After a long, chronic illness (though mostly without pain or appearing very sick), I had to put my 16.5 year old cat to sleep today. :’-(
She was diagnosed with CRF (Chronic Renal Failure; failure of the kidneys, a common ailment in older cats) about two years ago. She was given only six-months to live. I learned how to give her subcutaneous injections (under the skin between the shoulder blades) of lactated ringer solution (similar to saline solutions) to help her kidneys function better. I tried to feed her a special diet, but she refused to eat it. Eventually, I just fed her whatever she would eat and figured her quality of life was more important than the quantity of months. I feel very fortunate to have had two years instead of the six months.
For a cat, she lived quite a life. I took her to the beach, the mountains, shopping, church, and many more places cats aren’t typically found. She actually enjoyed traveling, and was the only cat I ever owned that didn’t need a pet carrier when riding in the car (though I kept her on a harness and leash for safety). She actually walked on a leash fairly well (for a cat, not compared to a trained dog, of course).
She was sweet tempered and generally well-behaved (for a cat). She had uncharacteristically bad balance for a cat, and would sometimes fall off of ledges, window sills, etc.; she’d always immediately look around to see if anyone else noticed, and if they did, she’d immediately start licking herself to hide her embarrassment (the only cat I ever had that showed embarrassment).
She’d snuggle under the blankets with me on cold nights. She used to let our dog drag her around by the head (she also would give as well as she got), but it was all in play for the two of them. My dog was two years older than the cat, and she also died two years earlier; they both lived to around 16.5 years.
The cat was a particularly finicky eater; if she didn’t get what she liked, she would go on a hunger strike until she got what she was holding out for. She enjoyed chicken nuggets (the baked ones from Foster Farms, not the fried ones from McD’s), as well as catfish and tilapia (also a fish).
She moved with me between three different homes, lived with all but one of my various house mates (some of whom weren’t exactly cat people), and was truly a member of our family.
I will miss her terribly, just as I still miss my dog.
The song below helped me in the past cope with grief after I discovered a good friend of mine had passed away. And below it is a poem filled with hope that a friend recommended to me that comforted her after her cat had passed away.
Packing up the dreams God planted
In the fertile soil of you
Can’t believe the hopes He’s granted
Means a chapter in your life is through
But we’ll keep you close as always
It won’t even seem you’ve gone
’Cause our hearts in big and small ways
Will keep the love that keeps us strong
Chorus:
And friends are friends forever
If the Lord’s the Lord of them
And a friend will not say never
’Cause the welcome will not end
Though it’s hard to let you go
In the Father’s hands we know
That a lifetime’s not too long to live as friends.
With the faith and love God’s given
Springing from the hope we know
We will pray the joy you’ll live in
Is the strength that now you show
But we’ll keep you close as always
It won’t even seem you’ve gone
’Cause our hearts in big and small ways
Will keep the love that keeps us strong
By the edge of a woods, at the foot of a hill,
Is a lush, green meadow where time stands still.
Where the friends of man and woman do run,
When their time on earth is over and done.
For here, between this world and the next,
Is a place where each beloved creature finds rest.
On this golden land, they wait and they play,
Till the Rainbow Bridge they cross over one day.
No more do they suffer, in pain or in sadness,
For here they are whole, their lives filled with gladness.
Their limbs are restored, their health renewed,
Their bodies have healed, with strength imbued.
They romp through the grass, without even a care,
Until one day they start, and sniff at the air.
All ears prick forward, eyes dart front and back,
Then all of a sudden, one breaks from the pack.
For just at that instant, their eyes have met;
Together again, both person and pet.
So they run to each other, these friends from long past,
The time of their parting is over at last.
The sadness they felt while they were apart,
Has turned into joy once more in each heart.
They embrace with a love that will last forever,
And then, side-by-side, they cross over… together.
Summary: The only workable solution I see is to institute a small, across-the-board spending cut on all agencies, all departments, all programs, and all spending areas in the State. Anything short of that would be ineffective, discriminatory, and leave the State in worse shape than it is now.
If deemed impossible due to Constitutional constraints, consider my feedback on several budget suggestions that have been made. Some seem sensible if handled properly. Others are clearly only going to make things worse for the State.
It is sad that so much of the fighting, intolerance, and hatred of “the other” seems to align itself along the lines of, and even within, organized religions. Jesus, Mohamed, and nearly every other religious leader taught their followers that we are supposed to love and care for our fellow brothers and sisters. Instead, we use their words and the words of the great religious texts to revile others and separate us from them. I suppose it could all be attributed back to “original sin”, and take the easy way out by assuming that there is nothing that man can do about it because of that act. Personally, I think that is a defeatist mentality. Instead, we have to work hard to overcome hatred, intolerance, bigotry, and mistrust—first within our hearts, then within our religious organizations and countries, and then with those outside our comfort zones.
A favorite line of mine from Men In Black is, “A person is smart. People are stupid.” A paraphrase of another saying I like is, “Why hate a group of people, when there are so many reasons to dislike them on an individual basis?” Sure, it’s rather a negative thought, but it points out that there are likely many reasons to like a person, too. I can’t remember who, but someone told about their adventure visiting Iran during the Bush era. They feared the worst before their trip… Would they be treated badly just because they were American? Would they be persecuted? Would they be injured or harmed? While in Iran, they did hear some negative comments about America, but generally they were treated very well. There may have been some resentment toward America as a concept, but that was never passed on to the visitors. The individual was likable for so many reasons, that there were no reasons to let any dislike of the group (America) influence them.
Think about someone or something you dislike. Is it because you truly dislike that person, place, or thing? Or is it because you don’t like what or who that object is associated with? Take Brussels sprouts (please, take them!). If you dislike them, is it because they are a green vegetable, and you dislike green veggies as a rule? Or is it a more specific dislike? In the U.S., people are having to reevaluate their opinions of Cuba. After decades of our government painting Cuba as a terrible Communist dictatorship, we are now told that they have improved and we should start being friendly with them again. But has Cuba really changed, or has the U.S. government finally come to realize what most of the rest of the world did long ago… Cuba may have some problems, but it’s got a lot of good points, too!
