God exist. Or god doesn't exist. There is nothing you or I can do or say that will change that. Or maybe it is both ways, God exist and god does not exist. Maybe the universe is that bizarre.
Certainly much of what I have heard about the creator of all things would support the idea of God having a dual nature. God is all forgiving. If you do not accept Jesus as your personal savior you will not be on the guest list in His lifetime. God is a loving god. He allows little children to suffer and computers to malfunction. God is omnipotent. It is important that you do God's work. Prayer always works, except when it is not God's will. There is one God and they are the Son, the Father and the Holy Ghost.
When the size of my brain is compared to the size of the universe my brain comes up short. Every time. I cannot possibly comprehend God so if I am unable to understand all I have been told then that is not a problem.
Much of what I have learned about the nature of physical reality supports the concept of duality. Back in the early part of the twentieth century scientist studying the electron, the elementary particle that carries the negative charge, made an astounding discovery. The electron could be spread out like a wave and thus be in two places at once. Or it could be in one place, like the period on the of this sentence. What made the difference, why did one electron act like a particle and another behave like a wave? Well it turns out it all depended on whether or not it was being observed. If you measured it, it was a particle. If you didn't measure it, it was a wave.
Weird huh? And very droll. That's a basic humanoid defense mechanism, people quickly get bored with things they can't understand. Keeps the brain from getting stuck in endless loops and going blue screen. A lot of my friends felt like that in Algebra. I get that way listening to political speeches.
So maybe God is and god isn't. Perhaps there is one God and only one God. And a lot of other gods besides. "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." Seems to leave open the possibility of multiple personalities in charge of creating a scene. Many people feel they have a right to believe in their God. And if you want to believe in a god that's OK with them, you can believe in their God too.
If the nature of an elementary particle can depend on weather or not you are looking at it then maybe the nature of God depends on what you believe. The universe could be that weird. The all powerful maker of all things exist because you feel his presence. Bishop Berkeley, the 18th century Irish philosopher, proved the existence of God by stating that things have substance only if they are observed. Therefore things, such as a rock or tree, would cease to exist once you stopped looking at them if it wasn't for the fact that they are still being observed by the mind of God. Why didn't he just say they wouldn't be there in the first place if God wasn't around to make them out of Pixie Dust.
And if I am emotionally deficient and unable to "know in my heart" that a loving, intelligent, rational being is the unseen force behind water lilies, the passing of the seasons, the human eye and polio, the full moon and napalm, Easter bunnies and birth defects, well then maybe he isn't there.
Here is the onion. If I am willing to admit that your God exist will you allow than my god may be popular fiction?
OWL
August 14, 2007
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Saturday, August 11, 2007
OMG
FGM: Female Genital Mutilation.
If you're squeamish you might want to skip this one.
Female genital mutilation, also known as female circumcision or female genital cutting, is a practice of removing the clitoral hood, clitoris, parts of the labia minora and labia majora or scraping the skin from the genital area of young girls. It is routinely done is some parts of Africa and Arabia for a variety of reasons including prevention of disease, preservation of virginity and social expectation. Many people consider the practice barbaric and are trying pass legislation outlawing FGM and to change social attitudes toward it.In order to avoid offending anyone the United Nations prefers to use the term Female Genital Cutting. I didn't understand that at first. Then I realised that you might be offended if I termed what you had done to your child as "Male Genital Mutilation" and I wouldn't want to offend you.
Male circumcision, practised in Muslim countries, the United States, the Philippines, South Korea, and Israel involves removal of some or all of the prepuce (foreskin) of the penis and is usually performed shortly after birth. The prevention of disease is the reason most often sited for circumcision here in the US, religious commandment is cited among Jewish and Muslim peoples. Those who claim it is important for health reasons have been unable to point to statistics showing a greater incidence of disease in Europe or other parts of the world where male circumcision in not routinely performed. The American Academy of Paediatrics found both potential benefits and risks in infant circumcision. It felt that there was insufficient data to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. The American Medical Association supports that view. Studies linking male circumcision to a lower incidence of HIV and HPV infection are in dispute. Some people in this country seem to be unaware that the practice is not universal and is in fact not done by the majority of the world's peoples.
My son is not circumcised. When the subject came up in conversation one woman told me "It is important for health reasons". It was obvious from her tone of voice that she knew this to be true, it was a proven fact. This may have been true when she and the world were young, before the introduction of safe and effective antiseptics and antibiotics. Another woman told me she would have done it "so that he fits in". That would be a wonderful message to send to a child, it is so important to "fit in" that cutting off bits of skin from your most sensitive area is appropriate. In this day of tattooing, body piercing and unprotected sex with users of non-prescription drugs "fitting in" is given quite enough good press, thank you very much.
Doctors have been quoted as saying "it doesn't hurt them that much!" Well doc give me the needle nose pliers and a bit of broken glass, we'll see about that. A short description of the operation courtesy of Wikipedia: With a Gomco clamp, a section of skin is first crushed with a hemostat then slit with scissors. The foreskin is drawn over the bell shaped portion of the clamp and inserted through a hole in the base of the clamp and the clamp is tightened, "crushing the foreskin between the bell and the base plate." The crushing limits bleeding (provides hemostasis). While the flared bottom of the bell fits tightly against the hole of the base plate, the foreskin is then cut away with a scalpel from above the base plate.
Sounds relatively painless as long as you are not on the receiving end.
There are many things that people in this society and elsewhere do without really understanding why they do it. Other than "it's tradition". Why kiss under the mistletoe? How come Holly is used as a Christmas decoration, that is said to have been started by the Egyptians. Why do men and now women shake hands when introduced? The idea of carrying on a tradition is a good enough reason to paint Easter eggs in the spring and set off fireworks on the Fourth of July. When it comes to cutting and permanently altering the body of another human being, one who cannot speak for himself, the reasons for doing so need to be carefully reexamined before the act is committed. EVERY TIME!
I am circumcised. Does that bother me? Not really. Do I think it is a barbaric practice that should be outlawed in civilised parts of the world? No. Why am I banging on about the subject here?
It disturbs me that parents would take a newborn, in perfect health, complete with all the parts he was born with and turn him over to someone to cut bits of skin from his sexual organ, for reasons that are buried in religious antiquity, after giving it less thought than they gave to picking out his name.
OWL
August 11, 2007
If you're squeamish you might want to skip this one.
Female genital mutilation, also known as female circumcision or female genital cutting, is a practice of removing the clitoral hood, clitoris, parts of the labia minora and labia majora or scraping the skin from the genital area of young girls. It is routinely done is some parts of Africa and Arabia for a variety of reasons including prevention of disease, preservation of virginity and social expectation. Many people consider the practice barbaric and are trying pass legislation outlawing FGM and to change social attitudes toward it.In order to avoid offending anyone the United Nations prefers to use the term Female Genital Cutting. I didn't understand that at first. Then I realised that you might be offended if I termed what you had done to your child as "Male Genital Mutilation" and I wouldn't want to offend you.
Male circumcision, practised in Muslim countries, the United States, the Philippines, South Korea, and Israel involves removal of some or all of the prepuce (foreskin) of the penis and is usually performed shortly after birth. The prevention of disease is the reason most often sited for circumcision here in the US, religious commandment is cited among Jewish and Muslim peoples. Those who claim it is important for health reasons have been unable to point to statistics showing a greater incidence of disease in Europe or other parts of the world where male circumcision in not routinely performed. The American Academy of Paediatrics found both potential benefits and risks in infant circumcision. It felt that there was insufficient data to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. The American Medical Association supports that view. Studies linking male circumcision to a lower incidence of HIV and HPV infection are in dispute. Some people in this country seem to be unaware that the practice is not universal and is in fact not done by the majority of the world's peoples.
My son is not circumcised. When the subject came up in conversation one woman told me "It is important for health reasons". It was obvious from her tone of voice that she knew this to be true, it was a proven fact. This may have been true when she and the world were young, before the introduction of safe and effective antiseptics and antibiotics. Another woman told me she would have done it "so that he fits in". That would be a wonderful message to send to a child, it is so important to "fit in" that cutting off bits of skin from your most sensitive area is appropriate. In this day of tattooing, body piercing and unprotected sex with users of non-prescription drugs "fitting in" is given quite enough good press, thank you very much.
Doctors have been quoted as saying "it doesn't hurt them that much!" Well doc give me the needle nose pliers and a bit of broken glass, we'll see about that. A short description of the operation courtesy of Wikipedia: With a Gomco clamp, a section of skin is first crushed with a hemostat then slit with scissors. The foreskin is drawn over the bell shaped portion of the clamp and inserted through a hole in the base of the clamp and the clamp is tightened, "crushing the foreskin between the bell and the base plate." The crushing limits bleeding (provides hemostasis). While the flared bottom of the bell fits tightly against the hole of the base plate, the foreskin is then cut away with a scalpel from above the base plate.
Sounds relatively painless as long as you are not on the receiving end.
There are many things that people in this society and elsewhere do without really understanding why they do it. Other than "it's tradition". Why kiss under the mistletoe? How come Holly is used as a Christmas decoration, that is said to have been started by the Egyptians. Why do men and now women shake hands when introduced? The idea of carrying on a tradition is a good enough reason to paint Easter eggs in the spring and set off fireworks on the Fourth of July. When it comes to cutting and permanently altering the body of another human being, one who cannot speak for himself, the reasons for doing so need to be carefully reexamined before the act is committed. EVERY TIME!
I am circumcised. Does that bother me? Not really. Do I think it is a barbaric practice that should be outlawed in civilised parts of the world? No. Why am I banging on about the subject here?
It disturbs me that parents would take a newborn, in perfect health, complete with all the parts he was born with and turn him over to someone to cut bits of skin from his sexual organ, for reasons that are buried in religious antiquity, after giving it less thought than they gave to picking out his name.
OWL
August 11, 2007
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Crappy Denim
I got an e-mail that says a post office was forced to take down posters that said "In God We Trust". This is about the third or fourth time I seen this item. That's OK, the story is true.
A few years ago Misses B. started selling Avon. In order to increase her sales she put her name and phone number on brochures and left them various places around town. Including the local post office. The next day we got a phone call from Rodger the post master. He asked Misses B. politely to remove her brochures and reminded her gently that the post office is not a community bulletin board. There is a prohibition against "depositing or posting of handbills, fliers, pamphlets, signs, posters, placards, or other literature (except official postal and other governmental notices and announcements) in interior public areas on postal premises." You cannot go into a post office a post a "lost cat" flier. Or the "Bill of Rights", the "Magna Carta" or your version of the ten commandments. Neither can I. Fair's fair.
Back 2002 a man in Texas had a bunch of posters printed up and framed and distributed to various public buildings including several post offices. The posters were put up in the POs and a postal supervisor ordered them taken down. The story has been circulating on the web since then. Some people seem to think their rights have been violated, their beliefs discriminated against. And because 86% of the people in this country believe in god that gives them more right to display their beliefs in public than those who don't. The United States of America doesn't work that way. Everybody gets the same rights, majority and minority are treated equal.
