The rush to make money has once again worsened an existing problem.
The U.N., and others, is warning the world that water resources, already strained by over population, will become even more scarce from the increased production of corn and other crops for biofuels.
Also, since more corn is being sold to biofuel producers, diverting it away from food producers, the price of corn for food is increasing. The price of every other crop that is being diverted away from traditional uses to biofuel production is going up as well.
Winners and losers? In the short term, the winners are the farmers who convert their lands to grow more palm trees, more sugar cane, more of anything that biofuel producers will buy. In the long term, the losers are those very same farmers, along with anyone else who requires food. It may sound like a bit of an over-simplification and melodramatic, but it is true.
These problems and others, such as increased pollution from the increased use of synthetic fertilizers to support the additional crops and the conversion of forests into agricultural lands, have been discussed in length by ecologists, scientists, farmers, food producers, environmentalists and bloggers who can see beyond the need to make an extra buck, for quite some time now.
I don’t mean to get down on those poor countries who are struggling to make more money. They need to eat too. But their shortsightedness is going to affect everyone else. Using more land that hastens the shortage of one of our most limited resources and polluting it even more borders on lunacy.
The use of biofuels is a double-edged sword. It is better for the environment than fossil fuels and it increases energy security for many countries. The pitfalls affect social as well as environmental issues.
New studies from scientists, private agencies and governments are saying biofuels could do more harm than good. Instead of helping the environment, deforestation to grow more energy crops is increasing the threat of global warming.
Converting more land to agricultural use will prevent an ever increasing population from finding land to build homes on.
Pollution from synthetic fertilizers creates the need for more water purification systems which takes up more land.
There needs to be controls put in place to decrease the competition of agricultural lands in order to maintain a percentage of land for food production only. Developing countries will benefit most from this.
We need to look at long term solutions and not jump on the first immediate answer. How many times have individuals been burned in their personal lives by doing exactly this? When are we going to learn from our mistakes. This mistake is global and will have global consequences.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Drug use is violence
Drug violence in other countries is spurred on by American citizens.
There is no denying it, drug use in this country directly supports murder and other violence in the countries where the drugs come from. Drug use in this country supports murder and other violence in this country.
Gangs are supported directly and indirectly by our drug use (not just heroin or methamphetamine or marijuana or cocaine, but ecstasy and steroids too). You can access any news source in the world and read about how drug trafficking has claimed another life, either by taking the drug or killing to control the traffic of the drug.
People find themselves doing things for drugs that they never would have considered doing before their drug addiction. Stealing from others, prostituting themselves, submitting their free will. These are extremes that we have all heard of that are definitive reasons against drug use. Those ‘casual’ drug users who haven’t reached these extremes are just as guilty of sustaining the drug trade and therefore the violence that supports it.
Is the high worth it? People who do drugs do so for a few very selfish reasons. They want to ‘feel good’, they want to escape from reality, they do it because their friends do it and therefore think it is ‘cool’ to be one of the crowd.
Our legal system is not curtailing drug use. The threat of jail time or financial loss due to fines or losing a job or even their family and the stigma that goes with these losses is not enough to stop most drug users.
Society is approaching the illegal use of drugs from the wrong direction. Education is not working. Scare tactics don’t work. Drug users come from loving families that communicate with each other as well as from abusive households so that isn’t working either.
A personal choice. The potential user needs to ask whether doing this drug is going to improve my life. And I don’t mean in the way that it provides a temporary escape. This is not improving anything. I mean, is doing drugs going to make me a better person. It might make you feel like you are the ‘life of the party’ but again, that is only temporary and it comes at a very high price. What if the answer is ‘I don’t care if it makes me a better person’?
Too many young people are getting sucked into the mystique of the drug culture. The glamour needs to be dispelled. Whatever draw there is to starting drugs that first time needs to be identified and examined so that we can finally put a halt to the useless and expensive incarceration of the user (save tax dollars by not having to support them while in jail), clear space in rehab centers for others, lessen the demand for drugs so gangs in foreign countries and the U.S. cannot make a profit from drug traffic.
Afghanistan provides 90 percent of the world’s opium because it brings more money to farmers than growing food crops; Argentina, Peru, Bolivia and Colombia are increasing their coca production because they make more money on this than from food crops; Suriname has become a transshipment base for South American cocaine to the world; Myanmar is directly benefits from illegal drug traffic; Mexico benefits from drug trafficking.
What is it going to take to get U.S. citizens to see beyond their own personal desires to get high and recognize the effect they are having on those people who choose to become involved in the drug trade?
Stronger role models would defiantly help. Finding value in yourself will help the desire to not become a junky. Giving support to other people who need it to feel better about themselves can go a long toward finding that valuable side of you. Encouragement and support from family and friends can make a great deal of difference in valuing yourself.
We are the cause and effect. And as such, we hold all the power to change it. Please, lets not add to the problem.
The thing is that after coming back down, reality is still there. And possibly worse because you didn’t tackle whatever it is that made you want to get high in the first place.
Here is a list of drug treatment centers for yourself or someone you love. It is not too late.
Here is a list of support groups for ex-drug users.
Here is a website for parents of a drug user.
There is no denying it, drug use in this country directly supports murder and other violence in the countries where the drugs come from. Drug use in this country supports murder and other violence in this country.
Gangs are supported directly and indirectly by our drug use (not just heroin or methamphetamine or marijuana or cocaine, but ecstasy and steroids too). You can access any news source in the world and read about how drug trafficking has claimed another life, either by taking the drug or killing to control the traffic of the drug.
People find themselves doing things for drugs that they never would have considered doing before their drug addiction. Stealing from others, prostituting themselves, submitting their free will. These are extremes that we have all heard of that are definitive reasons against drug use. Those ‘casual’ drug users who haven’t reached these extremes are just as guilty of sustaining the drug trade and therefore the violence that supports it.
Is the high worth it? People who do drugs do so for a few very selfish reasons. They want to ‘feel good’, they want to escape from reality, they do it because their friends do it and therefore think it is ‘cool’ to be one of the crowd.
Our legal system is not curtailing drug use. The threat of jail time or financial loss due to fines or losing a job or even their family and the stigma that goes with these losses is not enough to stop most drug users.
Society is approaching the illegal use of drugs from the wrong direction. Education is not working. Scare tactics don’t work. Drug users come from loving families that communicate with each other as well as from abusive households so that isn’t working either.
A personal choice. The potential user needs to ask whether doing this drug is going to improve my life. And I don’t mean in the way that it provides a temporary escape. This is not improving anything. I mean, is doing drugs going to make me a better person. It might make you feel like you are the ‘life of the party’ but again, that is only temporary and it comes at a very high price. What if the answer is ‘I don’t care if it makes me a better person’?
Too many young people are getting sucked into the mystique of the drug culture. The glamour needs to be dispelled. Whatever draw there is to starting drugs that first time needs to be identified and examined so that we can finally put a halt to the useless and expensive incarceration of the user (save tax dollars by not having to support them while in jail), clear space in rehab centers for others, lessen the demand for drugs so gangs in foreign countries and the U.S. cannot make a profit from drug traffic.
Afghanistan provides 90 percent of the world’s opium because it brings more money to farmers than growing food crops; Argentina, Peru, Bolivia and Colombia are increasing their coca production because they make more money on this than from food crops; Suriname has become a transshipment base for South American cocaine to the world; Myanmar is directly benefits from illegal drug traffic; Mexico benefits from drug trafficking.
What is it going to take to get U.S. citizens to see beyond their own personal desires to get high and recognize the effect they are having on those people who choose to become involved in the drug trade?
Stronger role models would defiantly help. Finding value in yourself will help the desire to not become a junky. Giving support to other people who need it to feel better about themselves can go a long toward finding that valuable side of you. Encouragement and support from family and friends can make a great deal of difference in valuing yourself.
We are the cause and effect. And as such, we hold all the power to change it. Please, lets not add to the problem.
The thing is that after coming back down, reality is still there. And possibly worse because you didn’t tackle whatever it is that made you want to get high in the first place.
Here is a list of drug treatment centers for yourself or someone you love. It is not too late.
Here is a list of support groups for ex-drug users.
Here is a website for parents of a drug user.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
State’s are forced to address immigration issue
U.S. states are enacting immigration laws because the federal government won’t do it. Border states are fed up with federal governments inaction and have begun passing strict immigration laws that are pushing immigrants further north. This is only delaying the Fed’s inevitable involvement and is basically forcing illegals to leave the state to become someone elses problem.