We spend too much time worrying about the bad in others, and far too little time finding the good in them. I personally try to find something positive to say about someone every day when I am talking with them. Many times I will get involved in my work and forget to do so, but it’s a good challenge to try. Sure, it’s easy to come up with something positive about the people you like, but try it with someone in your work who finds ways to annoy you practically every day. I promise that if you start looking for the good in other people, you will find it in nearly everyone. And once you do, you will discover that people are generally good, even if they have annoying habits, don’t look like a supermodel, or don’t share your religious or political convictions.
Do you want a real challenge? The next time a telemarketer calls or a religious follower knocks on your door, don’t slam the receiver down or slam the door in their face. Instead, be clear that you are quite happy without purchasing a new thingamabob or visiting a new church, and then try to engage them in an actual conversation. The weather is usually a good starting place. First, you will find that the other person is tremendously surprised at your actions. Second, if they don’t hang up on you or leave when they learn you aren’t interested, you will probably discover a person who is very committed—they would have to be to do what they do. If you continue the conversation a bit, you might find out why. Look for the good in the other person, and you may find that they are not just an annoying anonymous voice or face, but someone not so different from you. You may find their task of disturbing you to be annoying, but the person doing the task often is nice if you get to know them a bit.
Why on earth would you want to do that little exercise? Well, besides the thrill of excitement you might get from running your own little psychology experiment on someone otherwise interrupting your day, it helps you learn to look at people and situations in new ways. Instead of automatically seeing the bad in a situation or a person, you start to see the potential, at least, for good. Take that experience beyond daily interruptions, and apply it to other areas of your life. Your life will become more fulfilling and happier. It can be the start of a life-changing experience.
I am trying again to get my blog to cross-post automatically to my LiveJournal, Blogger, and Xanga accounts. Here’s hoping that everything goes smoothly.
In test #1, Blogger came though almost instantly. I think LiveJournal didn’t work because I hadn’t added my Webserver to the authorized mailers list. Hopefully LJ will work now that I’ve done that. I’m not sure why Xanga didn’t work. I’m using the Croissanga plugin, which is supposed to work, but no joy on the first test. I tweaked a few settings, and here we go again!
Blogger worked perfectly the second time. LJ and Xanga still gave me no joy. I’m not sure why they aren’t working, but at least Blogger is working now. That’s an improvement.
According to this report, “A California lawmaker has introduced a bill that would require all virtual mapping programs to blur out schools, places of worship, government, or medical buildings or face hefty fines and possible jail time.”
Assemblyman Joel Anderson (R) wants to hamper the efforts of terrorists who use online mapping tools to pre-visualize their targets and gather information prior to n attack. Presumably this would include Google Earth, Google Maps, Live Search Maps, MapQuest, Yahoo! Maps, and many other sites that provide satellite and aircraft photographs of schools, places of worship, government and medical buildings. Street-level images would also be prohibited.
While Representative Anderson’s goals may be noble, it is an idea typical of legislators who don’t understand technology or the world in which we live. I also think such a bill would do more harm than good for the average person, by making it more difficult for legitimate users to access helpful information.
I know that I use the aerial-view and stree-view versions of online mapping sites almost exclusively to find locations I’ve never visited before. The amount of detail provided in locating my destination though a photo means that I rarely make a wrong turn or miss a driveway.
Just the other day, I was trying to find the location of a medical office, and the traditional map just showed a star (the destination) near a street that made a loop. When I clicked over to the aerial-view, the map clearly showed that the loop was actually a large fountain with a driveway circling it. When I drove there, I immediately spotted the fountain, and I knew my destination was the next turn. I even knew which of the two entrances to use, because I knew that the larger parking area was next to the second entrance. The traditional map view provided none of that additional information. Another time, I was attempting to find the Social Security office (a government building). The aerial-view showed me the neighboring buildings, which I recognized, and it made it a snap to find the building when I drove there.
Similarly, Google’s street-view has helped me several times. When Microsoft moved their San Francisco office to a different building, I used street view to figure out how to walk from the BART train station to the office building. The traditional map and even the aerial-view were useless, because they didn’t show the BART station. Another time, I was heading to a part of the state I’d never driven through before. Google’s street-view showed me the freeway exit and turns I needed to take, so that when I was driving there later, I didn’t need to take my eyes off the road to figure out which way to go by consulting printed directions. It was great!
I don’t remember the actual numbers, but I read that more people are killed on America’s roads each DAY than were killed in the World Trade Center on 9/11. Yes, acts of terrorism are horrible, but so is anything that risks increasing the number of road-related deaths. Eliminating all street-view imagery and aerial-views of frequently visited public buildings (schools, government offices, and places of worship) would make it more difficult for people to find where they are going, and that could increase the likelihood of accidents, including fatal ones.
Ignoring driving and travel issues for a moment, there are still many other legitimate uses for keeping this information available to the average user. I do work for a local church (a “place of worship” that would be required to be blurred out under the proposed law). Recently, I was trying to plan some aspects of the wireless and wired networks for the church. Google Earth helped me with that, because I could clearly see the church and neighboring buildings, which helped me avoid placing wireless access points too close to neighboring buildings and risking leaking a lot of the wi-fi signal into densely populated apartment units next door—units I couldn’t see through the walls of the church. Unfortunately for my needs, but fortunately for frustrating terrorists, despite the unblurred view of the church, there just wasn’t enough detail to really help me plan things as well as I needed. It still took a lot of time and effort to scuttle around the various nooks and crannies of the church to figure out all that I needed to know. The same would have to be true for any terrorists seeking to bomb or otherwise harm the church.