In the mean time, because of the public outcry, the United States Postal Service has printed up posters with our national motto "In God We Trust" and installed them in all 38,000 post offices nation wide. I didn't get an e-mail about that. Did you? The federal courts have repeatedly ruled that having "In God We Trust" as our national motto is not a violation of the constitution and that it is acceptable to print that on our currency. That wasn't news worthy enough for an e-mail. Every year from the time my son was in kindergarten until the fifth grade I was obligated to attend a "Christmas Program" where religious songs (prayers set to music) were sung. No one wrote that up and sent it round.
But let a public body decide not to open with a prayer and we never hear the end of it. The latest e-mail I got, which I've seen several times, shows marines with their heads bent in prayer. At lest that's what the e-mail says, for all I know they were looking for some one's lost contact. Then it goes on to quote a spokesman, Lucius Traveler, from the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) saying that "These are federal employees, on federal property and on federal time. For them to pray is clearly an establishment of religion, and we must nip this in the bud immediately." When inquires were made the ACLU denied any knowledge of a Mr. Traveler. That is just like something the ACLU would do. The e-mail goes on to quote Colonel Jack Fessender, speaking for the Commandant of the Corps saying (cleaned up a bit), "Screw the ACLU." When inquires were made the USMC (United States Marine Corps) denied any knowledge of a Colonel Jack Fessender. That is just like something the USMC would do.
People in this country, school administrators, city and county officials and the general public, are beginning to erroneously believe that "God" is not allowed in public places. So with an excess of caution they rule against the use of the word "god" at school functions or public meetings. And when they do the e-mail goes round with "God-Banned" in real big letters at the top.
Every session of congress opens with a prayer. As has every graduation ceremony I've ever been to. The city council in the small town where I live has voted to spend $800 to post "In God We Trust" in the council chambers, no one has filed suit. In my readings on the web I often see stories where someone has protested the use of the word "god" and was summarily overruled by the powers that be. Those stories don't get forwarded. But made up stories about the ACLU protesting prayer have a half-life of like forever.
This leads to the impression that although those who believe in god are a majority in this country they are powerless against an atheistic minority. If christians want people to believe they have the right to use the word "god" they should spread the stories that show that right being upheld, by the courts, by public officials and by the people themselves. Seize the day!
Somewhere in a darkened room, hunched over a keyboard, with wide eyes reflecting the light of the World Wide Web, a heretic is grinning.
OWL
August 9, 2007
A few years ago Misses B. started selling Avon. In order to increase her sales she put her name and phone number on brochures and left them various places around town. Including the local post office. The next day we got a phone call from Rodger the post master. He asked Misses B. politely to remove her brochures and reminded her gently that the post office is not a community bulletin board. There is a prohibition against "depositing or posting of handbills, fliers, pamphlets, signs, posters, placards, or other literature (except official postal and other governmental notices and announcements) in interior public areas on postal premises." You cannot go into a post office a post a "lost cat" flier. Or the "Bill of Rights", the "Magna Carta" or your version of the ten commandments. Neither can I. Fair's fair.
Back 2002 a man in Texas had a bunch of posters printed up and framed and distributed to various public buildings including several post offices. The posters were put up in the POs and a postal supervisor ordered them taken down. The story has been circulating on the web since then. Some people seem to think their rights have been violated, their beliefs discriminated against. And because 86% of the people in this country believe in god that gives them more right to display their beliefs in public than those who don't. The United States of America doesn't work that way. Everybody gets the same rights, majority and minority are treated equal.
In the mean time, because of the public outcry, the United States Postal Service has printed up posters with our national motto "In God We Trust" and installed them in all 38,000 post offices nation wide. I didn't get an e-mail about that. Did you? The federal courts have repeatedly ruled that having "In God We Trust" as our national motto is not a violation of the constitution and that it is acceptable to print that on our currency. That wasn't news worthy enough for an e-mail. Every year from the time my son was in kindergarten until the fifth grade I was obligated to attend a "Christmas Program" where religious songs (prayers set to music) were sung. No one wrote that up and sent it round.
But let a public body decide not to open with a prayer and we never hear the end of it. The latest e-mail I got, which I've seen several times, shows marines with their heads bent in prayer. At lest that's what the e-mail says, for all I know they were looking for some one's lost contact. Then it goes on to quote a spokesman, Lucius Traveler, from the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) saying that "These are federal employees, on federal property and on federal time. For them to pray is clearly an establishment of religion, and we must nip this in the bud immediately." When inquires were made the ACLU denied any knowledge of a Mr. Traveler. That is just like something the ACLU would do. The e-mail goes on to quote Colonel Jack Fessender, speaking for the Commandant of the Corps saying (cleaned up a bit), "Screw the ACLU." When inquires were made the USMC (United States Marine Corps) denied any knowledge of a Colonel Jack Fessender. That is just like something the USMC would do.
People in this country, school administrators, city and county officials and the general public, are beginning to erroneously believe that "God" is not allowed in public places. So with an excess of caution they rule against the use of the word "god" at school functions or public meetings. And when they do the e-mail goes round with "God-Banned" in real big letters at the top.
Every session of congress opens with a prayer. As has every graduation ceremony I've ever been to. The city council in the small town where I live has voted to spend $800 to post "In God We Trust" in the council chambers, no one has filed suit. In my readings on the web I often see stories where someone has protested the use of the word "god" and was summarily overruled by the powers that be. Those stories don't get forwarded. But made up stories about the ACLU protesting prayer have a half-life of like forever.
This leads to the impression that although those who believe in god are a majority in this country they are powerless against an atheistic minority. If christians want people to believe they have the right to use the word "god" they should spread the stories that show that right being upheld, by the courts, by public officials and by the people themselves. Seize the day!
Somewhere in a darkened room, hunched over a keyboard, with wide eyes reflecting the light of the World Wide Web, a heretic is grinning.
OWL
August 9, 2007
Saturday, August 4, 2007
that's the way it's supposed to be
Imprinting, in psychology, is a process by which we learn things rapidly at particular stages of life. Often the things we learn in this way are life long lessons. It becomes very hard to unlearn something that has been imprinted in our memory, even when negative consequences result from acting on it. Birds and other animals imprint their parents at birth. They learn what mommy and daddy look like and then will follow faithfully wherever they lead. If no parent is available they choose another animal, a human being or even an inanimate object as a surrogate. Human babies begin to recognise their parents voices while still in the womb. The bonding of a mother to her newborn may involve the same type of learning.
Sexual imprinting occurs during a young persons first sexual experiences. The age, sex and appearance of a persons first partner can become important parts of their sexual make up. Often they will continue to seek out similar partners for the rest of their lives. Some men are only interested only in skinny blonds, I knew a woman who was turned on by men with red hair. Not just the characteristics of your partner can be imprinted. What they are wearing, the acts performed and what is said during the first few sexual encounters can become part of a persons sexual preferences. Some men are turned on by high heel shoes. Some women like men who play rough. Even the location of an encounter can be imprinted, whether it is a seedy motel room or the back seat of a Chevy Impala. So powerful is this imprinting that certain stimuli are not just preferred but are absolutely necessary for arousal (read "erection" in men), pleasurable sex and orgasm. An aspect of a first experience is more likely to be imprinted if that aspect adds to the thrill and excitement of the moment.
Human beings get excited when they think they are doing something socially unacceptable or morally wrong. The adrenaline starts flowing, the heart beats faster, and the senses are heightened. Our culture offers a panorama of sexual taboos. There are rules against sex outside of marriage, oral and anal sex, group sex, touching the genitals and sex for pleasure. Having sex before you are 18 is "bad" and if your partner is under 18 it is a crime. Even looking a another person's unclothed body is considered a sin. So it is no surprise that many of us felt we were doing something wrong our first time. Not that we were awkward at sex, every one feels like that, but that we doing exactly what we were taught not to do.
This leads to a paradox if someone believes that they are committing a great sin during the first time they have sex or that there will serious consequences if they are caught. The feeling of "being bad" becomes a prerequisite part of "good sex". Once they become a married adult sex is no longer wrong and it is no longer satisfying. In order to recreate the thrill of that first time a person will be driven to go outside of the limits of acceptable behavior. Adultery, multiple partners, unsafe sex, sex in public places, and "deviant" sexual practices such as bondage, sado-masochism, voyeurism and homosexual acts are the only way for some people to become aroused and achieve orgasm.
Religious and social mores that label certain aspects of sex as "wrong" end up driving us to have sex in a way that is unhealthy, dangerous or to our own detriment. Leading to the break-up of marriage, the spreading of disease and social maladjustment, bringing harm to ourselves, our families and to society as a whole.
OWL
August 4, 2007
Sexual imprinting occurs during a young persons first sexual experiences. The age, sex and appearance of a persons first partner can become important parts of their sexual make up. Often they will continue to seek out similar partners for the rest of their lives. Some men are only interested only in skinny blonds, I knew a woman who was turned on by men with red hair. Not just the characteristics of your partner can be imprinted. What they are wearing, the acts performed and what is said during the first few sexual encounters can become part of a persons sexual preferences. Some men are turned on by high heel shoes. Some women like men who play rough. Even the location of an encounter can be imprinted, whether it is a seedy motel room or the back seat of a Chevy Impala. So powerful is this imprinting that certain stimuli are not just preferred but are absolutely necessary for arousal (read "erection" in men), pleasurable sex and orgasm. An aspect of a first experience is more likely to be imprinted if that aspect adds to the thrill and excitement of the moment.
Human beings get excited when they think they are doing something socially unacceptable or morally wrong. The adrenaline starts flowing, the heart beats faster, and the senses are heightened. Our culture offers a panorama of sexual taboos. There are rules against sex outside of marriage, oral and anal sex, group sex, touching the genitals and sex for pleasure. Having sex before you are 18 is "bad" and if your partner is under 18 it is a crime. Even looking a another person's unclothed body is considered a sin. So it is no surprise that many of us felt we were doing something wrong our first time. Not that we were awkward at sex, every one feels like that, but that we doing exactly what we were taught not to do.
This leads to a paradox if someone believes that they are committing a great sin during the first time they have sex or that there will serious consequences if they are caught. The feeling of "being bad" becomes a prerequisite part of "good sex". Once they become a married adult sex is no longer wrong and it is no longer satisfying. In order to recreate the thrill of that first time a person will be driven to go outside of the limits of acceptable behavior. Adultery, multiple partners, unsafe sex, sex in public places, and "deviant" sexual practices such as bondage, sado-masochism, voyeurism and homosexual acts are the only way for some people to become aroused and achieve orgasm.
Religious and social mores that label certain aspects of sex as "wrong" end up driving us to have sex in a way that is unhealthy, dangerous or to our own detriment. Leading to the break-up of marriage, the spreading of disease and social maladjustment, bringing harm to ourselves, our families and to society as a whole.
OWL
August 4, 2007
Monday, July 30, 2007
The god of my fathers
Your children's teacher is not allowed to lead them in prayer and now some people want to take the words "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance. The ten commandments have been removed from the court house and pubic money can not be used in any way that might promote a particular religion. Some businesses are instructing their employees to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas". "God" is being forced out of the schools, out of government and into the back rooms of faith oriented community gathering centers. What we used to call "churches". How can this be?
"Christian men and women - on Christian principles - founded this nation, and this is clearly documented". That's what the emails says and I believe it. Something has gone very wrong. Who can we hold accountable for this corruption of of our country's character. Lets round up the usual suspects...
