentalist
Environmentalism awareness has increased in recent years. For better or worse, much of this is based on common Media coverage which focuses more sensationalism than on actual useful information. This tends to encourage emotional responses over reasoned action, even by supposed scientists.
I
It is true that each of us does contribute to the overall effect that humans have on the environment. It is not so true that individual actions taken by each one of us can have a counter-effect. We act as a force collectively. For us to counter our negative impact on the environment, we must collectively act.
II
The term "Invasion Species" is use to describe a species that somehow arrives and often thrives in an area where it did not previously exist (non-native). Invasion species can be animals, plants or other types of lifeforms. In the past few decades, scientists and other conservationists have taken upon themselves to somehow magically know that all invasion species must somehow be stopped. Conservationists often feel that every remaining natural environment must be absolutely preserved in the manner in which they believed it originally was prior to human influence. This is pure human arrogance and is not based on factual examination of nature. Who's to say that humans are not playing a natural role by introducing species to new areas or adjusting the environment (intentionally or accidentally) to allow some species to expand into new areas? Who's to say that humans have any role at all in some cases, to protect, prevent or be the cause of such movement of species populations? Why is it that nature must be preserved in the exact way it was when we discovered it? The answer is in nature itself. Survival of the fittest is the only rule applied. Anything else is human emotional response to things we truly shouldn't try to control. I once saw an interview with a local county park ranger. The ranger discussed plans with the news reporter to destroy some trees that had grown on a previously bare hill. What harm did the trees cause? They where supplanting native species. But, as mentioned, the location they grew was previously bare, so which native trees were being displaced? Additionally, this world is about survival of the fittest. Why should humans interfere with that process when humans are negligibly impacted?
III
What if new species where to suddenly appear? With the current conservationist's mindset, new species would need to be destroyed in favor of the current state of things. Crazy? It's already happening. A newly discovered type of ocean based alga has been growing just off shore in Southern California and in the Mediterranean Sea. Granted, this isn't an actual new species (yet) and it has the potential to become a pest to human interests, but as it stands now, it appears that evolution is taking its course through survival of the fittest. Humans have a two part role in the spread of this species. First, we have been warming Earth's environment for many years, and new species are likely to emerge to adapt to the new environmental realities. Second, we are very effective as transporting species from one ecosystem to another very quickly, giving old species the chance to become something new, as in the case of this alga.
IIII
Two humpback whales (presumably a mother and its calf) have recently swum up the Sacramento River in Northern California. There's been a ton of sensational Media coverage. The first thing interested scientists start talking about? "How are we going to rescue these poor lost whales?" What rubbish! Almost everyday the news reported a new reason why the whales must be rescued.
1. "They are lost and need to find their way back to the ocean before they starve!" This is nonsense. Adult humpback whales fast at this time of year, feeding off of their own blubber. The mother feeds the calf with milk sourced from the same.
2. "It appears that one of the whales was catch in a fishing net and needs help getting back to the ocean!" To the best of my knowledge, fishing nets of the size needed to snare a humpback whale aren't even allowed in the Sacramento River as they would likely interfere with industrial shipping, which has the right of way in all waterways. Not only that, both whales have been swimming freely since they arrived.
3. "It appears that the mother has a huge gash caused by a boat propeller and needs help finding her way back to the ocean so the salt water could help naturally heal the injury." Within the same news report, the reporter admits that the injury couldn't be deep enough to adversely impact the whale in any way (didn't even cut through the outer layer of blubber). Not only that, both whales have been filmed over and over in recent days swimming along the surface, and no such gashes are even visible.
All of these were excuses that some interested parties have been trying to propagandize in order to have public support for trying to remove the whales from the river. Some of the efforts have been ill-thought out. The first attempt was to use male humpback whale songs to lure the duo out of the river. Umm, correct me if I'm wrong, but this humpback mother has already mated and is raising a calf. Why would she swim to a male humpback song? Also, each whale comes from particular groups that sing in different dialects. Having a song from a male singing in the wrong dialect is exactly like trying to talk to an English speaking person by showing them a newscast spoken in Japanese. Needless to say, the two humpback swam away from the recorded whale songs that were piped into the river waters.
What if humpbacks are starting their way towards a fresh water river dwelling evolutionary path and we humans are interfering with that natural progression? I hinted at the real reason people wanted to remove the whales above. It's not because they have the whales' interests at heart. They are using Conservation as a cover story to their real intentions.
These are anecdotal tellings of recent events of environmentalism out of control, being used by a select few to support their own hidden agendas. 1. We are all told we can make a difference individually. There's a budding environmentalism technology industry starting up. They are trying to create the need for their existence so they can get support from the government via public funds and investment money. 2. The park ranger needs justification for his job, so claims to have a need to protect native trees against supposed invading trees that aren't actually growing anywhere near the natives. 3. New species can potentially become pests that interfere with human interests, so when they do appear, only the ones that adversely affect us get attention. 4. Conservation is used as a cover story for business related agenda when it suits industry.
I'm for environmentalism tempered by reasoned thought. Human population on Earth is expanding an at ever increasing rate. We have to mold this planet; gearing towards our survival. This involves preserving the environment is some cases, and creating new environments for our habitation in other cases. We need to do what is in our best interests to find a new equilibrium with nature. This is our nature, and it is in the best interests of our survival if we are to be as fit as we believe ourselves to be.
It is true that each of us does contribute to the overall effect that humans have on the environment. It is not so true that individual actions taken by each one of us can have a counter-effect. We act as a force collectively. For us to counter our negative impact on the environment, we must collectively act.