Aside from denying legitimate users access to useful information, there are several other fatal flaws to Representative Anderson’s proposed law:
It would only affect companies that do business in California. While the entire Internet is accessible from California, there are many sources of this type of information that do not do business here. Google would obviously be impacted since its headquarters is here, and Live Search (a Microsoft company) probably would too (MS has offices here). But there are several other mapping sites around the world that offer similar information, often from the same source data. Banning California companies from providing that information would hinder competition, while doing nothing to thwart terrorists. Even a Federal law covering all U.S. companies would be useless for the same reason, because “[m]uch of the satellite imagery used by mapping programs comes from international companies over which U.S. agencies have no jurisdiction”.
Aircraft regularly fly over places, including schools, places of worship, government, and medical buildings. Terrorists have used them before, of course, and a quick trip over a potential target with a camera can provide more detailed images from a variety of angles than you would ever get from an online mapping service.
Why bother to rent an airplane or helicopter, when simply walking around the potential target and taking photos would provide much more useful information than Google’s street-view service? Street-view is nice, but distortion and other digital artifacts make the detail for such a purpose a pretty poor substitute to a “tourist” snapping photos with a digital camera.
Students often use such material for reports and schoolwork, and they would be denied access to that information. Businesses use the information for planning where to expand their businesses, see what competition is in the area, and other legitimate purposes, but some of that information would potentially be blocked now.
Many of the most interesting places to view are schools (Harvard and Stanford universities), places of worship (the Taj Mahal and National Cathedral), and government (the White House and State Capitol) buildings. For the vast majority of people, viewing these sites from Google Earth or other mapping sites, may be the closest that the average American ever gets to them. It would be terrible to deny that experience simply out of fear of a possible terrorist act.
I have stated before that I believe that if we alter the fundamental ways in which we live our lives, but giving up our freedoms (including the freedom of information), than the terrorists have accomplished their goal of destroying our way of life. We cannot let that happen.
Unfortunately, I do not know the bill number, but I would appreciate it if someone could provide that information in the comments below. Thanks!
How many times have you heard the saying that “everything is possible”? It’s bandied around freely, and people think it’s a nice platitude, but not really true. But is it? As long as something is conceivable within the reality of this universe, is it actually possible?
Obviously, if you think it’s not possible, then it is. Assuming that something is impossible makes it so, because you will not struggle past the obstacles that seem to make it so. Your creativity will shut off, you won’t waste your time planning to achieve something deemed impossible, and you won’t commit resources or effort toward fruitless results.
But what if you think, or at least hope, that something is possible? Here are the things I think are required to make “everything is possible” come true. Be warned though—it’s not easy.
Everything is possible… with imagination
The first thing you need is some imagination.
Role playing games (RPGs) combine imagination and possibilities in an interactive and engaging way. Where else could you be a wizard, a vampire, a cyborg, a mutant, or a soldier of fortune traveling from one exhilarating adventure to another, across the seven continents, under the sea, throughout outer space, back in time, in the future, or in alternate universes? RPGs have largely become a computer-based experience now, with games both on disc and across the Internet. Some computer games offer a very interactive experience, but many fall short (related article: Inside the Minds of Gaming’s Master Storytellers). Maybe I was spoiled by my earlier experiences, but most computer-based games don’t hold my attention for very long.
When I was a freshman in high school, a good friend of mine, Greg, would lead a group of friends, including me, on wild adventures during lunchtime. We wander the hallways or sit in out of the way corners eating and avoiding bullying upper classmen (the bane of most freshmen’s existence). At least, that’s what our bodies were doing. Meanwhile, our minds would be off on thrilling adventures, fighting zombies, dragons, and other mythical creatures. We didn’t use computers or even dice. Greg would imagine situations and describe them to us. We would improvise based on whatever he threw at us, coming up with plans to dispatch the evil creatures, capture the treasure, and win the hearts of rescued maidens. There was no place we couldn’t visit through Greg’s and out collective imaginations, and nothing we couldn’t do (unless Greg told us we weren’t allowed to do it within the storyline).
During my college years, I regularly ran RPG campaigns for groups of friends, mostly Cyberpunk 2020 (defined) and Paranoia (defined). I occasionally played AD&D and other games that my friends ran. These were more structured games with rulebooks, dice to determine outcomes, and sometimes pre-scripted adventures. However, the freedom to dream up new adventures, act as a character in a fantastical world, and do things a good law-abiding citizen would never do (like blow up the headquarters of an evil major corporation) still made them a lot of fun for everyone who played.
Imagination should not always stay locked up inside the head though.
I loved the experiences of visiting the desert planet Tatooine, the forest moon of Endor, and the capital of the Empire in the Star Wars movies. I enjoyed flying through the night sky on the bicycle with E.T. and Elliott. I was amazed at the underwater worlds of The Abyss and 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. My heart tugged when WALL-E offered EVE his the little green plan. These worlds were brought to life through the imagination and skills of writers, directors, editors, actors, animators, special effects crew, and countless others. By bringing dreams to the screen, there is no place we cannot visit, no person we cannot be, and nothing we cannot do.
Taking it to the next step, imagination can be the inspiration that brings about great discoveries, new inventions, and revolutionary action. Leif Ericson and Christopher Columbus would never have discovered the New World if they hadn’t envisioned something beyond the distant shores. Thomas Edison would never have invented the incandescent light bulb if he hadn’t seen it clearly in his mind’s eye first. Neil Armstrong would never have set foot on the moon if President John F. Kennedy hadn’t inspired the USA with his vision. As Walt Disney said, “If you can dream it, you can do it.”
Everything is possible… with belief
Imagination is the starting point, but it remains only an idea unless you believe it can be more. The bigger the idea, the more revolutionary, and the more challenging the concept, the more you have to believe in it to see it come to life. In Mark 9:23, the Bible says, “Everything is possible for one who believes.”
Most big ideas require buy-in from others to become a reality. Unless you fully believe in something, it is nearly impossible to convince others to believe in it. With belief, you can weather the doubts, scorn, and ridicule you are likely to face attempting to turn your dream into a reality. You have to believe in your dream first before anyone else will.