Arizona recently passed legislation to punish business owners who hire illegals, Oklahoma passed legislation to punish anyone harboring or transporting illegals.
Many states are passing or proposing legislation to make English the official language of their state. This, to me seems absolutely ludicrous, that an American state has to pass a law to make our native language the only official language.
Worker shortages are adversely affecting struggling businesses, immigrants are afraid of being on the street for fear of being arrested. This country is becoming likened to Nazi Germany’s treatment of Jews.
People often use the argument that we Americans were once illegal immigrants and that we have forsaken our heritage. This is a gross over-simplification of this situation. When we arrived on these shores, this country was largely uninhabited. There was no organized society of taxpayers. The was no established economic group being threatened by persons trying to take advantage of it without supporting it.
America grew out of the promise of religious freedom, of freedom of persecution, of promise of financial security, and now that this great undertaking has proven itself successful we are fearful of foreigners undermining these promises and freedoms by partaking of the advantages without paying for them.
We are a caring nation, usually the first to spring to action to offer aid and assistance to any natural disaster no matter where in the world it strikes. But why should we give away what we have struggled and sacrificed for to someone who has not helped us achieve it?
I have personally been struggling with this question for years. On the one hand, a good neighbor should extend help to those less fortunate, on the other hand if you see a trend of being taken advantage of you come to see yourself as a fool to continue offering that help.
There is a belief that you should do everything you can to help yourself and not rely on others to do it all for you. This individual self reliance is what has made America strong. Those people living here in America who would rather live off of other’s generosity are a detriment to this society. They are counterproductive and create a financial and psychological drain on hard working American taxpayers. There are American citizens that fall into this category just as there are those who are not citizens that are guilty of this behavior.
Racism has nothing to do with this. If you can come into this country, legally, and offer yourself as a citizen of this country, learn our language, work to improve this society without bringing it down then you are welcome.
If you come into this country to prey on others, to take jobs away from American citizens and then send all your money back to your country without paying our taxes then you are not welcome. It is as simple as that. Americans that give jobs to foreigners instead of American citizens for the sake of saving themselves money are un-American, low-life leeches and should be ferreted out and punished.
The federal government needs to step up and create meaningful legislation to help everyone involved instead of leaving it up to individual states that only seek to push the problem off onto someone else. So far states have ‘solved’ their immigration problem by using punishment against its own citizens. This is not a neighborly way to behave and sadly leans on the fascist form of government. Forcing an individual state to address this problem causes the neighboring state to enact similar legislation which will push the immigrant into yet another state and sets a dangerous path of fascist precedents. Where are they to go at this point?
Building that wall is enclosing us in as well as keeping others out. I don’t think this is the way to go. It is a poor substitute for federal political action.
Arizona recently passed legislation to punish business owners who hire illegals, Oklahoma passed legislation to punish anyone harboring or transporting illegals.
Many states are passing or proposing legislation to make English the official language of their state. This, to me seems absolutely ludicrous, that an American state has to pass a law to make our native language the only official language.
Worker shortages are adversely affecting struggling businesses, immigrants are afraid of being on the street for fear of being arrested. This country is becoming likened to Nazi Germany’s treatment of Jews.
People often use the argument that we Americans were once illegal immigrants and that we have forsaken our heritage. This is a gross over-simplification of this situation. When we arrived on these shores, this country was largely uninhabited. There was no organized society of taxpayers. The was no established economic group being threatened by persons trying to take advantage of it without supporting it.
America grew out of the promise of religious freedom, of freedom of persecution, of promise of financial security, and now that this great undertaking has proven itself successful we are fearful of foreigners undermining these promises and freedoms by partaking of the advantages without paying for them.
We are a caring nation, usually the first to spring to action to offer aid and assistance to any natural disaster no matter where in the world it strikes. But why should we give away what we have struggled and sacrificed for to someone who has not helped us achieve it?
I have personally been struggling with this question for years. On the one hand, a good neighbor should extend help to those less fortunate, on the other hand if you see a trend of being taken advantage of you come to see yourself as a fool to continue offering that help.
There is a belief that you should do everything you can to help yourself and not rely on others to do it all for you. This individual self reliance is what has made America strong. Those people living here in America who would rather live off of other’s generosity are a detriment to this society. They are counterproductive and create a financial and psychological drain on hard working American taxpayers. There are American citizens that fall into this category just as there are those who are not citizens that are guilty of this behavior.
Racism has nothing to do with this. If you can come into this country, legally, and offer yourself as a citizen of this country, learn our language, work to improve this society without bringing it down then you are welcome.
If you come into this country to prey on others, to take jobs away from American citizens and then send all your money back to your country without paying our taxes then you are not welcome. It is as simple as that. Americans that give jobs to foreigners instead of American citizens for the sake of saving themselves money are un-American, low-life leeches and should be ferreted out and punished.
The federal government needs to step up and create meaningful legislation to help everyone involved instead of leaving it up to individual states that only seek to push the problem off onto someone else. So far states have ‘solved’ their immigration problem by using punishment against its own citizens. This is not a neighborly way to behave and sadly leans on the fascist form of government. Forcing an individual state to address this problem causes the neighboring state to enact similar legislation which will push the immigrant into yet another state and sets a dangerous path of fascist precedents. Where are they to go at this point?
Building that wall is enclosing us in as well as keeping others out. I don’t think this is the way to go. It is a poor substitute for federal political action.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Getting high has many hidden costs
How many times have you been to the zoo? Any zoo. I have been to several zoos across this country, multiple times. I have never seen any animal become aggressive towards any human. Oh, I have heard stories of an animal attacking or becoming aggressive with a feeder or trainer, while in the enclosure with the animal, but not towards the general public.
This recent case involving the tiger that attacked and killed a teenager at the San Francisco zoo illustrates several behaviors that humans continue to engage in, that, in this case, resulted in the death of a young man, the death of a wild animal, wasted police manpower, wasted taxpayers money, allowing more lawyers to peddle their trade of lies and shifting blame, and nearly caused a zoo to lose accreditation.
All this, because three men felt they could not enjoy themselves on a visit to the zoo without getting ‘high’. They ignored warning signs by taunting wild animals, they shunned common sense by taunting wild animals, they broke the law by being drunk in public, they broke the law by possessing and using illegal drugs, they are helping to keep the illegal drug trade alive (one of our biggest roadblocks to making this society as strong and productive as it could be) and they paid a terrible price. But so did a bunch of other people.
The public can no longer enjoy the pleasure of seeing that tiger at the zoo because of the careless and stupid actions of these three young men.
On Christmas day, 2007, there were reports of a group of men taunting animals at the zoo. The public saw these actions and reported it to the authorities. Carlos Sousa Jr, 17, Paul Dhaliwal, 19, and Kulbir Dhaliwal 24, were witnessed yelling at the tiger, waving their arms aggressively and standing on the railing of the enclosure. This, obviously, must have been acceptable behavior from their alcohol induced point of view.
What this tiger saw was some humans exhibiting some unusual and extraordinary behavior directed towards it and the tiger reacted.
Once the animal climbed over the fence, an action he never had reason to attempt previously, he attacked the provokers. Just wild animal reactionary behavior.
The lawyers say, “if the wall was higher this would not have happened”. I say bullshit to that. If these guys had not acted like damned fools the tiger would not have acted like he did. If you are going to use hindsight for cause/effect then go the whole way. If we didn’t live in a society where we thought it acceptable to cage wild animals, this would not have happened. If we didn’t live in a society where lawyers are allowed to lie to keep criminals and wrong doers from being punished, these lawyers would not make stupid statements like this. Well, actually, this is a real stretch because they would still lie due to their twisted view of what justice is.
After these guy’s actions had been reported to zoo authorities, and after the tiger reacted to their taunting, their cries for help were ignored. Why? Because since these intoxicated men had exhibited such rowdy behavior no one believed their story of an escaped animal. This is just human nature. We figure they are drunk or mentally unstable, so how can we take them seriously about anything? We tend to ignore people who have shown themselves to be idiots. Plain and simple. How can anyone know when these guys calls for help is serious after displaying such idiotic behavior? There is no way to know unless witnesses verify their need for help. This is another good reason not to drink and behave like children I public.
After it was verified that their story was indeed true, calls went out to 911 and help did arrive.