The term "Invasion Species" is use to describe a species that somehow arrives and often thrives in an area where it did not previously exist (non-native). Invasion species can be animals, plants or other types of lifeforms. In the past few decades, scientists and other conservationists have taken upon themselves to somehow magically know that all invasion species must somehow be stopped. Conservationists often feel that every remaining natural environment must be absolutely preserved in the manner in which they believed it originally was prior to human influence. This is pure human arrogance and is not based on factual examination of nature. Who's to say that humans are not playing a natural role by introducing species to new areas or adjusting the environment (intentionally or accidentally) to allow some species to expand into new areas? Who's to say that humans have any role at all in some cases, to protect, prevent or be the cause of such movement of species populations? Why is it that nature must be preserved in the exact way it was when we discovered it? The answer is in nature itself. Survival of the fittest is the only rule applied. Anything else is human emotional response to things we truly shouldn't try to control. I once saw an interview with a local county park ranger. The ranger discussed plans with the news reporter to destroy some trees that had grown on a previously bare hill. What harm did the trees cause? They where supplanting native species. But, as mentioned, the location they grew was previously bare, so which native trees were being displaced? Additionally, this world is about survival of the fittest. Why should humans interfere with that process when humans are negligibly impacted?
What if new species where to suddenly appear? With the current conservationist's mindset, new species would need to be destroyed in favor of the current state of things. Crazy? It's already happening. A newly discovered type of ocean based alga has been growing just off shore in Southern California and in the Mediterranean Sea. Granted, this isn't an actual new species (yet) and it has the potential to become a pest to human interests, but as it stands now, it appears that evolution is taking its course through survival of the fittest. Humans have a two part role in the spread of this species. First, we have been warming Earth's environment for many years, and new species are likely to emerge to adapt to the new environmental realities. Second, we are very effective as transporting species from one ecosystem to another very quickly, giving old species the chance to become something new, as in the case of this alga.
Two humpback whales (presumably a mother and its calf) have recently swum up the Sacramento River in Northern California. There's been a ton of sensational Media coverage. The first thing interested scientists start talking about? "How are we going to rescue these poor lost whales?" What rubbish! Almost everyday the news reported a new reason why the whales must be rescued.
1. "They are lost and need to find their way back to the ocean before they starve!" This is nonsense. Adult humpback whales fast at this time of year, feeding off of their own blubber. The mother feeds the calf with milk sourced from the same.
2. "It appears that one of the whales was catch in a fishing net and needs help getting back to the ocean!" To the best of my knowledge, fishing nets of the size needed to snare a humpback whale aren't even allowed in the Sacramento River as they would likely interfere with industrial shipping, which has the right of way in all waterways. Not only that, both whales have been swimming freely since they arrived.
3. "It appears that the mother has a huge gash caused by a boat propeller and needs help finding her way back to the ocean so the salt water could help naturally heal the injury." Within the same news report, the reporter admits that the injury couldn't be deep enough to adversely impact the whale in any way (didn't even cut through the outer layer of blubber). Not only that, both whales have been filmed over and over in recent days swimming along the surface, and no such gashes are even visible.
All of these were excuses that some interested parties have been trying to propagandize in order to have public support for trying to remove the whales from the river. Some of the efforts have been ill-thought out. The first attempt was to use male humpback whale songs to lure the duo out of the river. Umm, correct me if I'm wrong, but this humpback mother has already mated and is raising a calf. Why would she swim to a male humpback song? Also, each whale comes from particular groups that sing in different dialects. Having a song from a male singing in the wrong dialect is exactly like trying to talk to an English speaking person by showing them a newscast spoken in Japanese. Needless to say, the two humpback swam away from the recorded whale songs that were piped into the river waters.
What if humpbacks are starting their way towards a fresh water river dwelling evolutionary path and we humans are interfering with that natural progression? I hinted at the real reason people wanted to remove the whales above. It's not because they have the whales' interests at heart. They are using Conservation as a cover story to their real intentions.
These are anecdotal tellings of recent events of environmentalism out of control, being used by a select few to support their own hidden agendas. 1. We are all told we can make a difference individually. There's a budding environmentalism technology industry starting up. They are trying to create the need for their existence so they can get support from the government via public funds and investment money. 2. The park ranger needs justification for his job, so claims to have a need to protect native trees against supposed invading trees that aren't actually growing anywhere near the natives. 3. New species can potentially become pests that interfere with human interests, so when they do appear, only the ones that adversely affect us get attention. 4. Conservation is used as a cover story for business related agenda when it suits industry.
I'm for environmentalism tempered by reasoned thought. Human population on Earth is expanding an at ever increasing rate. We have to mold this planet; gearing towards our survival. This involves preserving the environment is some cases, and creating new environments for our habitation in other cases. We need to do what is in our best interests to find a new equilibrium with nature. This is our nature, and it is in the best interests of our survival if we are to be as fit as we believe ourselves to be.
Friday, May 11, 2007
My cuzins wedding
My cuzin’s wedding was fun. I’ve never been in the wedding party before. One funny story is that the groom was all hella nervous and stressed out. The bride (my cuzin) was running late. I found groom outside in front of the church and was like, “Have your seen her yet?” He stressedly replied, “No, she’s running late!” “Well, your not supposed to see her before the wedding today anyway. Go hide!” Just after he darts back into the church, my cuzin shows up, hops out of the car and runs into the church. She ran over to the bridal staging room. Just as she enters, I hear a couple of exclamations. I look to see groom covering his eyes coming out of the room as the bride enters. He was all, “I didn’t see anything! I didn’t see you!” as he walks right by her with his eyes covered. So basically, when I told him to go hide to avoid seeing his bride, he decided the best place to be was in the very room where the bride was supposed to be!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)