Without belief in your vision, you will likely lose your resolve as soon as you face resistance. It takes belief to give your dream a solid foundation that will withstand the forces trying to sway you into giving up on your dream. You have to know in your heart that your vision is important, maybe even that lives will be improved and the world will be a better place because of it. Whether it is inventing a new fastener like a zipper, or sending a man to the moon, there are going to be obstacles, and the more stubbornly you believe in it, the more likely you are to overcome them.
Everything is possible… with planning
Planning is vitally important to the success of achieving a goal.
Something almost magical happens when you take an idea and put it in written form. Sometimes it helps you spot problems you never envisioned. Other times, it helps you see how to get around obstacles blocking your progress. It almost always strengthens belief in and resolve toward reaching achievable goals.
By this stage, your vision should be achievable. You just have to follow the plan, making changes to the plan as necessary.
I tell this story to illustrate the truth of the statement I heard long ago in the Army: Plans are worthless, but planning is everything. There is a very great distinction because when you are planning for an emergency you must start with this one thing: the very definition of ‘emergency’ is that it is unexpected, therefore it is not going to happen the way you are planning. Speech to the National Defense Executive Reserve Conference in Washington, D.C. (November 14, 1957)
Planning is, of course, critical to the next step in the process: obtaining needed resources. Without a solid plan, most people are going to be highly skeptical of your idea. Your plans, whether drawn on the back of a napkin or printed on glossy paper and bound professionally, are the only thing other people will be able to judge your vision by until it becomes reality.
Don’t get bogged down in the planning stage, however. Plans always have to be changed as the situation changes. Planning is a constant process, not something to complete once and move on.
Everything is possible… with resources
It takes more than a believable vision to create new things, inspire new ways, and open new doors. You also need resources, whether that means investments of money or time, real estate, scientific research, or other tangible or intangible assets. Walt Disney said, “I could never convince the financiers that Disneyland was feasible, because dreams offer too little collateral.” In the case of a moonwalk, there’s no escaping the fact that money and a lot of people are going to be required to achieve such a lofty dream.
Accidental discoveries aside, most of the important things occurring in history have come about only after enough people invested in the idea. Columbus did not discover the New World without first petitioning several leaders of the Old World for funding and supplies. Michaelangelo did not create his masterpieces without receiving support from his patrons. Leonardo da Vinci, Thomas Edison, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington Carver did not turn their ideas into results without investing time and money into prototypes and failed experiments.
It can be argued that this is the way it should be, though. The more likely something is to make a difference in life, the more important it is to be vetted by many people. Obtaining necessary resources is one way of measuring an idea’s worthiness and timeliness to be implemented. An idea backed with strong belief that cannot obtain the necessary resources is usually an idea that is so revolutionary that it is ahead of its time, so poorly conceived that it shouldn’t happen without more thought, or just not interesting to enough other people.
Even the simplest ideas usually require a little time and effort to become reality. People who believe that “not everything is possible”, probably ignore this fact or don’t realize it.
Everything is possible… with action
Nike’s slogan, “Just Do It”, is probably the second most important requirement other than the initial idea. Unless your plan relies exclusively upon Chaos Theory randomly bringing about all of the elements needed to reach your goals, you are going to have to roll up your sleeves and eventually get to work on your project.
The self-help and motivational expert, Anthony Robbins (about) says “A real decision is measured by the fact that you’ve taken a new action. If there’s no action, you haven’t truly decided.” Further, he believes that “action is the foundational key to all success.” Think about it. If you never take action on your dreams, then they are nothing more than good ideas waiting to happen. Since nobody else is likely to pick up your ideas and do something with them, it is up to you. Of course, truly great ideas are usually dreamed of by many people, and eventually someone else might follow through. How will you feel when your great idea suddenly becomes someone else’s great idea.
Probably the two most common reasons people don’t act is because of inertia and fear of failure.
Inertia is a big problem for many people. Change is often uncomfortable or even painful. If your vision requires some type of change—a change in your schedule, your finances, your friends’ perceptions of you, etc.—then you are likely to avoid the likely discomfort of those changes. Until your belief in the value of your idea is greater than the perceived discomfort of change, or until your current situation becomes more unbearable than changing things, you are unlikely to take the action necessary to implement your vision.
Let’s face it, it is intimidating to try something new and unproven. There is always a risk that you might not get it right and you will fail. Robbins states, “You might say, what if I screw up? Then screw up big! Go for it! Do a big screwup!” One of my junior high school band teacher’s favorite expressions was, “If you’re going to make a mistake, make it a funky one.” Every mistake leads you closer to success. Thomas Edison remarked, “Many of life’s failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up.” Don’t look at failures as bad things, but milestones on the route to success.
Everything is possible… with practice
Unless your vision is something that is a one-shot-only deal, you are probably going to need to make several attempts to achieve it. Usually your plan will show that there are several steps that have to be taken to achieve your goal, and often those steps will have to be repeated.
Practice is making mistakes, learning from them, and trying again. Practice is finally doing it right, and then trying to do it right again. And then again. Doing something enough times that you can achieve or exceed your goal every time you attempt it.
Michael Phelps (about) did not become the greatest Olympic athlete ever by hopping into the swimming pool one morning and winning a race. It involved countless mornings, afternoons, and evenings practicing. He swam until his muscles ached, and then he swam farther. He lifted weights and did other activities that supported his body to meet his goals.
Steve Jobs backed many different companies, and lost a lot of money, while seeking to repeat his success with Apple Computers. He eventually found his success in Pixar, but without those other attempts, it is unlikely that Pixar would be where it is today, and certainly Jobs wouldn’t be where he is.
Watch this video to see some more inspirational images of people who achieved success through practice and hard work: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2477636/
Everything is possible!
As long as you aren’t trying to do something impossible according to the natural laws that govern this universe, everything is possible. But that is a major oversimplification.
First, it takes imagination to come up with the idea. Next, it takes belief to turn inspiration into vision—something is achievable. Planning is the next step, because without a plan you will only make it to your goal by happenstance, and you might not even realize it once you arrive! Planning is also key for the next step, which is obtaining and committing resources to implementation of your vision. The fifth step, but one of the most critical, is to take action; without action, nothing is possible. The final step is practice. It’s highly unlikely you will achieve your goal on the first attempt. Through practice and repeated attempts, you will gradually move closer to your goal, until you finally make it there.