Their lawyer is trying to put the blame back onto the zoo by saying if help had arrived sooner the boy would still be alive. In reality the blame lies with the men themselves due to their previous behavior. If they had not acted like fools then their story would have been taken seriously when it was first told. This action by their lawyer is just another underhanded trick they like to use called shifting the blame and placing doubt where it does not belong. So, yeah, we can all speculate. The bottom line is they alone are responsible for their actions. They alone chose to ignore common sense and tease a wild animal. It doesn’t matter that the animal was caged it is simply a stupid thing to so.
Paramedics arrived on the scene as quickly as they could after receiving the call and found a large puncture wound in the victims neck. It is doubtful he could have survived the attack if they had gotten there any sooner.
Police found the tiger sitting down not bothering anyone and when they approached it got up and moved away. Just as you would expect it to. At this point, they claim it started to attack another person, which I personally think is bull. They saw this as justification for killing the animal rather than try to get it back into the enclosure, a particularly daunting task I am sure.
How long has this tiger lived in this enclosure without being a threat to the public? As a result of these idiots actions, the zoo will have to spend more money to protect the animals and the public from fools such as these guys.
Toxicology results show Paul Dhaliwal’s blood alcohol content at 0.16, twice the legal limit. Why is it still acceptable to go out into public drunk? His brother, Kulbir, was within the legal limit, which showed some responsibility on his part since he drove them to the zoo. But still, he was drinking and driving.
Upon first being questioned they both lied about taunting the tiger or any other animal, even though many others had reported them doing exactly this. They have finally admitted to this only after they realized other people actually saw them do it and told authorities. They thought is was okay to lie to authorities. Another problem with this society, in general. They thought everyone would believe that they were innocently strolling past the tiger enclosure when it lunged at them. They actually believed that the thousands of people who have walked past this same enclosure without any indication of aggressiveness on the part of the tiger would believe their story.
Their lies brought about the possibility of a law suit against the zoo. Did they think there would not be an investigation? Why would they risk being found out that not only were they stupid enough to do what they did but would also be found to be liars and lawbreakers by being intoxicated in public?
I know, I know, they were trying to cover their own butts. But this is exactly my point. If they had told the truth to begin with, accepting their own responsibility, then the taxpayers would not have had to pay for the investigation and these lawyers would not have been given the chance to participate in their lies by trying to shift the blame from them to the zoo.
This lawyer could have kept his mouth shut and waited for the investigation to conclude to determine whether or not his client was lying. But no, he had to back up their story in the press. Is he stupid enough to believe their story of innocence or just jumping at the chance to get his name in the paper even if it is based on a lie? This is another problem with this society, lawyers who try cases in the media in an attempt to cover up these guys responsibility.
Where is the common sense and common decency that we are born with? Where is the intelligence that we humans know these are not actions to be taken against a wild animal and against the society that we live amongst?
Oh, and yes, there was marijuana involved. Can’t these guys get high enough with just one or the other? Marijuana is supposed to make you mellow not stupid like alcohol does. The waste of money spent on ingesting two different drugs that counteract each other just shows another level of stupidity and weakness.
When they told police they each had a couple of shots of vodka, everyone knows instinctively that ‘a couple of shots’ always translates to more than just ‘a couple of shots’. So they lied to police about this as well.
Lack of respect for authorities, and themselves, and personal weaknesses resulted in the death of their friend and the outing of themselves in public as liars. Was getting ‘high’ worth it?
This recent case involving the tiger that attacked and killed a teenager at the San Francisco zoo illustrates several behaviors that humans continue to engage in, that, in this case, resulted in the death of a young man, the death of a wild animal, wasted police manpower, wasted taxpayers money, allowing more lawyers to peddle their trade of lies and shifting blame, and nearly caused a zoo to lose accreditation.
All this, because three men felt they could not enjoy themselves on a visit to the zoo without getting ‘high’. They ignored warning signs by taunting wild animals, they shunned common sense by taunting wild animals, they broke the law by being drunk in public, they broke the law by possessing and using illegal drugs, they are helping to keep the illegal drug trade alive (one of our biggest roadblocks to making this society as strong and productive as it could be) and they paid a terrible price. But so did a bunch of other people.
The public can no longer enjoy the pleasure of seeing that tiger at the zoo because of the careless and stupid actions of these three young men.
On Christmas day, 2007, there were reports of a group of men taunting animals at the zoo. The public saw these actions and reported it to the authorities. Carlos Sousa Jr, 17, Paul Dhaliwal, 19, and Kulbir Dhaliwal 24, were witnessed yelling at the tiger, waving their arms aggressively and standing on the railing of the enclosure. This, obviously, must have been acceptable behavior from their alcohol induced point of view.
What this tiger saw was some humans exhibiting some unusual and extraordinary behavior directed towards it and the tiger reacted.
Once the animal climbed over the fence, an action he never had reason to attempt previously, he attacked the provokers. Just wild animal reactionary behavior.
The lawyers say, “if the wall was higher this would not have happened”. I say bullshit to that. If these guys had not acted like damned fools the tiger would not have acted like he did. If you are going to use hindsight for cause/effect then go the whole way. If we didn’t live in a society where we thought it acceptable to cage wild animals, this would not have happened. If we didn’t live in a society where lawyers are allowed to lie to keep criminals and wrong doers from being punished, these lawyers would not make stupid statements like this. Well, actually, this is a real stretch because they would still lie due to their twisted view of what justice is.
After these guy’s actions had been reported to zoo authorities, and after the tiger reacted to their taunting, their cries for help were ignored. Why? Because since these intoxicated men had exhibited such rowdy behavior no one believed their story of an escaped animal. This is just human nature. We figure they are drunk or mentally unstable, so how can we take them seriously about anything? We tend to ignore people who have shown themselves to be idiots. Plain and simple. How can anyone know when these guys calls for help is serious after displaying such idiotic behavior? There is no way to know unless witnesses verify their need for help. This is another good reason not to drink and behave like children I public.
After it was verified that their story was indeed true, calls went out to 911 and help did arrive.
Their lawyer is trying to put the blame back onto the zoo by saying if help had arrived sooner the boy would still be alive. In reality the blame lies with the men themselves due to their previous behavior. If they had not acted like fools then their story would have been taken seriously when it was first told. This action by their lawyer is just another underhanded trick they like to use called shifting the blame and placing doubt where it does not belong. So, yeah, we can all speculate. The bottom line is they alone are responsible for their actions. They alone chose to ignore common sense and tease a wild animal. It doesn’t matter that the animal was caged it is simply a stupid thing to so.
Paramedics arrived on the scene as quickly as they could after receiving the call and found a large puncture wound in the victims neck. It is doubtful he could have survived the attack if they had gotten there any sooner.
Police found the tiger sitting down not bothering anyone and when they approached it got up and moved away. Just as you would expect it to. At this point, they claim it started to attack another person, which I personally think is bull. They saw this as justification for killing the animal rather than try to get it back into the enclosure, a particularly daunting task I am sure.
How long has this tiger lived in this enclosure without being a threat to the public? As a result of these idiots actions, the zoo will have to spend more money to protect the animals and the public from fools such as these guys.
Toxicology results show Paul Dhaliwal’s blood alcohol content at 0.16, twice the legal limit. Why is it still acceptable to go out into public drunk? His brother, Kulbir, was within the legal limit, which showed some responsibility on his part since he drove them to the zoo. But still, he was drinking and driving.
Upon first being questioned they both lied about taunting the tiger or any other animal, even though many others had reported them doing exactly this. They have finally admitted to this only after they realized other people actually saw them do it and told authorities. They thought is was okay to lie to authorities. Another problem with this society, in general. They thought everyone would believe that they were innocently strolling past the tiger enclosure when it lunged at them. They actually believed that the thousands of people who have walked past this same enclosure without any indication of aggressiveness on the part of the tiger would believe their story.
Their lies brought about the possibility of a law suit against the zoo. Did they think there would not be an investigation? Why would they risk being found out that not only were they stupid enough to do what they did but would also be found to be liars and lawbreakers by being intoxicated in public?
I know, I know, they were trying to cover their own butts. But this is exactly my point. If they had told the truth to begin with, accepting their own responsibility, then the taxpayers would not have had to pay for the investigation and these lawyers would not have been given the chance to participate in their lies by trying to shift the blame from them to the zoo.