Bleeding Heart Liberals: They're the ones that think health care should be free, want to make sure everyone is fed and don't respect national borders. Bunch of subversive nut-jobs. They used to crucify people like that.
ACLU: American Civil Liberties Union. This group tries protect the rights granted by the Constitution of the United States of America and they don't care who gets hurt in the process.
The Atheist led by Madalyn Murray O'Hair: According to the email I get Ms O'Hair managed to get Touched by an Angel cancelled and has recently filed a lawsuit which will force the removal of the word "god" from all television and radio broadcast. So vitriolic is her hatred of religion that she continues her self appointed crusade unabated dispite having died ten years ago.
Activist Judges: Federal Judges are not elected by the people. The people elect the president, who nominates judges, and the senate who confirms the nominations. So the decisions made by the courts in no way reflect the will of the people.
Christian Religious Leaders: Their lack of unity has weakened the influence of the church and allowed the flock to be led astray by the main stream media.
Lets look back at the founding fathers for a moment. It was these same men (and women) that enacted the first amendment. Look it up. Christian men and women many of who owned slaves. And at least one, Tomas Jefferson who wrote the Declaration of Independence, fathered children with a slave. Having sex with a woman that you own is rape. Imagine that, the man who gave us "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." was a very serious abuser of human rights. Try not to think about this to much, your brain will over heat.
I admire the founding fathers and don't wish to spend words pointing out their moral failings. They were able to put aside vast philosophical and personal differences and work toward a common goal. They created a single government, bringing together people of many faiths, diverse backgrounds and various social and economic status treating them as equals. And did so in a way that has lasted for more than two hundred years. One government for all the people.
By contrast the history of the Christian Church, since Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the church door in the 1500s, has been one of division. Luther created the protestant church and Henry the 8th, wanting a divorce and to keep large sums of money in England away from the Pope, created the church of England. Nice two for one deal. Then came, in no particular order, the Puritans, the Methodist, the Fundamentalist and the Presbyterians. Today in the USA we have the Assembly of God Church, The Pentecostal Church of God, The United Pentecostal Church, The Church of The Nazarene, The Baptist Church and The Southern Baptist Church. There are Evangelical Free Churches, Gospel Churches, Charismatic Churches and Independent Bible Churches. That is just a fraction of the churches listed in our local phone book. We live in a rural area, the book is less than one inch thick.
Mary Baker Eddy formed the Church of Christ Scientist and Joseph Smith formed the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints (the Mormons). When the leadership of the Mormon Church decided tax breaks were more important than alternative life styles and banned polygamy the Mormon Fundamentalist broke away.
Who keeps creating these schisms in the church? Well it is not the atheist, they form book clubs. It is not the Easter Sunday/Christmas Eve attendees, they watch football and support the PTA. It is not even the families that sit in the front row and quietly tithe 10%.
The new denominations are always started by the men (and women) who get up on the dais, pound their chest and loudly proclaim "My belief is stronger than your belief." And usually they claim to be taking orders directly from the big man himself. They devise different ceremonies, write different prayers, read different bibles and design different costumes. And they all preach about the one true "god".
But somehow Christians seem to think that if we allowed teacher lead prayer in public schools that all the different sects in the community, county or state would wondrously agree on the proper format for that prayer. And everyone would know the right thing to pray for. We can't agree on the proper way to teach math.
If all the different denominations of christian churches in this country were united there would be no question about "religion" in politics. Only members of that group would have a chance to get elected. And besides the church would have enough money to buy all the candidates wholesale before the election. They're much cheaper before the election. There is a "fire sale" after the election but only on the losers.
This great nation has one government for all the people. If we are to let religion into the government it needs to be a religion for "all the people". Even the democrats, with nine presidential candidates, present a more united front than the Christians.
OWL
July 30, 2007
"Christian men and women - on Christian principles - founded this nation, and this is clearly documented". That's what the emails says and I believe it. Something has gone very wrong. Who can we hold accountable for this corruption of of our country's character. Lets round up the usual suspects...
Bleeding Heart Liberals: They're the ones that think health care should be free, want to make sure everyone is fed and don't respect national borders. Bunch of subversive nut-jobs. They used to crucify people like that.
ACLU: American Civil Liberties Union. This group tries protect the rights granted by the Constitution of the United States of America and they don't care who gets hurt in the process.
The Atheist led by Madalyn Murray O'Hair: According to the email I get Ms O'Hair managed to get Touched by an Angel cancelled and has recently filed a lawsuit which will force the removal of the word "god" from all television and radio broadcast. So vitriolic is her hatred of religion that she continues her self appointed crusade unabated dispite having died ten years ago.
Activist Judges: Federal Judges are not elected by the people. The people elect the president, who nominates judges, and the senate who confirms the nominations. So the decisions made by the courts in no way reflect the will of the people.
Christian Religious Leaders: Their lack of unity has weakened the influence of the church and allowed the flock to be led astray by the main stream media.
Lets look back at the founding fathers for a moment. It was these same men (and women) that enacted the first amendment. Look it up. Christian men and women many of who owned slaves. And at least one, Tomas Jefferson who wrote the Declaration of Independence, fathered children with a slave. Having sex with a woman that you own is rape. Imagine that, the man who gave us "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." was a very serious abuser of human rights. Try not to think about this to much, your brain will over heat.
I admire the founding fathers and don't wish to spend words pointing out their moral failings. They were able to put aside vast philosophical and personal differences and work toward a common goal. They created a single government, bringing together people of many faiths, diverse backgrounds and various social and economic status treating them as equals. And did so in a way that has lasted for more than two hundred years. One government for all the people.
By contrast the history of the Christian Church, since Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the church door in the 1500s, has been one of division. Luther created the protestant church and Henry the 8th, wanting a divorce and to keep large sums of money in England away from the Pope, created the church of England. Nice two for one deal. Then came, in no particular order, the Puritans, the Methodist, the Fundamentalist and the Presbyterians. Today in the USA we have the Assembly of God Church, The Pentecostal Church of God, The United Pentecostal Church, The Church of The Nazarene, The Baptist Church and The Southern Baptist Church. There are Evangelical Free Churches, Gospel Churches, Charismatic Churches and Independent Bible Churches. That is just a fraction of the churches listed in our local phone book. We live in a rural area, the book is less than one inch thick.
Mary Baker Eddy formed the Church of Christ Scientist and Joseph Smith formed the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints (the Mormons). When the leadership of the Mormon Church decided tax breaks were more important than alternative life styles and banned polygamy the Mormon Fundamentalist broke away.
Who keeps creating these schisms in the church? Well it is not the atheist, they form book clubs. It is not the Easter Sunday/Christmas Eve attendees, they watch football and support the PTA. It is not even the families that sit in the front row and quietly tithe 10%.
The new denominations are always started by the men (and women) who get up on the dais, pound their chest and loudly proclaim "My belief is stronger than your belief." And usually they claim to be taking orders directly from the big man himself. They devise different ceremonies, write different prayers, read different bibles and design different costumes. And they all preach about the one true "god".
But somehow Christians seem to think that if we allowed teacher lead prayer in public schools that all the different sects in the community, county or state would wondrously agree on the proper format for that prayer. And everyone would know the right thing to pray for. We can't agree on the proper way to teach math.
If all the different denominations of christian churches in this country were united there would be no question about "religion" in politics. Only members of that group would have a chance to get elected. And besides the church would have enough money to buy all the candidates wholesale before the election. They're much cheaper before the election. There is a "fire sale" after the election but only on the losers.
This great nation has one government for all the people. If we are to let religion into the government it needs to be a religion for "all the people". Even the democrats, with nine presidential candidates, present a more united front than the Christians.
OWL
July 30, 2007
Monday, June 25, 2007
Going down!
I had been thinking about this subject for a while, wanting to write a blog about it because of the irony of the situation. Irony=funny. So I did a little research on the web. After reading the statistics I don't think this is so funny.
First I googled "fatalities airline US 2006". I found a couple articles referencing the fact that there had been no fatalities on large commercial domestic airline flights in the US for four and a half years as of mid 2006. None. Zero. Zilch. An amazing statistic considering the huge numbers of commercial flights in this country. I would like congratulate the FAA and the airlines for their work in reducing accidents.
Next I googled "fatalities motor vehicle us 2006". What do I find? "Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for U.S. teens". Forty-two thousand road deaths in the US in 2004. This country has got to get it's priorities straight!
The federal government which regulates air travel in the United States has done a fantastic job making air travel safer. The FAA, Federal Aviation Administration goes to great lengths to investigate every accident involving an aircraft and prevent its recurrence. If an airplane crashes the area is immediately cordoned off and no one, other than emergency personal aiding the injured or fighting fire is allow to touch anything. A team of experts with years of training is flown in and the crash site is gone over with a fine tooth comb. Every piece, no matter how small is collected and cataloged. If necessary the entire plane will be completely reconstructed in a hanger. Even "near misses" are thoroughly investigated and a pilot who inadvertently fails to follow correct procedure will have his licence suspended. A pilot who deliberately breaks the rules faces having his licence permanently revoked. If a mechanical defected is found to be the cause of an indecent all similar planes are grounded until they can be inspected and up graded. As a result airline travel in the US is statistically the safest way to go.
By contrast after an automobile accident tow trucks are immediately dispatched and the wreck cleared away ASAP. Often times the only investigation is done by a policeman, with little or no formal training in accident investigation, taking a statement from the driver. A driver whose negligence caused injury or death might be given a small fine to pay and have his insurance rate go up. The United States of America has one of the highest accident rates in the industrialized world!
Over the last ten years the number of deaths on airlines per one hundred million passenger miles, .002. In motor vehicles .08. You're forty times more likely to die in a car than in an airplane if you travel the same distance in each.
This is crazy! I and just about every American has to get into a car every day. To work, to go to school, to buy food, etc. It is a part of our daily existence. Can you remember the last time a day went by that you didn't have to go some where in a car. I can't. How often does the average American fly? Once or twice a year to go on holiday? So why hasn't this country made an effort to reduce auto accidents.
Sadly it seems that the less likely something is to kill you the more people get excited and want something done about it. Back in 1982 someone put cyanide into capsules of Tylenol, seven people died of cyanide poisoning. Almost over night tamper resistant or tamper evident packaging was introduced. Now virtually all over the counter medications and many other products are sold in "secure" packages. The way an entire industry markets its products was changed because of seven deaths. Product tampering was and still is very rare. West Nile virus which killed one person in California two years ago is on the front page of today's paper.
How many people were killed or maimed before seatbelts became standard in automobiles? And then only because they were required by the federal government. How many more fatalities happened before states made laws requiring their use. And how many people paid stiff fines before they started using them?
First I googled "fatalities airline US 2006". I found a couple articles referencing the fact that there had been no fatalities on large commercial domestic airline flights in the US for four and a half years as of mid 2006. None. Zero. Zilch. An amazing statistic considering the huge numbers of commercial flights in this country. I would like congratulate the FAA and the airlines for their work in reducing accidents.
Next I googled "fatalities motor vehicle us 2006". What do I find? "Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for U.S. teens". Forty-two thousand road deaths in the US in 2004. This country has got to get it's priorities straight!