What about luck and good timing? Purely random circumstances can sometimes help you along, but if your idea is important and you believe in it, why risk it to happenstance? Successful people make their own luck and create their own circumstances in life. If you do the same, and you follow these steps, I don’t think there is anything that you cannot accomplish!
Dream it! Believe it! Plan it! Commit to it! Do it! Practice it! Enjoy it!
Q: You’re packing your bag for a trip to a desert island–the kind with no electricity–what 5 books do you take with you?
A: It would kind of depend on how long I was expecting to be on this island. Since I have the luxury of planning ahead and packing for it in advance, I imagine it will be for a bit of an extended stay. In that case, something with lots of pages and a lot of information sounds like the best choice to me.
The Bible; it has many stories and much to ponder.
A large English dictionary; I might not be speaking with anyone, but there’s always new things to discover in a dictionary. I don’t know if I would choose The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
or The New Oxford American Dictionary, because I own older versions of both, and they are both good dictionaries. The American Heritage one includes a nice sounding CD-ROM, but that wouldn’t be much help on a desert island without electricity.
A large foreign language dictionary (especially if the natives speak something other than English); this sounds like a good time to learn a new skill!
A 1,000 sudoku puzzlesbook (or more if I could find one), or maybe crossword puzzles since I would have a dictionary. Of course, I’d also have to pack a lot of pencils and erasers.
Now, if it was going to be a short-term trip, like during a vacation, I’d pick some more involving books from my shelf that I haven’t had a chance to read yet:
The Judas Strain by James Rollins, a SIGMA Force novel I haven’t read.
The Last Oracle by James Rollins, another SIGMA Force novel I haven’t .
The Smithsonian Network had a documentary On Demand about world-class British hang glider Judy Leden who wanted to fly with the Andean condors in Patagonia in Argentina. If you get a chance to watch it, I recommend it. (I’ve included a link to a related book by Judy Leden available from Amazon.) The show was light on science, but had beautiful scenery and a little human interest drama (broken bones, crash landings, etc.). It greatly increased my respect for those beautiful birds.
Probably like most people, I thought condors were just large vultures with large wingspans. They are, but they are also quite beautiful and graceful birds while flying. Their young are pretty unattractive, but after they grow up and take flight, they are some of the most amazing gliders in the animal kingdom.
Some interesting facts: the females have red eyes and the males have brown eyes; they create mental “maps” of their surroundings that cover hundreds of square miles, locations of thermals, and seasonal variations; they mate for life, are devoted parents (though absent for long periods each day while searching for food), and are quite social.
Keeping with the theme of this post, here is a YouTube video of a music group I love, NAZCA, performing a song titled Flying Condor:
Judson Laipply is back with a follow-up to his earlier hit, The Evloution of Dance 2. Reviews on YouTube are generally positive (4.5 stars), but written comments frequently state that this version is not as good, funny, etc. I agree a bit, but I think it’s more that modern dance and dance music is not quite as enjoyable to watch as the stuff from earlier decades. Face it, it’s more fun to actually dance at a nightclub than to sit around watching most of the people dancing there. Right? So why blame Judson for less interesting dancing when he’s just showing us how boring we have become on the dance floor. It’s time to innovate again! It’s time for young dancers to invent the next Jive, Hustle, or Mashed Potato. Er… maybe not that one.
You can also go to EOD2.com for more information or a complete list of songs featured in the video. The video’s sponsor lets you upload your photo and dance alongside Judson.
Apparently members of the British government have been talking with members of the U.S. Obama transition team to come up with some new thoughts on how to censor (protect children from) the Internet.
As with many of the past suggestions, most of these thoughts are not well thought-out, would be nearly impossible to implement, and, if implemented, would cause many more problems than they would resolve.
Take this suggestion as an example:
[Andy] Burnham [Britain’s minister for culture], who has three young children, pointed to the example of a 9 p.m. television “watershed” in Britain before which certain material, like violence, cannot be broadcast, and said better controls were needed for the Internet.
The minister wants new industry-wide “take down times” so that websites like YouTube or Facebook would have to remove offensive or harmful content within a specified time once it is brought to their attention.
Industry-wide would seem to indicate a desire that all web sites follow this standard. All web-sites around the world. Sites that have geographically-specific portals (like youtube.com, youtube.co.uk, youtube.jp, etc.) might be able to pull something like this off. However, the vast majority of web sites are too small to have multiple portals in different parts of the world.
Without such portals, such “take down times” would be stupid. If you were to shut down Facebook.com between 8am and 8pm, presumably the preferred times that more mature content would not be available, you would have to decide for which time zone that period applies. If it is the time in London (UTC+0), then Facebook’s more mature content would be unavailable between midnight and noon in San Francisco (UTC+8). Midnight to 8am would probably be the ideal time to allow access to such content, but now it would be unavailable. Additionally, Facebook would be all-access from noon to midnight in San Francisco, leaving all those children access to more mature content.
Regardless of the time of day, forcing non-children to suffer a reduced-functionality Internet is censorship. If I wanted to view something unsuitable for children during these “take down times” in the privacy of my own home on my own computer with no children present, there is absolutely no reason that I shouldn’t be able to do so. These proposed propriety laws would force a prescribed set of morals onto me that I would be unable to avoid. That would be in violation of my First Ammendment rights (and whatever similar laws other countries have).
Additionally, if I worked the night shift, like I used to, my “evening” hours—the times I would most want to relax and enjoy uncensored Internet access—would be in the mornings while children are at school. Similarly, stay-at-home parents may find the most convenient time to surf the net without prying childrens’ eyes on the screen, would be while the children are away at school. And why should singles and people without any young children ever find their Internet access restricted in this way?
Mandated “take down hours” is a fatally flawed idea that cannot work in the real world and must never be implemented.