This lawyer could have kept his mouth shut and waited for the investigation to conclude to determine whether or not his client was lying. But no, he had to back up their story in the press. Is he stupid enough to believe their story of innocence or just jumping at the chance to get his name in the paper even if it is based on a lie? This is another problem with this society, lawyers who try cases in the media in an attempt to cover up these guys responsibility.
Where is the common sense and common decency that we are born with? Where is the intelligence that we humans know these are not actions to be taken against a wild animal and against the society that we live amongst?
Oh, and yes, there was marijuana involved. Can’t these guys get high enough with just one or the other? Marijuana is supposed to make you mellow not stupid like alcohol does. The waste of money spent on ingesting two different drugs that counteract each other just shows another level of stupidity and weakness.
When they told police they each had a couple of shots of vodka, everyone knows instinctively that ‘a couple of shots’ always translates to more than just ‘a couple of shots’. So they lied to police about this as well.
Lack of respect for authorities, and themselves, and personal weaknesses resulted in the death of their friend and the outing of themselves in public as liars. Was getting ‘high’ worth it?
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Cloned steaks and burgers, is it worth it?
The FDA just announced that they will not require tracking of cloned beef and have approved its sale to consumers. They basically have washed their hands of the entire debate.
Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with eating cloned meat products. There are no new chemicals introduced into the food chain by cloning an animal and clones are produced from naturally existing genetic material (no additives or enhancements).
Those approximately 30 percent of U.S. adults who say they won’t eat cloned meat regardless of FDA approval are simply objecting to science getting involved with creating a living ‘something’ that only nature should be allowed to create.
No disrespect is intended regarding these people’s choice but, a cloned animal provides the same edible meat as its progenitor.
The question of finding cloned meat in our food supply may be moot anyway because food producers say the process of creating cloned animals is too expensive and inefficient. Of course, the cost may come down in the future much like electronic products seem to get cheaper over time. Due to some unforeseen event that adversely affects our ‘natural’ food supply, cloning may become the best alternative and we will end up eating cloned meat anyway.
Once an animal has been cloned it’s offspring are just as natural as those from non-cloned animals, so, again, where’s the problem?
A senior member of the agricultural advocacy group, Center for Food Safety, said there is no way for the consumer to know they’re getting cloned meat or their offspring.
The process involves removing the nucleus from an egg and inserting the nucleus from the egg of a more desirable animal. The desirability of the animal can be based on several factors. If, for instance, you have a race horse that consistently wins races or a stud animal that generates a hefty revenue stream for the purposes of artificial insemination then these animals would be worth cloning. In the food chain, the desirability would be for an animal that can produce heavier weight or more milk (therefore creating more financial benefit). Likewise, if you have a chicken that is a mega-producer of quality eggs then why not make several hundred or several thousand of them?
Cloning came about to improve the chances over the old methods of selective breeding and artificial insemination.
The process, however, is far from perfect. The road from freshly cloned embryo to birth is fraught with errors. That's why so few implanted cloned embryos are actually born, and why so many of those end up dying young.
Dolly, for example, lasted just six years before dying from a progressive lung disease. Cloned pigs have a nasty habit of dropping dead from heart attacks. Cloned cows sometimes die shortly after birth -- and those are the lucky ones.
Washington Post's Rick Weiss described the outtakes of livestock clones this way:
Many are monstrously overweight -- several times their normal size -- and filled with fluids to the point of looking like they're about to burst. Others are born with normal bodies but big, hideous, so-called ‘bull heads.' Others look okay on the outside but have peculiar abnormalities of the heart, lungs or other organs -- including livers that are mysteriously filled with fat -- or defective thymus glands that blunt normal development of the animals' immune systems.
Those animals that are the result of successful cloning will not pass any genetic alterations to their offspring. So the question arises, why bother? Aside from show animals and fast horses there really isn’t any economical benefit for cloning. This is simply another aspect of science that some scientist feel the need to conquer. In other words, because we can do it, let’s perfect it. Perfection has not yet been achieved and it doesn’t look like it will be in the near future.
The biggest concern I have in creating herds of cloned, genetically identical cattle, or any other animal, is that any disease can wipe out an entire herd. Nature has many fail safe mechanisms in place to prevent the domination of one species over another and we, with our limited understanding of these natural rules, cannot begin to understand how and when a disease becomes ‘necessary’ from nature’s viewpoint.
This whole process subverts natural selection. Mankind has now stepped in and declared himself as the authority on which genetic material best suits our needs. In doing so, we are diluting the genetic diversity that is natures realm.
Cloning may have its place in reproducing show animals and sports animals, but it will never equal in-vitro fertilization for producing a better quality food product.
Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with eating cloned meat products. There are no new chemicals introduced into the food chain by cloning an animal and clones are produced from naturally existing genetic material (no additives or enhancements).
Those approximately 30 percent of U.S. adults who say they won’t eat cloned meat regardless of FDA approval are simply objecting to science getting involved with creating a living ‘something’ that only nature should be allowed to create.
No disrespect is intended regarding these people’s choice but, a cloned animal provides the same edible meat as its progenitor.
The question of finding cloned meat in our food supply may be moot anyway because food producers say the process of creating cloned animals is too expensive and inefficient. Of course, the cost may come down in the future much like electronic products seem to get cheaper over time. Due to some unforeseen event that adversely affects our ‘natural’ food supply, cloning may become the best alternative and we will end up eating cloned meat anyway.
Once an animal has been cloned it’s offspring are just as natural as those from non-cloned animals, so, again, where’s the problem?
A senior member of the agricultural advocacy group, Center for Food Safety, said there is no way for the consumer to know they’re getting cloned meat or their offspring.
The process involves removing the nucleus from an egg and inserting the nucleus from the egg of a more desirable animal. The desirability of the animal can be based on several factors. If, for instance, you have a race horse that consistently wins races or a stud animal that generates a hefty revenue stream for the purposes of artificial insemination then these animals would be worth cloning. In the food chain, the desirability would be for an animal that can produce heavier weight or more milk (therefore creating more financial benefit). Likewise, if you have a chicken that is a mega-producer of quality eggs then why not make several hundred or several thousand of them?
Cloning came about to improve the chances over the old methods of selective breeding and artificial insemination.
The process, however, is far from perfect. The road from freshly cloned embryo to birth is fraught with errors. That's why so few implanted cloned embryos are actually born, and why so many of those end up dying young.
Dolly, for example, lasted just six years before dying from a progressive lung disease. Cloned pigs have a nasty habit of dropping dead from heart attacks. Cloned cows sometimes die shortly after birth -- and those are the lucky ones.
Washington Post's Rick Weiss described the outtakes of livestock clones this way:
Many are monstrously overweight -- several times their normal size -- and filled with fluids to the point of looking like they're about to burst. Others are born with normal bodies but big, hideous, so-called ‘bull heads.' Others look okay on the outside but have peculiar abnormalities of the heart, lungs or other organs -- including livers that are mysteriously filled with fat -- or defective thymus glands that blunt normal development of the animals' immune systems.
Those animals that are the result of successful cloning will not pass any genetic alterations to their offspring. So the question arises, why bother? Aside from show animals and fast horses there really isn’t any economical benefit for cloning. This is simply another aspect of science that some scientist feel the need to conquer. In other words, because we can do it, let’s perfect it. Perfection has not yet been achieved and it doesn’t look like it will be in the near future.
The biggest concern I have in creating herds of cloned, genetically identical cattle, or any other animal, is that any disease can wipe out an entire herd. Nature has many fail safe mechanisms in place to prevent the domination of one species over another and we, with our limited understanding of these natural rules, cannot begin to understand how and when a disease becomes ‘necessary’ from nature’s viewpoint.
This whole process subverts natural selection. Mankind has now stepped in and declared himself as the authority on which genetic material best suits our needs. In doing so, we are diluting the genetic diversity that is natures realm.
Cloning may have its place in reproducing show animals and sports animals, but it will never equal in-vitro fertilization for producing a better quality food product.
Monday, January 14, 2008
What if God was one of us?
The song by Joan Osborne, ‘One of Us’ came up on my Winamp music player while I was playing random songs from my collection and it got me to thinking. If God did decide to ‘live’ amongst us how would he do it?
My first thought was that he would probably not want to live amongst a group of religious followers. He already knows how they view him. Of course, he could use the opportunity to ferret out the charlatans and hypocrites. I wonder how many ‘religious’ people would be left after that.