The federal government which regulates air travel in the United States has done a fantastic job making air travel safer. The FAA, Federal Aviation Administration goes to great lengths to investigate every accident involving an aircraft and prevent its recurrence. If an airplane crashes the area is immediately cordoned off and no one, other than emergency personal aiding the injured or fighting fire is allow to touch anything. A team of experts with years of training is flown in and the crash site is gone over with a fine tooth comb. Every piece, no matter how small is collected and cataloged. If necessary the entire plane will be completely reconstructed in a hanger. Even "near misses" are thoroughly investigated and a pilot who inadvertently fails to follow correct procedure will have his licence suspended. A pilot who deliberately breaks the rules faces having his licence permanently revoked. If a mechanical defected is found to be the cause of an indecent all similar planes are grounded until they can be inspected and up graded. As a result airline travel in the US is statistically the safest way to go.
By contrast after an automobile accident tow trucks are immediately dispatched and the wreck cleared away ASAP. Often times the only investigation is done by a policeman, with little or no formal training in accident investigation, taking a statement from the driver. A driver whose negligence caused injury or death might be given a small fine to pay and have his insurance rate go up. The United States of America has one of the highest accident rates in the industrialized world!
Over the last ten years the number of deaths on airlines per one hundred million passenger miles, .002. In motor vehicles .08. You're forty times more likely to die in a car than in an airplane if you travel the same distance in each.
This is crazy! I and just about every American has to get into a car every day. To work, to go to school, to buy food, etc. It is a part of our daily existence. Can you remember the last time a day went by that you didn't have to go some where in a car. I can't. How often does the average American fly? Once or twice a year to go on holiday? So why hasn't this country made an effort to reduce auto accidents.
Sadly it seems that the less likely something is to kill you the more people get excited and want something done about it. Back in 1982 someone put cyanide into capsules of Tylenol, seven people died of cyanide poisoning. Almost over night tamper resistant or tamper evident packaging was introduced. Now virtually all over the counter medications and many other products are sold in "secure" packages. The way an entire industry markets its products was changed because of seven deaths. Product tampering was and still is very rare. West Nile virus which killed one person in California two years ago is on the front page of today's paper.
How many people were killed or maimed before seatbelts became standard in automobiles? And then only because they were required by the federal government. How many more fatalities happened before states made laws requiring their use. And how many people paid stiff fines before they started using them?
What can be done about the high numbers of traffic related deaths. While we may never make driving as safe as flying a mere one percent reduction in accidents would save four hundred lives per year. A twenty-five percent reduction would save ten thousand. First of all we need to change the perception that nothing can or should be done. Driving is an awesome responsibility and should be treated as such. Start with education, drivers education needs to be a part of the curriculum at all schools. A hundred hours on a high tech driving simulator, without a simulated infraction, should be required to get a licence.
Speed limits must be enforced! When everyone is going down the freeway at seventy-five miles an hour and the posted limit is sixty-five people get the impression that traffic laws are some kind of game and the rules are made to be broken. Set reasonable speed limits and impound the first car that exceeds it. Do likewise with other traffic laws. Don't just slap the drivers hand for running a red light or passing on a curve. Take their car away and impose heavy fines to be paid and many more hours on the simulator before the car is returned.
Heaving handed? No, heavy handed is getting broadsided in an intersection. Harsh? No, harsh is when you get a phone call from the Highway Patrol saying a loved one was killed by someone who was doing eighty-five and lost control.
And safe roads must be made a priority for state and local governments. In the county where I live several people have been killed and many injured at an intersection which has been known for years as a hazard because it needs a stoplight.
The light is scheduled for installation some time next year.....
OWL
July 10, 2007
Saturday, June 23, 2007
I get 'em at Costco
Some of my views are quite liberal, but I don't wear the Liberal label. Some of the ideas I believe in were once bulwarks of the republican platform. Smaller government, personal freedom and fiscal responsibility, are all conservative values that have been rejected by the current, Bush, administration. Abortion is not a good thing and should only be performed when necessary. As a society we should concentrate our efforts on preventing unwanted pregnancy through education. Outlawing abortion and forcing women to give birth to children they do not want is draconian and leads to more social problems. Etc, etc, etc.
I am registered to vote as "undeclared" which is the term used here in California. I believe they used to call us independents until some joker started the Independent party. When the "undeclared" party is formed the state will have to find a new name for those of us unfit to be a member of any political party. Unfit due to an irresistible compulsion to form one's own opinions coupled with an innate inability to believe an idea is good just because the person who came up with it belongs to a particular group.
Adhering to a "right wing" belief system is like flying an airplane with only one wing. There is some important stuff on the other side of the isle. I don't group myself with the moderates, taking opinions only from the middle is like flying with no wings at all. And as everyone knows, if your using only the left wing you're doomed to an endless series of loony logical loop-the-loops trying to justify Affirmative Action after years of fighting for equal rights.
You might as well buy your opinions wholesale. It's a lot easier. They come in a big box all wrapped up in tamper free packaging, complete with air tight arguments and emotional buzz words. Ready to wear. Guaranteed. No thinking required. Bumper stickers are an added bonus.
Forming one's own opinions about various issues takes a little more time and effort. Some light reading is required. A rudimentary knowledge of logical operations, (and, or, not), is helpful as well as the ability to distinguish fact from fiction. And you have to let yourself be exposed to points of view different from your own. This is something a lot of people have trouble with, opposing ideas scare them. They are afraid they might find out one of their beliefs is wrong. Then they would have to go back through whole bag looking for other "bad apples".
Life is much simpler if you choose to be faithful to an ideology. Who to vote for and what causes to support can be decided on the basis of a few key words or phrases such as moral outrage, patriot, activist, Reganism, out source or homelandish. Determining the strength of a politicians moral character requires only that you count the numbers of times he uses the word "god" in a thirty second sound bite. And once you hear a persons views on one issue you know how he stands on all the important issues of the day. If someone tells you they think abortion should be legal then you know that he doesn't support the troops. Anyone that wants to close the border will desire to make tax cuts for the wealthy permanent. Once you put yourself in a box and label it (conservative, democrat, boyscout or homophobic) it becomes automatic to stick everyone else in a box and label them (religious fanatic, capitalist pig, sexual deviant or litterbug).
I posted a blog (Papers? May 22, 2007) expressing dismay that citizens of The United States of America are having to prove they are citizens in order to go about their business. Someone identifying themself as garficher posted a comment attacking my stance and implying that I must think illegal immigrants should be afforded equal protection under the law. My post had nothing to do with illegal immigration and did not mention the subject at all. How this person got from my desire to keep the rights I grew up with to wanting to shelter criminals is beyond me. I guess the fact I didn't fit into a regular shaped box was to much for them to get their pre-loaded mind around. They asked the question, "Should we allow the various illegal aliens who are muggers, gang-bangers and father rapers to stay when we catch them?"
I have a wife and child, father rapers have got to go.
OWL
June 23, 2007
I am registered to vote as "undeclared" which is the term used here in California. I believe they used to call us independents until some joker started the Independent party. When the "undeclared" party is formed the state will have to find a new name for those of us unfit to be a member of any political party. Unfit due to an irresistible compulsion to form one's own opinions coupled with an innate inability to believe an idea is good just because the person who came up with it belongs to a particular group.
Adhering to a "right wing" belief system is like flying an airplane with only one wing. There is some important stuff on the other side of the isle. I don't group myself with the moderates, taking opinions only from the middle is like flying with no wings at all. And as everyone knows, if your using only the left wing you're doomed to an endless series of loony logical loop-the-loops trying to justify Affirmative Action after years of fighting for equal rights.
You might as well buy your opinions wholesale. It's a lot easier. They come in a big box all wrapped up in tamper free packaging, complete with air tight arguments and emotional buzz words. Ready to wear. Guaranteed. No thinking required. Bumper stickers are an added bonus.
Forming one's own opinions about various issues takes a little more time and effort. Some light reading is required. A rudimentary knowledge of logical operations, (and, or, not), is helpful as well as the ability to distinguish fact from fiction. And you have to let yourself be exposed to points of view different from your own. This is something a lot of people have trouble with, opposing ideas scare them. They are afraid they might find out one of their beliefs is wrong. Then they would have to go back through whole bag looking for other "bad apples".
Life is much simpler if you choose to be faithful to an ideology. Who to vote for and what causes to support can be decided on the basis of a few key words or phrases such as moral outrage, patriot, activist, Reganism, out source or homelandish. Determining the strength of a politicians moral character requires only that you count the numbers of times he uses the word "god" in a thirty second sound bite. And once you hear a persons views on one issue you know how he stands on all the important issues of the day. If someone tells you they think abortion should be legal then you know that he doesn't support the troops. Anyone that wants to close the border will desire to make tax cuts for the wealthy permanent. Once you put yourself in a box and label it (conservative, democrat, boyscout or homophobic) it becomes automatic to stick everyone else in a box and label them (religious fanatic, capitalist pig, sexual deviant or litterbug).
I posted a blog (Papers? May 22, 2007) expressing dismay that citizens of The United States of America are having to prove they are citizens in order to go about their business. Someone identifying themself as garficher posted a comment attacking my stance and implying that I must think illegal immigrants should be afforded equal protection under the law. My post had nothing to do with illegal immigration and did not mention the subject at all. How this person got from my desire to keep the rights I grew up with to wanting to shelter criminals is beyond me. I guess the fact I didn't fit into a regular shaped box was to much for them to get their pre-loaded mind around. They asked the question, "Should we allow the various illegal aliens who are muggers, gang-bangers and father rapers to stay when we catch them?"
I have a wife and child, father rapers have got to go.
OWL
June 23, 2007
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
the road
The road runs nearly east to west, rising somewhat as you travel east, almost straight and level with only a few dips and gentle curves. To the south grass land rises up to a line of hills parallel to the road. The road forks and the southern road goes around the eastern end of the hills and then up to their summit where there are a few scattered houses. The northern fork crosses the valley south to north and forks again. The east fork leads up a very steep mountain and over a high pass to places unknown. The road now skirts a line of hills on the west. Another fork to the east runs down into a valley and to a small town who's residents are ignorant and xenophobic. Past the town a small stream runs down out of the hills.
Near the west end of the road sits the house. It has two or three stories but I am familiar with only the ground floor. An elderly lady may inhabit the upper rooms of the house, no one ever sees her. Behind the house is a large back yard with a few trees and dry weeds. A tall wooden fence forms the western boundary of the lot. Beyond that is an abandoned complex of buildings whose original purpose in unknown. There are machine shops, fuel tanks, old vehicles and other signs of industry. On the southern side there are large partially collapsed underground rooms.
To the north of the house there is a lawn bordered by a white picket fence. A step hill, covered with brush and scrub oaks, sits beyond the fence. Near the top, about an hours walk from the house at the back of a flat area is a cave carved out of the natural limestone. To the east of the house sits a ravine also covered with brush, scrub oaks and dry weeds. At the edge of the ravine is a small travel trailer that has some of my collected "stuff" in it that needs to be moved. Past the ravine are some hills and then a little town. A trail leads through the hills to the college.
This is the landscape of my dreams. Many of them are set in one of these areas. Some of them have emotional meanings going back to my early childhood. I might share those meanings with Black-eyed Susan. Why am I sharing these images here?
Why did early hunters paint on cave walls? Why do kids mark walls with spray paint? Why do politicians give long speeches? Why is there an American flag on the moon?