Here’s another one:
Internet service providers could also be forced to offer services where the only sites accessible are those deemed suitable for children, [The Daily Telegraph] said.
This is laughable, because since shortly after adult content, spam, and other material that some people have objected to started appearing on the Net, people have been trying to filter out the stuff. Expecting ISPs to be able to filter sites any better after a law like this is passed is ludicris. If ISPs are forced to comply or risk punishment, then the only choice they will have is to block all sites with even a slight possibility of having this type of content on it. Say goodbye to Google, Yahoo, and Wikipedia.
Think about how the Great Firewall of China is so offensive for blocking sites that go against the government’s wishes. For people in China, the Internet is severely crippled. Even worse, consider Internet users in Iran and several other muslim countries where they attempt this type of draconian limited access. Many of the most popular and useful sites on the Web are blocked by those national firewalls. This plan would mandate that for the U.S. and the U.K. No thank you!
Not only that, it would be mostly ineffective. Look again at the firewalled countries, and see who it is who figures out ways to hack out past the firewall and still access the blocked content… statistically high numbers of those users are children under 18. And the ones who are left without access? Many less technically savvy adults. Again, a useless idea that would cause more problems than it would solve.
There is only one good thing mentioned in this article:
The kind of ratings used for films could be applied to websites in a bid to better police the Internet and protect children from harmful and offensive material, Britain’s minister for culture has said.
Of course, this is ancient news. The PICS standard has been around for around 15 years. It is far more useful and configurable than any existing movie ratings systems.
How exactly would a site be rated? On LiveJournal, Blogger, and WordPress, there are thousands of blogs. Some blogs are kid-friendly, some are exclusively adult, and some fluctuate in between frequently. So, should the entire site be set to R or even X rated because a percentage deserve that rating? At least one church youth group I know would then lose access to its primary communication method for its members.
Rating an entire site and blocking access based on that one rating is dumb. There are just too many variables for large sites.
The PICS standard takes care of that problem by using tags that can be defined for an entire site (e.g., an adult site could rate all of its site as adult with a single tag), or on a directory basis (like the Livejournal example), or an an individual page (for those cases where a general rule might be excepted).
The PICS standard also allows for filtering only the type of content that people find objectionable. Maybe you don’t want your children seeing any pornographic nudity, but find artistic nudity (like found in a museum) acceptable. Or perhaps you don’t want your children exposed to glorifications of drug use or hateful speech. With PICS, the parent can fine-tune the exact level of you allow your children to view and what is blocked.
If PICS is so good, why doesn’t it work? It doesn’t work because (a) not enough site owners bother to rate their sites currently, (b) until recently support for PICS was missing from many popular browsers or it was easily circumvented, and (c) most parents didn’t realize that it was available.
So, instead of implementing a whole new, less flexible, ratings system, the government could require that sites be PICS tagged or else ISPs could block access. It would be easy for sites to be unblocked by adding one line of code to the top of their home page.
Is PICS perfect? No. It relies upon the site owner being honest and accurately rating their site’s content. Some of the ratings are also somewhat subjective. Speech that may seem hateful to some may not seem so to other people. Still, it is better than the alternative of doing nothing.
Still, I don’t like the idea that an ISP should be required to block anything. I think that should be more like caller ID blocking. You can request that your account have blocking enabled, or you can request that it be disabled. It should always be the account holder’s choice, not the government’s choice.
These are all things that could be implemented relatively quickly, and without poorly conceived laws mandating it.
After watching the Billy Graham TV special today, I considered donating to their ministry. Before doing so, I had to be sure that it was truly a Christian organization–one that believes as Christ taught, that all are accepted and welcomed under God’s love. I wrote this letter after searching their site and finding disturbing statements… Continue Reading »
I sent the following letter to my state legislators urging them to vote in favor of SR 7 and AR 5 to overturn Proposition 8 because the measure should have been reviewed by the legislature and only gone before voters if approved by a two-thirds vote in both houses.
Please support Leno’s Senate Resolution 7 and Ammiano’s Assembly Resolution 5 that will help to protect the basic human and civil rights of one minority from being eliminated by a slim majority.
Such elimination is never acceptable regardless of the minority or majority involved, as it is important that all people are fairly represented under the law. Equal protections of a minority group is a fundamental and founding principle of our Constitution.
By eliminating the fundamental right to marry from same-sex couples, Proposition 8 takes away equal protections of a minority group, which violates one of the fundamental and founding principles of our Constitution.
This type of change without the required two-thirds vote of the Legislature is unprecedented. It’s critical in our system of checks and balances that the Legislature weigh in on such fundamental revisions to the Constitution.
This is not a question of “protecting marriage” or even of the acceptability of gay and lesbian “lifestyles”. This is a matter of equal protection under law. Regardless of your political, religious, or ethical ideologies, as representatives, you swore to uphold the Constitution, and that is exactly what you are being asked to do now.
Thank you for your support on this important matter.
Driving down the freeway, I noticed a bumper sticker on a Toyota Prius that read, “Draft SUV drivers first”. I chuckled at the sentiment even though I thought it was slightly offensive, as any form of discrimination is to me. As I passed the Prius, I noticed that the driver looked like a young stereotypical left-wing college professor you would see in a movie full of awkward stereotypes—the plaid shirt, wire-rimmed glasses, and hair that was red, curly, and slightly receding. I hoped that no strong, SUV-driving ex-military type suffering from post traumatic stress disorder took offense at that bumper sticker, because the Prius driver likely wouldn’t have been able to defend himself. Then an SUV passed me, and I noticed the driver was a slight woman, probably in her mid 40s, wearing a sleeveless dress, gold jewelry, and looked the type who might carry a tiny dog around with her as she shops at Nordstrom. The incongruity between my earlier thoughts of a big bruiser of a man stepping out of a Hummer and decking the college professor, contrasted strangely with the diminutive (but probably feisty) woman in the SUV possibly macing the professor (though I’d probably put even odds on the professor in that confrontation).