No, he would probably be able to ‘blend’ in better with the everyday people. Those who don’t go to regular church services or don’t even belong to any organized religion. This way He could tap into the ‘truer’ pulse of what people think of him.
Maybe He wouldn’t even care what people really think of him. He might just want to see first hand, so to speak, how people do get along down here on this planet.
The only true way to get into someone’s mind is to talk with them without them knowing who they were talking to. I’m sure if you knew you was talking to God in person you would not be able to be your true self.
The basic premise of the song, for those of you not familiar with it it, goes:
“What if God was one of us, just a slob like one of us, just a stranger on the bus, trying to make his way home.”
The song asks what would you ask Him if you had the chance?
I think I would ask him if he really cares which faith a person follows. Does it really matter how you believe in Him or even if you do or don’t. I would want to ask Him how He feels about people killing each other in His name.
I never could understand how anyone can believe in an entity that created the first two people, who then beget and begot the entire human race, could harbor any desire to kill what is, essentially, their own brother and sister. I would definitely want His opinion on this question.
If He did walk amongst us you would certainly have to rearrange your outlook on His existence. How would you handle having to deal with that? I mean, suddenly using His name in vain would probably taper off quite a bit. Don’t you think?
Would people actually start treating each other better? Would we actually honor the vows we make to each other in His name if it suddenly meant something more than mere words? Would the whole of Earth become a church now that He would be walking on it with us?
Of course, there would still be die-hard skeptics who would demand He perform some miracle just to prove He is who He claims.
Religious scholars would try to dominate His time and He would not be able to fulfill His purpose for walking among us as one of us.
No, I really don’t think He would want us to know if He was here.
As far fetched as this sounds, how would we truly know if He was here or not? Wouldn’t it be best to hedge our bets, just in case He is real?
What if we learned that He really can’t change anything, or ‘make’ things better. What if we find out that we alone have the ability to make our lives better or worse and what we can physically see and toucj truly is all there is? Would this free us to, together, strive harder to make it all work?
There really is a pecking order in nature. It is a very basic tenet that is present in every insect, mammal, bird, and reptile population that crawls on this planet. Wars, diseases, famines, global warming are all necessary devices to alleviate overcrowding. It really is the only way we can assure ourselves of not running out of resources and starving ourselves to death.
There isn’t anything we can do to change the attitudes of the assholes of the world, we can only deal with them as best we can and try to make our own lives as comfortable and worthwhile as possible. Hopefully, we can pull this off without getting too dinged up ourselves.
Just keep in mind, that if He is one of us then we should consider that anyone around us just might be Him.
My first thought was that he would probably not want to live amongst a group of religious followers. He already knows how they view him. Of course, he could use the opportunity to ferret out the charlatans and hypocrites. I wonder how many ‘religious’ people would be left after that.
No, he would probably be able to ‘blend’ in better with the everyday people. Those who don’t go to regular church services or don’t even belong to any organized religion. This way He could tap into the ‘truer’ pulse of what people think of him.
Maybe He wouldn’t even care what people really think of him. He might just want to see first hand, so to speak, how people do get along down here on this planet.
The only true way to get into someone’s mind is to talk with them without them knowing who they were talking to. I’m sure if you knew you was talking to God in person you would not be able to be your true self.
The basic premise of the song, for those of you not familiar with it it, goes:
“What if God was one of us, just a slob like one of us, just a stranger on the bus, trying to make his way home.”
The song asks what would you ask Him if you had the chance?
I think I would ask him if he really cares which faith a person follows. Does it really matter how you believe in Him or even if you do or don’t. I would want to ask Him how He feels about people killing each other in His name.
I never could understand how anyone can believe in an entity that created the first two people, who then beget and begot the entire human race, could harbor any desire to kill what is, essentially, their own brother and sister. I would definitely want His opinion on this question.
If He did walk amongst us you would certainly have to rearrange your outlook on His existence. How would you handle having to deal with that? I mean, suddenly using His name in vain would probably taper off quite a bit. Don’t you think?
Would people actually start treating each other better? Would we actually honor the vows we make to each other in His name if it suddenly meant something more than mere words? Would the whole of Earth become a church now that He would be walking on it with us?
Of course, there would still be die-hard skeptics who would demand He perform some miracle just to prove He is who He claims.
Religious scholars would try to dominate His time and He would not be able to fulfill His purpose for walking among us as one of us.
No, I really don’t think He would want us to know if He was here.
As far fetched as this sounds, how would we truly know if He was here or not? Wouldn’t it be best to hedge our bets, just in case He is real?
What if we learned that He really can’t change anything, or ‘make’ things better. What if we find out that we alone have the ability to make our lives better or worse and what we can physically see and toucj truly is all there is? Would this free us to, together, strive harder to make it all work?
There really is a pecking order in nature. It is a very basic tenet that is present in every insect, mammal, bird, and reptile population that crawls on this planet. Wars, diseases, famines, global warming are all necessary devices to alleviate overcrowding. It really is the only way we can assure ourselves of not running out of resources and starving ourselves to death.
There isn’t anything we can do to change the attitudes of the assholes of the world, we can only deal with them as best we can and try to make our own lives as comfortable and worthwhile as possible. Hopefully, we can pull this off without getting too dinged up ourselves.
Just keep in mind, that if He is one of us then we should consider that anyone around us just might be Him.
Beef recalled due to E. Coli, again?
Sound familiar? It is happening way to often despite USDA reports that the number of cases are down. How can the USDA support their findings in light of these following instances?
The reporting level on these cases was high, when they first appeared. But sources and causes of the contamination have not been identified. Why are we not told where the contamination is coming from and what is being done to protect us? We need follow-up questions to be asked, but I suppose that isn’t as ‘glamorous’ or as news worthy as a celebrity drunk driving ‘misadventure’.
Does the contamination start with the food crop itself? Is it due to improper handling of the food crop before the processor gets it or after? Is it the processing practice of the food? Are employees the source of the contamination (do you know how many people do not wash their hands after using the toilet? It is literally sickening.)
Is equipment not being cleaned properly? Are inspectors slacking in their duties that allows this contaminated food to get out the manufacturers control before the contamination is discovered?
These are serious questions that affect the safety of our food supply and we, the public, are not privy to any of this information, even when we dig for it ourselves.
Who takes the time to ask these questions? Main stream media sure doesn’t. When I called some of these companies for answers I was told, in every case, to talk to their public relations person and we all know what we get from these mouthpieces. Nothing but whitewash. Still we are left with the burning question, is the food I am about to consume going to make me sick?
These food recalls have affected product sold in grocery stores, delis and restaurants. No place can be considered safe.
The USDA is obviously overwhelmed in their duty to protect the general public. The responsibility falls to every single person who has anything to do with growing, handling, and processing our food. And somewhere along the line someone is letting us all down.
I have harped on this subject of personal responsibility to one’s job before. If anyone slacks off and underperforms in their assigned duty someone else invariably has to pay for it.
The guilty party needs to excuse themselves from their position and put someone in their place who will actually take some pride in what they do.
Sure, E. coli is naturally occurring, but, dammit, there are procedures in place to minimize its effects and someone is not doing their job. Period.
What's your opinion?
June 9, 2007 – 5.7 millions pounds of beef recalled in 11 states.
United Food Group LLC of Los Angeles, 14 people in six western states fallen ill.
Source of contamination none given.
June 8, 2007 – 40,000 pounds of beef recalled in 12 states.
Tyson Fresh Meats Inc of Springdale, no illnesses reported.
Source of contamination none given.
Jan 13, 2008 – 188,000 pounds of beef recalled nationwide.
Rochester Meat Co. of Rochester Minnesota, no data given on illnesses.
Source of contamination none given.
Jan 5, 2008 – 13,150 pounds of beef recalled in Detroit Michigan.
Mark’s Quality Meats, Inc of Detroit, no data given on illnesses.
Source of contamination none given.
Feb 14, 2007 – peanut butter recalled nationwide.
ConAgra Foods of Sylvester, Georgia, 300 illnesses reported.
Source of contamination none given.
Sept 29, 2007 – 21.7 million pounds of beef recalled in 8 states.
Topps Meat Company LLC of Elizabeth New Jersey, 25 illnesses under investigation.
Source of contamination: possibly Rancher’s Beef Ltd of Balzac, Alberta, Canada.
2002 – 27.4 million pounds of cooked sandwich meat recalled nationwide.