The Internet is modern man's cave. We sit in darkened rooms throughout the night, basking in the warm glow of the computer screen, our shadows looming up behind us, pulling hope and fear from the recesses of the subconscious and posting them on the virtual wall in a vain attempt to gain power over them by giving them substance and permanence.
OWL
June 19, 2007
Near the west end of the road sits the house. It has two or three stories but I am familiar with only the ground floor. An elderly lady may inhabit the upper rooms of the house, no one ever sees her. Behind the house is a large back yard with a few trees and dry weeds. A tall wooden fence forms the western boundary of the lot. Beyond that is an abandoned complex of buildings whose original purpose in unknown. There are machine shops, fuel tanks, old vehicles and other signs of industry. On the southern side there are large partially collapsed underground rooms.
To the north of the house there is a lawn bordered by a white picket fence. A step hill, covered with brush and scrub oaks, sits beyond the fence. Near the top, about an hours walk from the house at the back of a flat area is a cave carved out of the natural limestone. To the east of the house sits a ravine also covered with brush, scrub oaks and dry weeds. At the edge of the ravine is a small travel trailer that has some of my collected "stuff" in it that needs to be moved. Past the ravine are some hills and then a little town. A trail leads through the hills to the college.
This is the landscape of my dreams. Many of them are set in one of these areas. Some of them have emotional meanings going back to my early childhood. I might share those meanings with Black-eyed Susan. Why am I sharing these images here?
Why did early hunters paint on cave walls? Why do kids mark walls with spray paint? Why do politicians give long speeches? Why is there an American flag on the moon?
The Internet is modern man's cave. We sit in darkened rooms throughout the night, basking in the warm glow of the computer screen, our shadows looming up behind us, pulling hope and fear from the recesses of the subconscious and posting them on the virtual wall in a vain attempt to gain power over them by giving them substance and permanence.
OWL
June 19, 2007
Sunday, June 10, 2007
You should be in pictures
I admit it I'm prejudiced against a certain type of people. Actors. Men and women who act for a living. Can't stand to be around them. I don't even care for those who appear in community theater in their spare time. I not going to say that the world would be better off without them, they provide us with entertainment. A little distraction and maybe enlightenment on a Saturday night. But do we have have to let them commingle with normal folks?
Back in Shakespeare's day actors were shunned. Decent people didn't associate with the low life itinerant scum that traveled from town to town putting on plays which appealed to mankind's baser instincts. So bad was the common perception of the acting profession that women were not allow to join the troupe.
Think about what it is that actors do. What makes someone a good actor. You have to be able to put on make-up. Nothing wrong with that. Getting in and out out various costumes quickly, and looking good in them comes in handy. That's OK, we all like to dress up now and then. And it is necessary to be able to remember your lines. Having a good memory is wonderful thing. So what is about actors that just turns my stomach?
Their seemingly innate ability to make you believe that how they feel is different than what they really feel. A great actor can convince you he hasn't a care in the world when in reality his stomach is all knotted up because it is opening night and he thinks the play is going to flop. A good actress will appear to be so in love with her leading man even though she really thinks he is a disgusting drunken slobbering pervert. He probably is. Acting is deception at the deepest possible level. The falsification of emotion.
Most actors are very good at it because they do it all the time. They're always on. Either they learned at a very early age that they could get whatever they wanted by "pretending" or they detest themselves so much they spend their entire lives trying to be somebody else. I don't trust them.
Remember when you were growing up it was always the kids who were good actors that were little brats who that got away with everything. They could turn on the charm and convince all the adults that they were little angels. If one scraped a knee you would think he'd been skinned alive the way he would carry on. If some other kid had one of her toys it was suddenly the most precious thing in her toy box. These are the kids who got extra treats and always rode up front (car sick) and got to pick which movie we saw. And when they got their way and the adults weren't looking he or she would look at you and stick out their tongue. Naa Naa Naa....
Many actors are now entering politics. The fine reputation of that noble profession for integrity and honesty has suffered accordingly.
Maybe the real reason I don't like actors is because I am so shy and don't draw a lot of attention to myself. An actor comes into the room and blam, immediately everyone is watching them and listening to their every word. They are the center of attention.
They do this by pretending to be someone they are not.
OWL
June 10, 2007
Back in Shakespeare's day actors were shunned. Decent people didn't associate with the low life itinerant scum that traveled from town to town putting on plays which appealed to mankind's baser instincts. So bad was the common perception of the acting profession that women were not allow to join the troupe.
Think about what it is that actors do. What makes someone a good actor. You have to be able to put on make-up. Nothing wrong with that. Getting in and out out various costumes quickly, and looking good in them comes in handy. That's OK, we all like to dress up now and then. And it is necessary to be able to remember your lines. Having a good memory is wonderful thing. So what is about actors that just turns my stomach?
Their seemingly innate ability to make you believe that how they feel is different than what they really feel. A great actor can convince you he hasn't a care in the world when in reality his stomach is all knotted up because it is opening night and he thinks the play is going to flop. A good actress will appear to be so in love with her leading man even though she really thinks he is a disgusting drunken slobbering pervert. He probably is. Acting is deception at the deepest possible level. The falsification of emotion.
Most actors are very good at it because they do it all the time. They're always on. Either they learned at a very early age that they could get whatever they wanted by "pretending" or they detest themselves so much they spend their entire lives trying to be somebody else. I don't trust them.
Remember when you were growing up it was always the kids who were good actors that were little brats who that got away with everything. They could turn on the charm and convince all the adults that they were little angels. If one scraped a knee you would think he'd been skinned alive the way he would carry on. If some other kid had one of her toys it was suddenly the most precious thing in her toy box. These are the kids who got extra treats and always rode up front (car sick) and got to pick which movie we saw. And when they got their way and the adults weren't looking he or she would look at you and stick out their tongue. Naa Naa Naa....
Many actors are now entering politics. The fine reputation of that noble profession for integrity and honesty has suffered accordingly.
Maybe the real reason I don't like actors is because I am so shy and don't draw a lot of attention to myself. An actor comes into the room and blam, immediately everyone is watching them and listening to their every word. They are the center of attention.
They do this by pretending to be someone they are not.
OWL
June 10, 2007
Friday, June 8, 2007
I'm really losing it
Over the past few years there has been a lot of controversy locally about whether or not to allow "big box" stores into our little community. Some people think the huge retail chain outlets will destroy our small town atmosphere. Others want the convenience and savings that can only be found in a building with seven million square feet stacked floor to ceiling with discounted merchandise from every third world country in the solar system.
This is from the local news this morning, quoting our city administrator, siting a study made two years ago, "the city and the county have each lost $414,000 per year in sales tax revenue by not having Lowe's in the community."
Public officials say this kind of thing all the time. "We are losing money." By "we" they mean whatever government entity they work for. But it is the definition of "losing" that is of real interest. It means there is money out there that could be collected with a new tax or fee or regulation or permit or whatever. In this case it alludes to the fact that more taxes could be assessed if this development were allowed to go forward. How is that losing? Losing almost never means they had the money and it disappeared or was wasted due to bumbling incompetence and criminal negligence.
Whatever their title, city administrator, tax collector, treasurer, chief petty parking enforcement dude or purveyor of the public trust, these people seem to think they have a right to our money. If there is a way to get more of it and they are not doing so, well then, "we are losing money". And the people better wake up and put pressure on their leaders to right this wrong being done to them!
It's our money.....
OWL
June 7, 2007
This is from the local news this morning, quoting our city administrator, siting a study made two years ago, "the city and the county have each lost $414,000 per year in sales tax revenue by not having Lowe's in the community."
Public officials say this kind of thing all the time. "We are losing money." By "we" they mean whatever government entity they work for. But it is the definition of "losing" that is of real interest. It means there is money out there that could be collected with a new tax or fee or regulation or permit or whatever. In this case it alludes to the fact that more taxes could be assessed if this development were allowed to go forward. How is that losing? Losing almost never means they had the money and it disappeared or was wasted due to bumbling incompetence and criminal negligence.
Whatever their title, city administrator, tax collector, treasurer, chief petty parking enforcement dude or purveyor of the public trust, these people seem to think they have a right to our money. If there is a way to get more of it and they are not doing so, well then, "we are losing money". And the people better wake up and put pressure on their leaders to right this wrong being done to them!
It's our money.....
OWL
June 7, 2007
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
I learned it on PBS
Back in the seventies PBS, the Public Broadcasting System, was a fetid backwater running old episodes of Monty Python, subsisting on government grants and the meager donations collected in their endless fund raising drives. Bitter about their marginal existence the network lased out viciously against the abuses of corporate America, exposing the unsavory practices of Big Oil, Big Business and Big Campaign Contributions. The news and documentaries on PBS tended to be very critical of the status quo.
Something had to be done. Not wanting to be unduly influenced by corporate sponsors PBS refused take money in exchange for advertising time on their network. So instead Mobile Oil Corporation had a brilliant idea. Mobile gave PBS millions of dollars to produce Masterpiece Theater. Other big companies followed suit. PBS began to move up in the world. Higher production values meant more viewers. More viewers brought an increase in the donations and public support equals larger grants from the feds. A steady income can be addictive.
Now PBS gets major funding from "advertisers" in the form of acknowledged sponsorship of various programs. Utterly dependent on the oil/money pipeline the executives at our public television network have silenced their editorial staff. Mission accomplished!
World governments could learn a lesson here. For as long as I can remember the standard practice in international politics has been to refuse foreign aid to countries whose leaders were not playing by the rules, to ban trade with them and cut off diplomatic relations. Works real good. A half century of this tactic and Cuba's Fidel Castro is still in charge. The isolation imposed has just served to consolidate the power of the communist regime.
Maybe they should try the other way round? El Presidente' cancels free elections, give him a nice humanitarian package. Socialist government violates human rights make them a preferred trading partner. Lavish money on 'em. Throw large piles of cold hard cash in their direction. No strings attached, no conditions, nothing asked in return.
Not only will the rulers benefit but according to the theory of "trickle down economics" the standard of living enjoyed by the peasants will go up as well. And when everyone gets dependent on your largess then you start asking for small "concessions". They won't be able to refuse. Then add a few "conditions". Sweeten the pot with a free trade agreement and poof in a few short years you're telling them how to run a country. They have no choice but to become a democracy.
Mission accomplished.
OWL
June 6, 2007
Something had to be done. Not wanting to be unduly influenced by corporate sponsors PBS refused take money in exchange for advertising time on their network. So instead Mobile Oil Corporation had a brilliant idea. Mobile gave PBS millions of dollars to produce Masterpiece Theater. Other big companies followed suit. PBS began to move up in the world. Higher production values meant more viewers. More viewers brought an increase in the donations and public support equals larger grants from the feds. A steady income can be addictive.
Now PBS gets major funding from "advertisers" in the form of acknowledged sponsorship of various programs. Utterly dependent on the oil/money pipeline the executives at our public television network have silenced their editorial staff. Mission accomplished!
World governments could learn a lesson here. For as long as I can remember the standard practice in international politics has been to refuse foreign aid to countries whose leaders were not playing by the rules, to ban trade with them and cut off diplomatic relations. Works real good. A half century of this tactic and Cuba's Fidel Castro is still in charge. The isolation imposed has just served to consolidate the power of the communist regime.