After the lady sped on ahead and the professor fell behind, I reflected on the sentiment of his bumper sticker. It was obvious that he, at least jokingly, does not value SUV drivers as much as he, at least jokingly, values drivers of more fuel-efficient vehicles. Is that any reason to wish SUV drivers harm or even death, by sending them unwillingly off to fight in a war?
I suppose that if one is going to discriminate against another class of people, discrimination based on lifestyle choices is preferable to discriminating based on something that can’t be changed.
All SUV drivers who wanted to avoid a draft could simply switch to driving something other than an SUV. Yes, it would probably impact their daily activities a little bit, and they would be out some money they wouldn’t have had to spend otherwise, but nothing fundamental about the person would have to be changed. After all, nobody is born an SUV driver or a Prius driver. Such decisions are based on a number of other external influences and internal value judgements, along with market decisions from automobile manufacturers. So, discriminating against SUV drivers, while still discrimination, is discrimination against a lifestyle CHOICE, and avoiding that discrimination is as easy as choosing a different vehicle to drive.
This is very different from discriminating against someone based on height, ethnicity, or handicap. People cannot change their height to avoid discrimination, nor can they change who their parents and other ancestors were. While they might yearn to change the circumstances leading to a handicap, that is impossible. Discrimination based on such immutable factors is clearly illegal in most modern societies, including the United States.
Other types of discrimination are a little trickier. What about a person’s weight? Fashion models are routinely discriminated against for either being too thin (by many in the public) or too fat (by the fashion industry). People with protruding bellies are discriminated against for being overweight. Discrimination can come in the form of rude comments like “slob”, “pig”, “overeater”. But is a person’s weight a lifestyle choice, or is it an immutable factor in their life? Surely there are people who carry extra weight from eating more food than is healthy and not exercising enough to burn off the excess calories. But there are also many people on life-sustaining medications or who have hormonal or genetic issues that eat and exercise properly and still carry extra weight. While weight may be affected by lifestyle choices, many other factors contribute to it, and for many it is immutable and not a lifestyle choice at all.
What about religion? On the surface, it would seem to be a lifestyle choice. After all, in a typical community, there are anywhere from a couple to dozens of different churches, temples, and other houses of religions at which one may participate in a particular form of religion. In fact, there is nothing that requires anyone to participate in religion at all. Not only that, some people do change religions. Sometimes the change is minor (Methodist to Presbyterian), and sometimes it’s more dramatic (Christian to Buddhism). Despite all of that, courts in most modern societies have ruled that religion is such an intrinsic part of a person’s self-identity that it is illegal to discriminate based on a person’s religion.
Discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and intersexual (“gay”) individuals is another issue that seems to be a murky decision for many people. Is “being gay” a lifestyle choice or is it an immutable part of a person? While discrimination against someone for a lifestyle choice (as in the Prius driver and the SUV drivers) is unfair, it’s not really a legal issue since someone could escape discrimination simply by changing their actions. But is that what “being gay” is? Is it really that simple for a gay to escape discrimination by changing his or her actions? If so, then legal protections are probably unnecessary. But if not, if gayness is immutable or an intrinsic part of self-identity for a gay person, then gays deserve every bit of protection that other protected classes of people are (ethnicity, handicap, religion, etc.).
Currently in the United States, and especially here in California, the subject of gay marriage is a hot topic right now. People on one side are fighting to retain the “dignity of marriage” and “protect the family” by outlawing the right of gays to marry. I don’t understand either argument.
My parents and grandparents are excellent examples of how to do marriage right. Both sets of my grandparents happily exceeded 50 years together, and my parents are approaching the same number. They do seem to be the exception, though. Today divorce tears apart about half the families in the U.S. Straight men cheat on their wives, straight women cheat on their husbands, kids end up with kids of their own. It would seem that the non-gay keepers of this solemn institution have tarnished the “dignity of marriage” quite nicely. Would gay marriages do better than hetero marriages? Who knows, but it is difficult to see how they could do much worse. One big difference is that straight couples seem to take marriage for granted, and often marry out of convenience or for economic advantage. Gay couples are fighting for their right to marry each other; they don’t take their love for advantage. Gays face public ridicule and persecution every time they say “my partner”. If their love is strong enough to fight through opposition like that, it is hard to see how “dignity of marriage” is diminished.
Likewise, gay couples are often coming together to form new families. Partners often have children from previous relationships. Denying gays the right to marry sends a message to the children that their parents are somehow less valued by society than their friends’ straight parents are. Also, many gay partners seek to have children of their own, just as straight couples do. In all these cases, the gay partners are seeking to build families, to provide their children with two parents, to care for, nourish, and grow their families. It’s very difficult to do that while also facing suspicion, discrimination, and outright hatred simply for being a family that looks a little different from what you see in 1950s television shows. Blocking gay marriage does nothing to “protect the family”, but it does plenty to harm the affected families.
Is “gayness” a lifestyle decision, like driving an SUV, or is it something deeper, something immutable within the person that cannot be changed without drastically altering the intrinsic self-identity of the person?
The first way to analyze that is to reverse the question. Is heterosexuality a lifestyle decision or something immutable? Would a typical straight man or woman suffer nothing more than a moderate impact on their daily activities by becoming homosexual? Would it be as easy for a straight person to switch to being gay as it would be to change brands of shampoo or decide to vacation in Florida instead of Palm Springs? I don’t know anyone who thinks so. Why then should it be any easier for a gay person to switch to heterosexuality?
Statistics clearly show that a very high number of teen suicides are due to matters relating to sexual identity. Surely, if gayness was a lifestyle choice, like attending the football playoffs or the prom, then it wouldn’t be something worth killing oneself over. Taking one’s own life comes from the conflict of realizing you are gay in a world that demonizes gayness, refuses to acknowledge basic human and civil rights to your kind, and is known to physically harm gays simply for being who they were born to be.