Pilgrim’s Pride of Philadelphia, PA, unknown number of illnesses.
Source of contamination none given.
1997 – 25 million pounds of beef recalled nationwide.
Hudson Foods of Columbus, Nebraska, 15 illnesses reported.
Source of contamination none given.
The reporting level on these cases was high, when they first appeared. But sources and causes of the contamination have not been identified. Why are we not told where the contamination is coming from and what is being done to protect us? We need follow-up questions to be asked, but I suppose that isn’t as ‘glamorous’ or as news worthy as a celebrity drunk driving ‘misadventure’.
Does the contamination start with the food crop itself? Is it due to improper handling of the food crop before the processor gets it or after? Is it the processing practice of the food? Are employees the source of the contamination (do you know how many people do not wash their hands after using the toilet? It is literally sickening.)
Is equipment not being cleaned properly? Are inspectors slacking in their duties that allows this contaminated food to get out the manufacturers control before the contamination is discovered?
These are serious questions that affect the safety of our food supply and we, the public, are not privy to any of this information, even when we dig for it ourselves.
Who takes the time to ask these questions? Main stream media sure doesn’t. When I called some of these companies for answers I was told, in every case, to talk to their public relations person and we all know what we get from these mouthpieces. Nothing but whitewash. Still we are left with the burning question, is the food I am about to consume going to make me sick?
These food recalls have affected product sold in grocery stores, delis and restaurants. No place can be considered safe.
The USDA is obviously overwhelmed in their duty to protect the general public. The responsibility falls to every single person who has anything to do with growing, handling, and processing our food. And somewhere along the line someone is letting us all down.
I have harped on this subject of personal responsibility to one’s job before. If anyone slacks off and underperforms in their assigned duty someone else invariably has to pay for it.
The guilty party needs to excuse themselves from their position and put someone in their place who will actually take some pride in what they do.
Sure, E. coli is naturally occurring, but, dammit, there are procedures in place to minimize its effects and someone is not doing their job. Period.
What's your opinion?
Sunday, January 13, 2008
AlmerSoft is a RIPOFF
I recently had a problem with this software provider who I have had a two year and a half history with. AlmerSoft provides a workable automated file backup that I purchased in March 2005.
Since then, until a recent computer failure in which I was forced to replace my motherboard, I have been backing up all of my data on a daily basis to a second hard drive.
When I had my computer meltdown, I was saved a lot of trouble by having this backup. And for this, AlmerSoft provided a life saving service.
The problem arose after getting my computer started again and reloading everything. AlmerBackup, the software in question, immediately told me that it was a demo version and would expire in thirty days.
I wrote to AlmerSoft to tell them that the registration key I was given back in March 2005 that activated my purchase of this software, no longer activates the product.
I waited several days without hearing any response.
I wrote them a second time, a third time, until I now have written them seven times! I sent requests for help using their support email system and I sent them email from my Yahoo account.
This whole process began Dec 6, 2007. Still I have not heard from them and my ‘demo’ version of the software I paid for is useless.
I have no idea how to get them to respond. I don’t know if they think I am trying to get something free from them. They refuse to respond so I am left in the dark.
They are still selling their product and if I knew who to send a complaint to I would.
The bottom line is that I want to warn as many people as possible to NOT buy their software because they will not support it.
I hope this gets out to enough people so that the word will finally get to them.
Please, Save yourself some money and buy from someone else.
Since then, until a recent computer failure in which I was forced to replace my motherboard, I have been backing up all of my data on a daily basis to a second hard drive.
When I had my computer meltdown, I was saved a lot of trouble by having this backup. And for this, AlmerSoft provided a life saving service.
The problem arose after getting my computer started again and reloading everything. AlmerBackup, the software in question, immediately told me that it was a demo version and would expire in thirty days.
I wrote to AlmerSoft to tell them that the registration key I was given back in March 2005 that activated my purchase of this software, no longer activates the product.
I waited several days without hearing any response.
I wrote them a second time, a third time, until I now have written them seven times! I sent requests for help using their support email system and I sent them email from my Yahoo account.
This whole process began Dec 6, 2007. Still I have not heard from them and my ‘demo’ version of the software I paid for is useless.
I have no idea how to get them to respond. I don’t know if they think I am trying to get something free from them. They refuse to respond so I am left in the dark.
They are still selling their product and if I knew who to send a complaint to I would.
The bottom line is that I want to warn as many people as possible to NOT buy their software because they will not support it.
I hope this gets out to enough people so that the word will finally get to them.
Please, Save yourself some money and buy from someone else.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Evolution is bunk?
How can any thinking, reasoning adult disregard decades of scientific study showing the evolutionary process?
Without meaning to show any disrespect to religious fundamentalists, evolution has seeds based in fact, religion is only theory.
I believe in God. I believe in evolution. I do not see any conflict between the two. I believe we have painted an incorrect picture of what God looks like based on the wording in Genesis that says ‘God created man in his image’. We immediately associate that image with modern man because this is the only image of man we have, therefore we assume God looks like modern man. Using this ‘backwards proof’ as ‘knowledge’ of what God looks like, has led to much confusion and has allowed ignorance to be accepted as fact.
This is like looking at an apple and ‘knowing’ what the tree looks like. The apple came from somewhere, it did not just appear out of thin air. Where did the first apple seed come from? What we know of today as an apple tree is probably not what it originally looked like. It has evolved into what we know today.
Here's another way of looking at this, 'God created man in his image' but it has taken millions of years of evolutionary change to get man to where he actually looks the way God wants him to.
There is a lot of arrogance and egotism taking place in Caucasians thinking God is white, how can we possibly 'know'? Especially, since the oldest known human bones were found in Africa.
There is no solid proof that God did not create the universe, there has to be a starting point somewhere, but I am convinced, he did not create the universe we know today. It has evolved into what it is.
It is amazing to me to think that people actually believe that the known universe has existing as it is today for millennia, unchanged. These same people actually believe man looks the same today as he did several million years ago. This just blows my mind. They are completely ignoring the discovery of Australopithecus, 3.2 million years old, as having any link to modern man. Why have we not found ‘modern mans’ bones dated a million years old?
How do they explain this? They say it just is and go on their merry way. Ignorance is bliss but it doesn’t change the fact the Earth is not flat and that humans used to not be able to use tools or speak and think as we do today.
Update Jan 12, 2008
I felt compelled to amend this post with this latest unimaginable bit of information:
Twelve Florida school boards have passed resolutions against the imposition of evolution in the school curriculum. This, I found in a post on Florida Citizens for Science.
Several points come to mind, one being, that these school boards are advocating, by omission of the study of the non-religious field of evolution, the religious notion that God alone is the sole reason of the existence of mankind. This, as I have said before, is only theory and our publicly funded school systems cannot, by law, teach this type of theory. Does anyone remember the reason for ‘separation of church and state’? There should be a threat of loss of funding for exclusively teaching religious theory. Period.
Another point, teaching our children to be closed to any alternative in any field of study, as this action clearly does, will come back to hurt us all in the long run. This will create narrow-minded people. We already have far too many of these. The purpose of grade school is to teach basic, actual, factual, knowledge of our world, the ABC’s, writing, math, etc. The purpose of high-school is to both refine these basics and teach how to use these building blocks to think for ourselves, i.e., to become open-minded, self-motivated, creative thinkers. These twelve school boards are usurping this process to create religious fiefdoms for the purpose of misdirecting the ‘educational’ process towards their own narrow-minded, religious zealotry.
Our education system already suffers, and does much harm to our ‘future thinkers’, by not exposing them to enough alternative view-points. We certainly do not need narrow-minded individuals in a position to impose their one-sided views which runs counter to education.
Keep school administrators out of the classroom, they have already screwed up our kids enough. Leave the teaching to teachers.
Without meaning to show any disrespect to religious fundamentalists, evolution has seeds based in fact, religion is only theory.
I believe in God. I believe in evolution. I do not see any conflict between the two. I believe we have painted an incorrect picture of what God looks like based on the wording in Genesis that says ‘God created man in his image’. We immediately associate that image with modern man because this is the only image of man we have, therefore we assume God looks like modern man. Using this ‘backwards proof’ as ‘knowledge’ of what God looks like, has led to much confusion and has allowed ignorance to be accepted as fact.