Maybe they should try the other way round? El Presidente' cancels free elections, give him a nice humanitarian package. Socialist government violates human rights make them a preferred trading partner. Lavish money on 'em. Throw large piles of cold hard cash in their direction. No strings attached, no conditions, nothing asked in return.
Not only will the rulers benefit but according to the theory of "trickle down economics" the standard of living enjoyed by the peasants will go up as well. And when everyone gets dependent on your largess then you start asking for small "concessions". They won't be able to refuse. Then add a few "conditions". Sweeten the pot with a free trade agreement and poof in a few short years you're telling them how to run a country. They have no choice but to become a democracy.
Mission accomplished.
OWL
June 6, 2007
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Fitfy-one
I am fifty-one. This is my fifty-first blog entry. There are fifty one cards in a deck that's missing the ace of spades. Coincidence? Maybe.
Last year when we had an inspection I walked around the night before and checked everything out. Everything was okay. The nice lady young lady got here at nine in the morning and we took a tour of the property. In one of the hallways the plastic light cover had fallen down some time during the night and shattered. It was laying there in pieces on the floor. I felt like a fool.
This morning we had this year's inspection. I did a quick walk through at eight AM in order to prevent a repeat of last year's embarrassment. The place looked fine. This year our supervisor was on hand for the inspection which started at nine. It went real good. The place was clean and fresh and all the light covers were in their proper places. The inspector left and I went to warm up a cup of tea. I got my tea and headed back to the office, shutting the door behind me.
BLAM!
"What the..??". I looked around and there in the hall a white plastic light cover lay shattered on the floor.
Coincidence?
OWL
June 5, 2007
Last year when we had an inspection I walked around the night before and checked everything out. Everything was okay. The nice lady young lady got here at nine in the morning and we took a tour of the property. In one of the hallways the plastic light cover had fallen down some time during the night and shattered. It was laying there in pieces on the floor. I felt like a fool.
This morning we had this year's inspection. I did a quick walk through at eight AM in order to prevent a repeat of last year's embarrassment. The place looked fine. This year our supervisor was on hand for the inspection which started at nine. It went real good. The place was clean and fresh and all the light covers were in their proper places. The inspector left and I went to warm up a cup of tea. I got my tea and headed back to the office, shutting the door behind me.
BLAM!
"What the..??". I looked around and there in the hall a white plastic light cover lay shattered on the floor.
Coincidence?
OWL
June 5, 2007
Saturday, June 2, 2007
I swear
There has been a big to-do over whether or not it is constitutional to have teachers lead students in the pledge of allegiance because of the words "under God". As usual the relevant point seems to have been completely missed.
First a little background. The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Baptist Minister Francis Bellamy to be used in a promotion for a children's magazine, Youth's Companion. The Pledge was first used in public schools on Columbus Day in 1892 after a proclamation by President Benjamin Harrison. The Supreme Court ruled in 1940 that public school students could be compelled to recited the Pledge and reversed the decision in 1943 on account of the "compulsory unification of opinion" violated the First Amendment. Your teacher can't make you say the pledge but in kindergarten you've been told to "obey teacher". The Pledge was officially recognised by congress as the national pledge in 1945. In 1954 President Eisenhower signed a bill into law adding the words "under God".
The controversy surrounding the use of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools has been about the words "under God". What about the insidious act of making very young children, some as young as five years old, swear "allegiance"? To a flag? With their hands on their hearts? The idea of pledging one's allegiance to one's country is a very serious matter or at least it should be. It should only be under taken after due consideration and with full understanding of the meaning what you are doing.
It is OK to teach school children words to the Pledge of Allegiance. Teach them meaning of the words: "liberty", "justice", "indivisible" and "allegiance". And teach them why so many adults think it is so important to love this great country and the freedoms we have. Teach them about God. Then when they are old enough to know what it is they are saying and why they are saying it give them the opportunity to do so of their own free will. And then the words will have real meaning.
To have children recite it every day by rote makes it a meaningless and hollow ritual and makes a mockery of the very concept of liberty. The daily forced vow of fealty is the kind thing you would expect under ruthless dictators in rigid totalitarian societies.
OWL
June 2, 2007
First a little background. The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Baptist Minister Francis Bellamy to be used in a promotion for a children's magazine, Youth's Companion. The Pledge was first used in public schools on Columbus Day in 1892 after a proclamation by President Benjamin Harrison. The Supreme Court ruled in 1940 that public school students could be compelled to recited the Pledge and reversed the decision in 1943 on account of the "compulsory unification of opinion" violated the First Amendment. Your teacher can't make you say the pledge but in kindergarten you've been told to "obey teacher". The Pledge was officially recognised by congress as the national pledge in 1945. In 1954 President Eisenhower signed a bill into law adding the words "under God".
The controversy surrounding the use of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools has been about the words "under God". What about the insidious act of making very young children, some as young as five years old, swear "allegiance"? To a flag? With their hands on their hearts? The idea of pledging one's allegiance to one's country is a very serious matter or at least it should be. It should only be under taken after due consideration and with full understanding of the meaning what you are doing.
It is OK to teach school children words to the Pledge of Allegiance. Teach them meaning of the words: "liberty", "justice", "indivisible" and "allegiance". And teach them why so many adults think it is so important to love this great country and the freedoms we have. Teach them about God. Then when they are old enough to know what it is they are saying and why they are saying it give them the opportunity to do so of their own free will. And then the words will have real meaning.
To have children recite it every day by rote makes it a meaningless and hollow ritual and makes a mockery of the very concept of liberty. The daily forced vow of fealty is the kind thing you would expect under ruthless dictators in rigid totalitarian societies.
OWL
June 2, 2007
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Golden flowers of the sun
The growing season usually starts about mid May here the foothills of central California where I have lived for (51-18=33) thirty-three years now, the same amount of time I have known Misses B. I met her the year I moved up here. Local nurseries recommend that gardeners wait until after Mother's day to plant most things. There is a possibility of frost, and a very real chance of thunderstorms with dime size or bigger hail that can shred tender leaves like a weed-whip with a hormonal imbalance. Have you ever seen a thousand people clear a beach in five minutes? I have.
Several years ago my sister and her kids came to town some time around mid June. We all headed down to one of the local lakes for some sun, swimming and scenery. It's a very crowded beach so by "scenery" I mean half-naked fully-developed women. After a bit some very black and ominous looking clouds ended the "sun" part of the excursion. There was a flash of lightening out over the lake followed by a crack and then the slow deep pleasing roll of thunder. "Lets go", I live here, I know whats coming next. Besides it is never a good idea to be in or near the water when the Thunder Gods are angry. Tourist, what do they know? We get all our stuff packed up, so do some of the other people who descended from apes. Then it happens. One of the big black clouds moves to left, another does a quick side step to the right and out of the hole in between comes masses of frozen water in marble sized chunks. And it hurts. And it is down right scary, especially if you're not expecting it and most of these people were not expecting it. Black clouds, lightening, thunder and these people were oohing and aahhing like it was part of the light show for the Scrambled Omelet Reunion Tour. Imagine one thousand people on the beach with their towels and their picnics and their kids and their dogs and their floaties and their beer and their coolers and their garbage and their grandmothers and their sister-in-law's neighbor's ex-boyfriend's new boyfriend. And they all just decided it would be a really good idea to get off the beach NOW. With the children screaming, for effect. Even with the head start it took us a good ten minutes to get out of the parking lot and on the road. By then there was four inches of water running not only through some of the camp sites but actually through some of the tents. I don't usually laugh at others misfortunes but thinking back damn it was funny. Misses B. wonders why I never want to go camping...
Anyway spring weather here on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada can be kind of dicey. Global warming will make early planting an even riskier proposition because thunderstorms feed on warm air. But don't tell mom that. I mean mother nature. Last year I grew sunflowers in my garden, planting them about mid May as recommended. This year in early April sunflowers came up from the seeds that dropped on the ground last fall. Today on May 31st two weeks into the "growing season" the sunflowers are taller than I am. A little less than six feet!
Mother knows best.
Having six foot tall sunflowers this early in the spring should make the gardener in me happy. But it hasn't. I've been depressed. Some how writing about it makes me realize how wonderful it is.
Are those storm clouds?
OWL
May 31, 2007
Several years ago my sister and her kids came to town some time around mid June. We all headed down to one of the local lakes for some sun, swimming and scenery. It's a very crowded beach so by "scenery" I mean half-naked fully-developed women. After a bit some very black and ominous looking clouds ended the "sun" part of the excursion. There was a flash of lightening out over the lake followed by a crack and then the slow deep pleasing roll of thunder. "Lets go", I live here, I know whats coming next. Besides it is never a good idea to be in or near the water when the Thunder Gods are angry. Tourist, what do they know? We get all our stuff packed up, so do some of the other people who descended from apes. Then it happens. One of the big black clouds moves to left, another does a quick side step to the right and out of the hole in between comes masses of frozen water in marble sized chunks. And it hurts. And it is down right scary, especially if you're not expecting it and most of these people were not expecting it. Black clouds, lightening, thunder and these people were oohing and aahhing like it was part of the light show for the Scrambled Omelet Reunion Tour. Imagine one thousand people on the beach with their towels and their picnics and their kids and their dogs and their floaties and their beer and their coolers and their garbage and their grandmothers and their sister-in-law's neighbor's ex-boyfriend's new boyfriend. And they all just decided it would be a really good idea to get off the beach NOW. With the children screaming, for effect. Even with the head start it took us a good ten minutes to get out of the parking lot and on the road. By then there was four inches of water running not only through some of the camp sites but actually through some of the tents. I don't usually laugh at others misfortunes but thinking back damn it was funny. Misses B. wonders why I never want to go camping...
Anyway spring weather here on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada can be kind of dicey. Global warming will make early planting an even riskier proposition because thunderstorms feed on warm air. But don't tell mom that. I mean mother nature. Last year I grew sunflowers in my garden, planting them about mid May as recommended. This year in early April sunflowers came up from the seeds that dropped on the ground last fall. Today on May 31st two weeks into the "growing season" the sunflowers are taller than I am. A little less than six feet!
Mother knows best.
Having six foot tall sunflowers this early in the spring should make the gardener in me happy. But it hasn't. I've been depressed. Some how writing about it makes me realize how wonderful it is.
Are those storm clouds?
OWL
May 31, 2007
Saturday, May 26, 2007
It's a living breathing thing
Black Eyed Susan asked me if I felt alive. We had been talking about the reasons I used to do drugs. I feel alive when I am in my garden seeing the plants get bigger every day, blossom and develop fruits. And oddly enough I feel alive when I dream. It is such a different reality and experience. Anyone I've ever known can show up, anything I've ever seen, anything I've ever done might be a part of the nightly peep show. And the things I've never been, the things I cannot or will not do........
What I didn't tell her is how blogging makes me feel alive. It can be exhilarating or cathartic. I can express my anger, my joy, my cynicism. I can make fun of the world or of myself. I can let things out in a way I have never done before. And I don't have to worry about what others may think. I don't have many readers. Those of you who know who I am know me well enough that I don't have to hide any thing.
The garden and weekend chores await.