This is like looking at an apple and ‘knowing’ what the tree looks like. The apple came from somewhere, it did not just appear out of thin air. Where did the first apple seed come from? What we know of today as an apple tree is probably not what it originally looked like. It has evolved into what we know today.
Here's another way of looking at this, 'God created man in his image' but it has taken millions of years of evolutionary change to get man to where he actually looks the way God wants him to.
There is a lot of arrogance and egotism taking place in Caucasians thinking God is white, how can we possibly 'know'? Especially, since the oldest known human bones were found in Africa.
There is no solid proof that God did not create the universe, there has to be a starting point somewhere, but I am convinced, he did not create the universe we know today. It has evolved into what it is.
It is amazing to me to think that people actually believe that the known universe has existing as it is today for millennia, unchanged. These same people actually believe man looks the same today as he did several million years ago. This just blows my mind. They are completely ignoring the discovery of Australopithecus, 3.2 million years old, as having any link to modern man. Why have we not found ‘modern mans’ bones dated a million years old?
How do they explain this? They say it just is and go on their merry way. Ignorance is bliss but it doesn’t change the fact the Earth is not flat and that humans used to not be able to use tools or speak and think as we do today.
Update Jan 12, 2008
I felt compelled to amend this post with this latest unimaginable bit of information:
Twelve Florida school boards have passed resolutions against the imposition of evolution in the school curriculum. This, I found in a post on Florida Citizens for Science.
Several points come to mind, one being, that these school boards are advocating, by omission of the study of the non-religious field of evolution, the religious notion that God alone is the sole reason of the existence of mankind. This, as I have said before, is only theory and our publicly funded school systems cannot, by law, teach this type of theory. Does anyone remember the reason for ‘separation of church and state’? There should be a threat of loss of funding for exclusively teaching religious theory. Period.
Another point, teaching our children to be closed to any alternative in any field of study, as this action clearly does, will come back to hurt us all in the long run. This will create narrow-minded people. We already have far too many of these. The purpose of grade school is to teach basic, actual, factual, knowledge of our world, the ABC’s, writing, math, etc. The purpose of high-school is to both refine these basics and teach how to use these building blocks to think for ourselves, i.e., to become open-minded, self-motivated, creative thinkers. These twelve school boards are usurping this process to create religious fiefdoms for the purpose of misdirecting the ‘educational’ process towards their own narrow-minded, religious zealotry.
Our education system already suffers, and does much harm to our ‘future thinkers’, by not exposing them to enough alternative view-points. We certainly do not need narrow-minded individuals in a position to impose their one-sided views which runs counter to education.
Keep school administrators out of the classroom, they have already screwed up our kids enough. Leave the teaching to teachers.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Another attempt to rewrite history
George W Bush is in Israel this week with plans to broker a peace deal in a region that knows nothing but war and hate, and subscribes heavily to revenge as a matter of national policy.
That region will never know peace. This attempt to paint himself as a stalwart of foreign policy and a ‘friend to the world’ will fail as badly as his attempt to present himself as an environmentalist after signing one weak, lame piece of environmental legislation. And the very fact that he thinks just by taking this one action will reverse the effects his illegal actions had on Iraq just proves how much faith he puts in Americas gullibility.
Mr. president, your record on foreign policy is abominable. Do you honestly think the American history books will portray you as a peace activist by virtue of this one trip in this final year of your eight year term? You think you will be exonerated for your crimes against the constitution and the American public by shaking hands with foreign dignitaries in their own land?
The bloody shadows of Iraq and Afghanistan, the campaign of hate against Iran, the threat of World War III, the destabilization of relations with Russia, the egotistical stance against any attempt to combat global warming, these are not the earmarks of a master of foreign relations.
The spying on American citizens in our own homes, the replacing of military leadership until you found one that agrees with you, the rewriting of scientific finding until they matched your personal beliefs, the refusal to do anything meaningful to alleviate environmental pollution, the blatant appointments of under-qualified personnel to key administration posts, the denigration of habeas corpus, the weakening value of our dollar, the selling out of the cornerstone of our economy (Wall Street) to foreign investors, exposing CIA operatives, covering up crimes under the guise of executive privilege, profiteering from war under the threat of terrorist attacks on our shores.
Just what good have you done for this country? This list of crimes against the American people is disgusting, sir. And this doesn’t even begin to address the crimes and short comings of your personal life that were overlooked due to your ties with your father.
If you had not been born into such a wealthy politically powerful family, I have no doubt your life will have ended up an alcoholic wreck depending on the very charities your political party turns its back on, cowering from the police state you have managed to foster. You could very well have become a victim of the very egregious record number of Texas death row inmates you helped populate as Texas governor.
The best thing to happen to this country will be the collective departure of you and your administration from public office. It cannot happen soon enough.
You and your puppet masters may attempt to rewrite history, sir, but the majority of people in this country know you and Dick Cheney for what you really are, sad remnants of an old west mentality of shoot to kill and declare yourself as the moral, law-abiding authority.
That region will never know peace. This attempt to paint himself as a stalwart of foreign policy and a ‘friend to the world’ will fail as badly as his attempt to present himself as an environmentalist after signing one weak, lame piece of environmental legislation. And the very fact that he thinks just by taking this one action will reverse the effects his illegal actions had on Iraq just proves how much faith he puts in Americas gullibility.
Mr. president, your record on foreign policy is abominable. Do you honestly think the American history books will portray you as a peace activist by virtue of this one trip in this final year of your eight year term? You think you will be exonerated for your crimes against the constitution and the American public by shaking hands with foreign dignitaries in their own land?
The bloody shadows of Iraq and Afghanistan, the campaign of hate against Iran, the threat of World War III, the destabilization of relations with Russia, the egotistical stance against any attempt to combat global warming, these are not the earmarks of a master of foreign relations.
The spying on American citizens in our own homes, the replacing of military leadership until you found one that agrees with you, the rewriting of scientific finding until they matched your personal beliefs, the refusal to do anything meaningful to alleviate environmental pollution, the blatant appointments of under-qualified personnel to key administration posts, the denigration of habeas corpus, the weakening value of our dollar, the selling out of the cornerstone of our economy (Wall Street) to foreign investors, exposing CIA operatives, covering up crimes under the guise of executive privilege, profiteering from war under the threat of terrorist attacks on our shores.
Just what good have you done for this country? This list of crimes against the American people is disgusting, sir. And this doesn’t even begin to address the crimes and short comings of your personal life that were overlooked due to your ties with your father.
If you had not been born into such a wealthy politically powerful family, I have no doubt your life will have ended up an alcoholic wreck depending on the very charities your political party turns its back on, cowering from the police state you have managed to foster. You could very well have become a victim of the very egregious record number of Texas death row inmates you helped populate as Texas governor.
The best thing to happen to this country will be the collective departure of you and your administration from public office. It cannot happen soon enough.
You and your puppet masters may attempt to rewrite history, sir, but the majority of people in this country know you and Dick Cheney for what you really are, sad remnants of an old west mentality of shoot to kill and declare yourself as the moral, law-abiding authority.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Can you say Disingenuous? Or Insincere, snow-job, sham, hypocrite?
George W. Bush, environmentalist. Sort of leaves a foul taste on a truthful tongue.
European leaders, American governors, corporate executives, evangelical preachers, key lawmakers and environmentalists have been pressing Bush to lead what they see as a bid to save the planet for years. And now that he is about to leave the White House he decides he wants to be remembered as an environmentalist.
As if this will counter seven years of wasteful environmentally unfriendly policy and practices.
He has refused to believe global warming was a serious threat and actively went about disregarding the Kyoto Protocol.
He considered climate change as nothing more than leftist political agenda. He disregarded scientific finds and even went so far as to have scientific reports re-written or stricken from review because they didn’t fit with his personal belief.
And now he wants to be known as an environmentalist.
His negotiators infuriated counterparts at this month's talks in Bali by resisting a mandatory cap on carbon emissions. And just hours after Bush signed a basically useless energy bill, the administration invalidated an effort by California and 17 other states to impose tougher tailpipe emission rules, saying it makes more sense to have a single national policy.
And now he wants to be known as an environmentalist.
This is nothing more than another paint job, another sudden case of the emperors new clothes.
Of course, any policy he will try to get passed involving cutting gasoline consumption and greenhouse gases will be just drastic enough so that they wont pass and then he can say he tried but congress was against him.
This sudden show of consciousness is his top advisors focusing on reformulating his legacy and he isn’t fooling with anyone except his own lapdogs.
European leaders, American governors, corporate executives, evangelical preachers, key lawmakers and environmentalists have been pressing Bush to lead what they see as a bid to save the planet for years. And now that he is about to leave the White House he decides he wants to be remembered as an environmentalist.
As if this will counter seven years of wasteful environmentally unfriendly policy and practices.
He has refused to believe global warming was a serious threat and actively went about disregarding the Kyoto Protocol.
He considered climate change as nothing more than leftist political agenda. He disregarded scientific finds and even went so far as to have scientific reports re-written or stricken from review because they didn’t fit with his personal belief.
And now he wants to be known as an environmentalist.
His negotiators infuriated counterparts at this month's talks in Bali by resisting a mandatory cap on carbon emissions. And just hours after Bush signed a basically useless energy bill, the administration invalidated an effort by California and 17 other states to impose tougher tailpipe emission rules, saying it makes more sense to have a single national policy.
And now he wants to be known as an environmentalist.
This is nothing more than another paint job, another sudden case of the emperors new clothes.
Of course, any policy he will try to get passed involving cutting gasoline consumption and greenhouse gases will be just drastic enough so that they wont pass and then he can say he tried but congress was against him.
This sudden show of consciousness is his top advisors focusing on reformulating his legacy and he isn’t fooling with anyone except his own lapdogs.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Little return for the money
Finally, we are getting near the end of this millionaires love fest.
The race for presidential office broke new ground this time around by starting so long before the actual finish line. Do you realize that we will have been listening and watching these candidates beg for our vote for over two years by the time election day gets here? At no other time in our lives are we citizens made to feel that we have power, that we have an actual say in how this country will behave in the future. And we savor every moment of it, perhaps because of the infrequency of it. Even though, after all is said and done, we know we don’t really have a say in any of it.
Our votes can be discounted, look at Florida’s hanging-chad debacle. The Supreme Court decided that year who should be president, not the people. Even when after a person becomes president and they get behind those stately closed doors, the reality of the way the world really works restricts and redirects even the most sincere of intentions of ‘doing the right thing’. And when is the last time a politician actually ‘did the right thing’ without some ulterior motive? Make no mistake, campaign promises are used only to get your vote. The underhanded games and the evil that men do have been a reality of politics for far too long to believe the good of any man can survive in the deep end of the pool of political reality.
Some candidates talk celebrities into being seen with them supposedly to bolster their position as a ‘friend to the people’.
Some hold around the clock campaign vigils for your almighty vote.
We all act as if we believe what these politicians tell us and they all act like they are sincere. They parade their family members in front of us as if this proves their sincerity.
This struggle for the ‘popular’ vote has become better than the fake ‘reality’ shows the television networks serve up. This becomes almost as good as our endless obsession to witness the latest celebrity sleaze-fest. We love watching people bare their souls. Especially if they can tell a riveting story of personal tragedy. We love watching people stumble, we love watching them fall, we love watching them throw crap at each other. We have become a nation of gossip mongers that are elevated to new heights of ecstasy each time someone slams another person, hoping for a real knock-down, drag-out, cat fight. We clamor for any bit of juicy gossip, the more bitter the better. But no one can satisfy a newspaper publishers wet dream like the latest Brittney white-trash offerings (and, oh look, her whole family is getting involved) or the latest Paris and Lindsey scandals. This is the stuff of major league gossip. Politics will never break into this realm.
I am so relieved I do not live in Iowa. The constant psycho-babble and rhetoric and glad-handing and kissing-up is shameless. This is the only time these millionaires will come out of their pampered, cushy, daily surroundings to face the very people that can make or break their future dreams. I can turn off the television in hopes of keeping the crap from flowing into my living room, but these Iowans are inundated with it on a daily basis knowing all the while that as soon as this states caucus is over Iowa will be left like a woman after a one night stand, full of promises she knows will never be kept.
Deep down I think everyone knows the BS is thickest whenever a politician speaks but when you have this many concentrated in one place outside of Washington DC, then the cows must become envious at just how quickly and deeply it can be spread by these professionals.
Does everyone just get caught up in the excitement of seeing their chosen millionaire get put into this golden throne of power? History has shown us that voter turnout is low and is getting lower every election year. It is because the majority of people know their vote does nothing to change the way these millionaires play politics. Why do these candidates spend so much time and money on something they must know will result in such low voter turnout? Besides feeding their ego I can’t think of any good reason for it.
Sure, everyone likes being patted on the back, being told what an excellent choice they would be to sit in the White House. But with such little return for this disgustingly huge amount of money spent, the same results can be obtained without these candidates ever showing up. How about just simply letting their voting record speak for them? This way we don’t have to listen to their lies, wade through endless, mindless rhetoric trying to decipher their true meanings, and they could spend more time in their office doing the job we voted them to do. Millions of dollars are shamelessly thrown at advertisers in the pursuit of votes. Money that could be put to much better use. Advertisers are the only real winners here.
The race for presidential office broke new ground this time around by starting so long before the actual finish line. Do you realize that we will have been listening and watching these candidates beg for our vote for over two years by the time election day gets here? At no other time in our lives are we citizens made to feel that we have power, that we have an actual say in how this country will behave in the future. And we savor every moment of it, perhaps because of the infrequency of it. Even though, after all is said and done, we know we don’t really have a say in any of it.
Our votes can be discounted, look at Florida’s hanging-chad debacle. The Supreme Court decided that year who should be president, not the people. Even when after a person becomes president and they get behind those stately closed doors, the reality of the way the world really works restricts and redirects even the most sincere of intentions of ‘doing the right thing’. And when is the last time a politician actually ‘did the right thing’ without some ulterior motive? Make no mistake, campaign promises are used only to get your vote. The underhanded games and the evil that men do have been a reality of politics for far too long to believe the good of any man can survive in the deep end of the pool of political reality.
Some candidates talk celebrities into being seen with them supposedly to bolster their position as a ‘friend to the people’.
Some hold around the clock campaign vigils for your almighty vote.
We all act as if we believe what these politicians tell us and they all act like they are sincere. They parade their family members in front of us as if this proves their sincerity.
This struggle for the ‘popular’ vote has become better than the fake ‘reality’ shows the television networks serve up. This becomes almost as good as our endless obsession to witness the latest celebrity sleaze-fest. We love watching people bare their souls. Especially if they can tell a riveting story of personal tragedy. We love watching people stumble, we love watching them fall, we love watching them throw crap at each other. We have become a nation of gossip mongers that are elevated to new heights of ecstasy each time someone slams another person, hoping for a real knock-down, drag-out, cat fight. We clamor for any bit of juicy gossip, the more bitter the better. But no one can satisfy a newspaper publishers wet dream like the latest Brittney white-trash offerings (and, oh look, her whole family is getting involved) or the latest Paris and Lindsey scandals. This is the stuff of major league gossip. Politics will never break into this realm.
I am so relieved I do not live in Iowa. The constant psycho-babble and rhetoric and glad-handing and kissing-up is shameless. This is the only time these millionaires will come out of their pampered, cushy, daily surroundings to face the very people that can make or break their future dreams. I can turn off the television in hopes of keeping the crap from flowing into my living room, but these Iowans are inundated with it on a daily basis knowing all the while that as soon as this states caucus is over Iowa will be left like a woman after a one night stand, full of promises she knows will never be kept.
Deep down I think everyone knows the BS is thickest whenever a politician speaks but when you have this many concentrated in one place outside of Washington DC, then the cows must become envious at just how quickly and deeply it can be spread by these professionals.
Does everyone just get caught up in the excitement of seeing their chosen millionaire get put into this golden throne of power? History has shown us that voter turnout is low and is getting lower every election year. It is because the majority of people know their vote does nothing to change the way these millionaires play politics. Why do these candidates spend so much time and money on something they must know will result in such low voter turnout? Besides feeding their ego I can’t think of any good reason for it.
Sure, everyone likes being patted on the back, being told what an excellent choice they would be to sit in the White House. But with such little return for this disgustingly huge amount of money spent, the same results can be obtained without these candidates ever showing up. How about just simply letting their voting record speak for them? This way we don’t have to listen to their lies, wade through endless, mindless rhetoric trying to decipher their true meanings, and they could spend more time in their office doing the job we voted them to do. Millions of dollars are shamelessly thrown at advertisers in the pursuit of votes. Money that could be put to much better use. Advertisers are the only real winners here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)