OWL
May 26, 2007
What I didn't tell her is how blogging makes me feel alive. It can be exhilarating or cathartic. I can express my anger, my joy, my cynicism. I can make fun of the world or of myself. I can let things out in a way I have never done before. And I don't have to worry about what others may think. I don't have many readers. Those of you who know who I am know me well enough that I don't have to hide any thing.
The garden and weekend chores await.
OWL
May 26, 2007
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Hi, this is me!
When scientists talk about human cloning they mean taking a single cell, getting it to divide and creating more cells just like it. Usually for the purpose of finding cures or treatments for cancer, Parkinson's, ALS or other disabling and deadly diseases. When many people hear the term "human cloning" they think of a brilliant but disturbed individual, backed by billions from a secret government agency, surreptitiously obtaining a hair sample from Jean-Claude and generating 2,345,116 identical, over sized, well trained, obedient army-guys using poorly paid illegal immigrants as surrogate mothers. All for the next invasion of New Jersey.
Groups claiming authority from God have used this confusion to engender public opposition to stem cell research and other types of medical research involving human cell division. Their reasons for objecting to this type of experimentation are uncharacteristically vague. Usually they just point and shout, "It is in the Bible". Yeah, right next to the bit about not cutting your hair. LEV. 19: 27. "Thou Shalt Not Divide Thy Cells To Cure Diabetes" is apparently in one of the lost books of the Bible. "It is not natural!" Neither is immunization. "You mustn't play God." A long standing objection to progress. I go out in the garden every day and decide which plants will live and which shall die, isn't that playing God? And "It destroys life." A very god argument coming from the Bush camp.
One of the real reasons Christians object to using cloned cells to cure disease exist at a subconscious level and is not expressed by church leaders. "Disease is a punishment for sin!" and the proper way to treat disease is to repent and pray. Prayer is always answered, except when God, the Son and the Holy Ghost are all "busy with another customer".
What will happen if they find a cure for AIDS? Your son will develop a craving for live salami and your daughter will decide addiction to intravenous drugs is not so bad? There will be no good reason to lock up women who have been forced into prostitution? God will have to put his research and development department to work finding a new slow and painful death as punishment for gender maladjustment?
Given the great advances made in modern medicine whenever science had made serious and continued inquiry I believe it is inevitable that wonderful things things will come from "human cloning" and stem cell research. With or without federal funding or the approval of conservative Christians. And when these breakthroughs are announced, whether it is a way to reverse the effects of Alzheimer's disease or a cure for Lupus, all those who opposed such research on religious grounds will stand up, join hands and speak with one voice...
"THANK GOD !"
OWL
May 24, 2007
Groups claiming authority from God have used this confusion to engender public opposition to stem cell research and other types of medical research involving human cell division. Their reasons for objecting to this type of experimentation are uncharacteristically vague. Usually they just point and shout, "It is in the Bible". Yeah, right next to the bit about not cutting your hair. LEV. 19: 27. "Thou Shalt Not Divide Thy Cells To Cure Diabetes" is apparently in one of the lost books of the Bible. "It is not natural!" Neither is immunization. "You mustn't play God." A long standing objection to progress. I go out in the garden every day and decide which plants will live and which shall die, isn't that playing God? And "It destroys life." A very god argument coming from the Bush camp.
One of the real reasons Christians object to using cloned cells to cure disease exist at a subconscious level and is not expressed by church leaders. "Disease is a punishment for sin!" and the proper way to treat disease is to repent and pray. Prayer is always answered, except when God, the Son and the Holy Ghost are all "busy with another customer".
What will happen if they find a cure for AIDS? Your son will develop a craving for live salami and your daughter will decide addiction to intravenous drugs is not so bad? There will be no good reason to lock up women who have been forced into prostitution? God will have to put his research and development department to work finding a new slow and painful death as punishment for gender maladjustment?
Given the great advances made in modern medicine whenever science had made serious and continued inquiry I believe it is inevitable that wonderful things things will come from "human cloning" and stem cell research. With or without federal funding or the approval of conservative Christians. And when these breakthroughs are announced, whether it is a way to reverse the effects of Alzheimer's disease or a cure for Lupus, all those who opposed such research on religious grounds will stand up, join hands and speak with one voice...
"THANK GOD !"
OWL
May 24, 2007
Monday, May 21, 2007
Appliance yourself
When I was young, oh such a long time ago, we had in our house: Refrigerator, stove, toaster, vacuum cleaner. In the living room was a console with back and white TV, record player and AM/FM radio. FM was classical music. The TV got three channels, ABC, NBC and CBS. When we went to the beach we took along a portable, battery powered radio which according to the proud statement on the side contained "Three Transistors!" Our family photographs were taken with an old Brownie. No one in my family drank coffee but we had a perculator for when there was company. It was a big deal when mom got a hair dryer for Christmas. The one telephone in the house belonged to Ma Bell, we merely rented it. The house was heated by a single gas wall furnace, to cool it we opened a window. In the driveway was an old Ford Fairlane. On the weekend us kids would pay 35 cents to see a movie at the local theater, or the whole family bundled up in the car and we went to the Drive-in.
We were middle class and thought we had enough stuff to lead contented lives in our small community. Pufftt. We were blissfully ignorant. How unhappy we would have been if we had known what we were missing. Imagine a device in your living room allowing you to watch any movie ever made when ever you want. In color!
In my house today: Refrigerator (it is not frost free, it is getting replaced, long story), stove with self-cleaning oven, toaster, vacuum cleaner, blow dryer, blender, micro-wave oven, portable telephone with caller ID, telephone with wires for when the electricity goes out, two cell phones, three color TVs (one is a spare), two VCRs, DVD player, two CD players, George Foreman grill, automatic drip coffee maker, computer with color printer/scanner/copier, cable box, five remote controls, web cam, coffee grinder, hot air popper, electric toothbrush, digital camera, video camera, Game-boy, telephone answering machine, electric massager, cassette player, mini-cassette recorder, heating pad, lap top computer with color printer/scanner/copier, and a hand held laser pointer! Central heating and air conditioning keeps the house at just the right temperature winter and summer and I have a small space heater in my office for cold mornings. A Subaru and a Mazda take up space in the driveway.
Typical for today's middle class household.
Mandatory for today's middle class household. In order for the average family of four to afford all this stuff it has to be made very cheaply. So it cannot be made in America, at least not by Americans. Manufacturing jobs have moved over seas because no one buys well built, Made in the USA, products any more. We can blame Big Business or the government or the illegal immigrants or predatory Japanese trade policies for the loss of well paying jobs here at home. But who is it that goes to Wal-Mart every week and empties the large cardboard boxes marked "ROC"?
Now where did I put the battery powered remote control backscratcher/teleportation device?
OWL
May 21, 2007
We were middle class and thought we had enough stuff to lead contented lives in our small community. Pufftt. We were blissfully ignorant. How unhappy we would have been if we had known what we were missing. Imagine a device in your living room allowing you to watch any movie ever made when ever you want. In color!
In my house today: Refrigerator (it is not frost free, it is getting replaced, long story), stove with self-cleaning oven, toaster, vacuum cleaner, blow dryer, blender, micro-wave oven, portable telephone with caller ID, telephone with wires for when the electricity goes out, two cell phones, three color TVs (one is a spare), two VCRs, DVD player, two CD players, George Foreman grill, automatic drip coffee maker, computer with color printer/scanner/copier, cable box, five remote controls, web cam, coffee grinder, hot air popper, electric toothbrush, digital camera, video camera, Game-boy, telephone answering machine, electric massager, cassette player, mini-cassette recorder, heating pad, lap top computer with color printer/scanner/copier, and a hand held laser pointer! Central heating and air conditioning keeps the house at just the right temperature winter and summer and I have a small space heater in my office for cold mornings. A Subaru and a Mazda take up space in the driveway.
Typical for today's middle class household.
Mandatory for today's middle class household. In order for the average family of four to afford all this stuff it has to be made very cheaply. So it cannot be made in America, at least not by Americans. Manufacturing jobs have moved over seas because no one buys well built, Made in the USA, products any more. We can blame Big Business or the government or the illegal immigrants or predatory Japanese trade policies for the loss of well paying jobs here at home. But who is it that goes to Wal-Mart every week and empties the large cardboard boxes marked "ROC"?
Now where did I put the battery powered remote control backscratcher/teleportation device?
OWL
May 21, 2007
Papers?
I used to watch old movies late at night on a little black and white TV. The picture was grainy, the sound quality poor and the story line predictable. The protagonist, a top level English or American spy would be waiting at a seedy night club in Bucharest, dressed in native garb, three days growth on his chin and speaking perfect Romanian in a drunken slur. In walks the chief of the Secret Police followed by two soldiers carrying machine guns. Taking a quick look around the room the chief walks straight up to our hero and demands, "Your papers please! Show me your papers!" Double O nineteen fumbles though his pockets and produces a stack of dirty wrinkled documents. Chief examines them carefully and hands them back with a disappointed grunt.
Score one for MI5 or the CIA or The Man From Uncle. And we back here in the free world sit smugly in our easy chair feeling much superior. No papers are required. We do not have work permits, travel permits, housing documents or serial numbers. And never are the police allowed to walk up to you and demand that you prove who you are and where you're going with out good reason to do so.
But that is changing. First Social Security cards were mandated and now you have to prove your citizenship or at least swear to it in order to get a job. And now the good people of Farmers Branch, Texas, a suburb of Dallas have passed a law requiring landlords to get proof of citizenship before renting to a perspective tenant. I guess they were not happy with the slow pace at which the current administration is stripping us of our rights and freedoms. What is next? Having to show your birth certificate to see a doctor, open a bank account, buy major household appliances or go through a toll booth. Will we need permits to travel from Minneapolis to St. Paul? Will Farmers Branch be the first city in the US to establish check points manned by Boy Scouts?
In Japan in order to buy a new car you have to prove you have a place to park it. Now that makes sense.
OWL
May 21, 2007
Score one for MI5 or the CIA or The Man From Uncle. And we back here in the free world sit smugly in our easy chair feeling much superior. No papers are required. We do not have work permits, travel permits, housing documents or serial numbers. And never are the police allowed to walk up to you and demand that you prove who you are and where you're going with out good reason to do so.
But that is changing. First Social Security cards were mandated and now you have to prove your citizenship or at least swear to it in order to get a job. And now the good people of Farmers Branch, Texas, a suburb of Dallas have passed a law requiring landlords to get proof of citizenship before renting to a perspective tenant. I guess they were not happy with the slow pace at which the current administration is stripping us of our rights and freedoms. What is next? Having to show your birth certificate to see a doctor, open a bank account, buy major household appliances or go through a toll booth. Will we need permits to travel from Minneapolis to St. Paul? Will Farmers Branch be the first city in the US to establish check points manned by Boy Scouts?
In Japan in order to buy a new car you have to prove you have a place to park it. Now that makes sense.
OWL
May 21, 2007
Monday, May 14, 2007
Where did I put that?
Way back some time during the last century scientist all over world started making dire predictions of global warming. "Green house gases will build up in the atmosphere trapping heat from the sun and causing the average annual temperature around the globe to climb to record levels. The polar ice caps will melt, sea levels will rise and weather patterns will go haywire. There will be more floods, droughts, hurricanes, twisters and bad hair days." Thus runs a typical quote from a scientific journal of the 1980's, it was in the paper yesterday. The main culprit in this scenario of meteorological horror, carbon dioxide.
Atmosheric scientist estimate that mankind releases some 8 billion tons of carbon dioxide a year, 3 billion tons remain in the atmosphere, 2 billion tons are absorbed by the ocean and the other 3 billion tons are presently unaccounted for. Of course plants suck up huge amounts of carbon dioxide and convert it to oxygen and sugar in the process of photosynthesis. It is assumed though that plants basically use the same amount of carbon dioxide that is released when those plants decay, burn or are metabolised by animals.
So the brilliant scientist in their smart white coats with their incredibly complex computer models of the earth's atmosphere have a problem. Three billion tons of greenhouse gas per year that they cannot account for. That's six trillion pounds! At approximately 1.1 gram per cubic meter that would be 72,090,000,000,000,000,000 cubic feet of the stuff that they claim is going to bring about the end of the world and turn you and me into shoe polish for the next species that takes over the planet. And these guys still have jobs? I don't know about you but I get called to account when there are a couple reams of copy paper and a can of Decaf French Roast missing from the supply room.
Butt weight! (Stoopid spell checker.) News flash. Now they are telling us they found the missing carbon dioxide sequestered in the forest of the northern hemisphere. I guess they noticed that green stuff covering the better part of three continents and decided to actually check their assumptions. Fancy that. Studies have show that evergreen forest suck up about 40 grams of carbon per square meter per year. Just enough to just balance the account. How very convenient. I wouldn't trust these guys with my 401k. I must remind you that these numbers are "estimates". They're guessing.
All this doesn't mean that I don't believe in global warming. I just wonder if it is due to a change in the formula for "air" or if it is because every one of the 23 million Mal-Marts world wide are surrounded by 117 acres of asphalt. I also want to know how it is that these scientist can get up at a news conference and say "Oh, by the way we're missing 6,000,000,000,000 pounds potentially deadly carbon dioxide" and rest of the world still takes them seriously. I'm in the wrong line of work.
I guess if your main product is hot air no one counts the zeros.
OWL
May 14, 2007
PS To put this into perspective for those of you who are not adept at mathematics and hence are not used to dealing with numbers larger than seven. 72,090,000,000,000,000,000 is 72 quintillion. The Rubik's cube now gathering dust in your junk drawer only has 19 quintillion possibilities. That should help you visualize it a little better. Your welcome.
OWL
Atmosheric scientist estimate that mankind releases some 8 billion tons of carbon dioxide a year, 3 billion tons remain in the atmosphere, 2 billion tons are absorbed by the ocean and the other 3 billion tons are presently unaccounted for. Of course plants suck up huge amounts of carbon dioxide and convert it to oxygen and sugar in the process of photosynthesis. It is assumed though that plants basically use the same amount of carbon dioxide that is released when those plants decay, burn or are metabolised by animals.
So the brilliant scientist in their smart white coats with their incredibly complex computer models of the earth's atmosphere have a problem. Three billion tons of greenhouse gas per year that they cannot account for. That's six trillion pounds! At approximately 1.1 gram per cubic meter that would be 72,090,000,000,000,000,000 cubic feet of the stuff that they claim is going to bring about the end of the world and turn you and me into shoe polish for the next species that takes over the planet. And these guys still have jobs? I don't know about you but I get called to account when there are a couple reams of copy paper and a can of Decaf French Roast missing from the supply room.
Butt weight! (Stoopid spell checker.) News flash. Now they are telling us they found the missing carbon dioxide sequestered in the forest of the northern hemisphere. I guess they noticed that green stuff covering the better part of three continents and decided to actually check their assumptions. Fancy that. Studies have show that evergreen forest suck up about 40 grams of carbon per square meter per year. Just enough to just balance the account. How very convenient. I wouldn't trust these guys with my 401k. I must remind you that these numbers are "estimates". They're guessing.
All this doesn't mean that I don't believe in global warming. I just wonder if it is due to a change in the formula for "air" or if it is because every one of the 23 million Mal-Marts world wide are surrounded by 117 acres of asphalt. I also want to know how it is that these scientist can get up at a news conference and say "Oh, by the way we're missing 6,000,000,000,000 pounds potentially deadly carbon dioxide" and rest of the world still takes them seriously. I'm in the wrong line of work.
I guess if your main product is hot air no one counts the zeros.
OWL
May 14, 2007
PS To put this into perspective for those of you who are not adept at mathematics and hence are not used to dealing with numbers larger than seven. 72,090,000,000,000,000,000 is 72 quintillion. The Rubik's cube now gathering dust in your junk drawer only has 19 quintillion possibilities. That should help you visualize it a little better. Your welcome.
OWL
Thursday, May 10, 2007
It can't happen here
If a man wants to have sex with a woman he needs her "physical cooperation". He can get this in many different ways. He can seduce her so that she wants it as much as he does. He can offer her a reward such as cash payment, dinner and a movie, eternal gratitude or life long security with marriage and children. He can use coercion, the threat of violence or other harm, or blackmail a type of coercion. He can get her "cooperation" by physically restraining her, the traditional definition of rape. He might also get her to do it as a favor or reward for good behavior. Or he might try whining and begging and pleading until she just gives in, works for me. If she loves him she may be willing for that reason. In most of these instances sexual arousal on the part of the female is desirable but not required.
The situation is different when a woman is wanting to make love with a man. His physical cooperation is not enough. If he is not aroused a great many things may happen, but the ultimate act, coitus will not. Unless the man desires sex with her no offer of money, no promised treat, will allow him to rise to the occasion. My own experience is that threats of physical violence will not coax little Willy out of his hidey hole. Men prostituting themselves to women is unusual and females raping males is unheard of except in "statutory" cases which are now in the news regularly. How much of that is because of women's attitude toward sex and how is that attitude shaped by a man's inability to perform under pressure? Women avoid putting themselves into situations where the man might be unable to perform. They understandably find it degrading, even when it has nothing to do with them. Like when the man has had to much to drink. Is this why some women "hold out" until they know their man is desperate for sex?
This explains a lot about the difference in how men and women act, dress, live and think. Men spend a lot of time seeking, amassing and displaying POWER. Working out at the gym until their neck muscles bulge to the point they have to say "yo" because they can't nod their heads. Cat scratching and clawing their way to the top of the corporate dog pile, buying and selling major companies and small countries. Accumulating obscenely large piles of money and collecting politicians like so many trading cards. "Oh look, I got a senator!" Men's fashion is designed to convey power, the eye paint of Egyptian Pharaohs and the exquisite lace wore by Elizabethan noblemen were symbols of power. And big boy's toys are all about power. Power boats, jet skis and muscle cars with turbo-charged V-8 engines capable of going twice the legal speed limit. Harley-Davidson motorcycles whose deep rumbling vibrations can induce female orgasm at fifty paces. Four wheel drive trucks with over sized bumpers, mud flaps and the must have wench on the front. Motorcycles have the wench on the back. Eighteen wheelers, Caterpillar tractors, semi-automatic assault rifles, F-15 fighter jets, five thousand watt mega-amplifiers, IEDs and Sherman tanks. It's all about the power, grasshopper.
Women are different. From before puberty until well after their child baring years women spend a lot time and money trying to look attractive and desirable. They fix their hair, powder their faces and squeeze themselves into little black dresses. They get dye jobs, nose jobs, boob jobs and face lifts. They walk on high heel shoes and paint their fingernails. They wear fishnet stockings, fake eyelashes and cheap perfume. They get themselves injected with botulism toxin to eliminate wrinkles, pluck their eyebrows and shave their legs. In societies or social circles where powerful woman are considered sexy business suits and breast plates are the height of feminine fashion. Women use creams and lotions and starve themselves on fad diets all in an effort to make sure that when they find Mr. I Think He Might Be the One he'll find her desirable enough to put it through the uprights.
I've seen lots of studies and surveys about the psychological differences between men and woman. Men are more visual and look at porn. Women are drawn toward good providers and have a nesting instinct. I don't remember anyone discussing how this basic physiological difference shapes our social interactions. I'd like to hear other opinions about this.
The introduction of Viagra and other erectile dysfunction treatments may change the dynamics of male/female relations but they won't change our attitudes anytime soon. A million years of evolutionary selection and thousands of years of social conditioning won't be quickly over written by a little blue pill.
OWL
May 10, 2007
The situation is different when a woman is wanting to make love with a man. His physical cooperation is not enough. If he is not aroused a great many things may happen, but the ultimate act, coitus will not. Unless the man desires sex with her no offer of money, no promised treat, will allow him to rise to the occasion. My own experience is that threats of physical violence will not coax little Willy out of his hidey hole. Men prostituting themselves to women is unusual and females raping males is unheard of except in "statutory" cases which are now in the news regularly. How much of that is because of women's attitude toward sex and how is that attitude shaped by a man's inability to perform under pressure? Women avoid putting themselves into situations where the man might be unable to perform. They understandably find it degrading, even when it has nothing to do with them. Like when the man has had to much to drink. Is this why some women "hold out" until they know their man is desperate for sex?
This explains a lot about the difference in how men and women act, dress, live and think. Men spend a lot of time seeking, amassing and displaying POWER. Working out at the gym until their neck muscles bulge to the point they have to say "yo" because they can't nod their heads. Cat scratching and clawing their way to the top of the corporate dog pile, buying and selling major companies and small countries. Accumulating obscenely large piles of money and collecting politicians like so many trading cards. "Oh look, I got a senator!" Men's fashion is designed to convey power, the eye paint of Egyptian Pharaohs and the exquisite lace wore by Elizabethan noblemen were symbols of power. And big boy's toys are all about power. Power boats, jet skis and muscle cars with turbo-charged V-8 engines capable of going twice the legal speed limit. Harley-Davidson motorcycles whose deep rumbling vibrations can induce female orgasm at fifty paces. Four wheel drive trucks with over sized bumpers, mud flaps and the must have wench on the front. Motorcycles have the wench on the back. Eighteen wheelers, Caterpillar tractors, semi-automatic assault rifles, F-15 fighter jets, five thousand watt mega-amplifiers, IEDs and Sherman tanks. It's all about the power, grasshopper.
Women are different. From before puberty until well after their child baring years women spend a lot time and money trying to look attractive and desirable. They fix their hair, powder their faces and squeeze themselves into little black dresses. They get dye jobs, nose jobs, boob jobs and face lifts. They walk on high heel shoes and paint their fingernails. They wear fishnet stockings, fake eyelashes and cheap perfume. They get themselves injected with botulism toxin to eliminate wrinkles, pluck their eyebrows and shave their legs. In societies or social circles where powerful woman are considered sexy business suits and breast plates are the height of feminine fashion. Women use creams and lotions and starve themselves on fad diets all in an effort to make sure that when they find Mr. I Think He Might Be the One he'll find her desirable enough to put it through the uprights.
I've seen lots of studies and surveys about the psychological differences between men and woman. Men are more visual and look at porn. Women are drawn toward good providers and have a nesting instinct. I don't remember anyone discussing how this basic physiological difference shapes our social interactions. I'd like to hear other opinions about this.
The introduction of Viagra and other erectile dysfunction treatments may change the dynamics of male/female relations but they won't change our attitudes anytime soon. A million years of evolutionary selection and thousands of years of social conditioning won't be quickly over written by a little blue pill.
OWL
May 10, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)