What about the anecdotal stories of success in people happily changing from gay to straight after therapy and religion? Well, I’ve never met any such people. The only place I’ve ever seen them is in testimonials from programs claiming to have implemented such changes and on conservative Christian materials that demonize gayness as a disease that needs curing. I have met several happily married straight men and women who have told me they “experimented” with people of their own gender in the past, some even maintaining relationships with such a person for a while, but eventually, they returned to their own orientation. Likewise, most gays in their 30s and older I have met have maintained relationships with girlfriends or even marriages before realizing they were living a lie and decided to end it. It would seem that many people are able to maintain relationships outside of their primary orientation, yet eventually they return to what their own internal compass tells them is right for them.
What about bisexuals? In many ways, they are even more misunderstood and treated like outsiders than gays and lesbians. People, straight and gay, often ridicule them as gays afraid to step fully out of the closet. Others mistakenly think that being bi means being exceptionally promiscuous, since they are mistakenly believed to be sexually attracted to anything, male or female. I had a bisexual roommate and also a couple of bisexual good friends, and talking with them about it, I realized that they face all the same problems as gays, but often even more. It’s not that they are attracted to every male or female they see—they are just as choosy as anyone else about who they date—but rather they are gender-blind when it comes to seeking a partner. However, when they date a person of the same gender, they are discriminated against by a largely homophobic society, and when they date a person of the opposite gender, the gay community discriminates against them. While a bisexual who falls in love with a person of the opposite gender may not have a problem with laws banning gay marriage, if love happens to form between someone of the same gender, gay marriage rights would be very important.
Transgender people also suffer a lot of discrimination. While cross-dressing as “drag queens” and “drag kings” seems to be accepted, or even expected, within the gay culture (especially within the gay culture popularized in movies), transsexuals are often shunned. To clarify, transvestites are cross-dressers, and transvestitism does not necessarily align with sexual orientation (many male to female cross-dressers are straight males). Transsexuals are people who often feel “trapped in the wrong body”, such as a man trapped in a woman’s body or vice versa. Those who feel strongly enough about it and have the money for surgery, often undergo surgery to “correct” their gender. This, too, is often separate from sexual orientation, because a pre-operative biologically male transsexual who is attracted to men, does not become interested in women after corrective surgery. Was the person ever gay? As an outward male attracted to other men, it would seem so. But post-operative, the person is an outward female and still attracted to men, thus she would seem to be heterosexual now. This is one reason why discrimination based on sexual orientation is ludicrous.
Back to gay marriage, if a pre-operative biologically male transsexual is legally married to a bisexual woman, what should happen to their marriage after he undergoes surgery and corrects his gender to female? Opponents of gay marriage would argue that, as a now homosexual couple, their marriage should be invalidated. Nothing about their love for each other has changed, nor their love for their children. Yet, only based on gender correction, their marriage automatically nullifies.
Is it a lifestyle choice to change one’s gender? I don’t think so. Changing one’s hair color because “blondes have more fun” is a lifestyle choice. Undergoing months of therapy, hormone treatments, radical surgery, and possible alienation of your friends to match your body to your intrinsic self-identity does not seem to be a mere lifestyle choice. It is surely something much deeper.
As if there is any need to show that discrimination against gay marriage is wrong, consider the plight of an intersexual person. ADAM Health Illustrated Encyclopedia definesintersexual as” Intersex is a group of conditions where there is a discrepancy between the external genitals and the internal genitals (the testes and ovaries). The older term for this condition [was] hermaphroditism”. These are people with both male and female characteristics at a very fundamental level; they are neither exclusively male nor female, but a combination of both. To define marriage as something “only valid between one man and one woman” entirely excludes intersexuals. While religious extremists and marriage traditionalists may argue that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, a genetic condition such as this certainly is not. A law that defines marriage so narrowly is a law that discriminates against a particular class of people with a in immutable genetic condition. It does so by eliminating a fundamental human and civil right—the right to fall in love with a person and marry them.
That Prius owner may want SUV owners suffer for their decisions, but such a desire is not going to harm multiple classes of people for something they cannot change.
Revoking the right or outlawing marriage for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, and intersexual individuals does cause harm. It encourages other prejudice and discrimination against these same individuals, both in legal matters and in ordinary dealings within their community. It perpetuates hatred and violence by establishing a hierarchy of those who may marry and those who cannot, and thus are not full members of society. It increases the pressure on youngsters or people of any age coming to terms with their sexual identity and discovering they are part of a class of people legally discriminated against. It tarnishes the institution of marriage by making marriage an elitist right that is only available to a self-selected majority. It destroys family values by prohibiting loving couples from coming together as married spouses and raising children in homes full of love, accepted by society as legal and normal.
Too many people seem to perceive gayness as a simple “lifestyle choices” instead of an immutable aspect of self or an intrinsic part of one’s self-identity. Either way, this perception is false, and the courts will eventually rule in favor of protecting a marginalized minority, just as they have done in the past for African Americans, for religious followers, and for people with disabilities. In time, things will change. The question is how long must we wait? How many more people must suffer discrimination and persecution before that eventual day arrives? And how many people want to go down on the wrong side of history by being in favor of unlawful discrimination?
Join me in the right fight, and thank lawmakers and justices who take the difficult stand against discrimination and express your displeasure to those who don’t. The more people who do that, the sooner rights will be restored here in California and elsewhere.
Hi. Welcome to my blog. I try to keep it informative, entertaining, and interesting for you while keeping it personal and candid for me. I love to read what my visitors have to say, so please leave comments! You may want to follow my updates via RSS feed. Thanks for visiting.
This is a 2D-barcode containing the address of our mobile site.If your mobile has a barcode reader, simply snap this bar code with the camera and launch the site.
Many companies provide barcode readers that you can install on your mobile, and all of the following are compatible with this format:
(
and Elliott. I was amazed at the underwater worlds of 
and 
offered EVE his the little green plan. These worlds were brought to life through the imagination and skills of writers, directors, editors, actors, animators, special effects crew, and countless others. By bringing dreams to the screen, there is no place we cannot visit, no person we cannot be, and nothing we cannot do.
(
(
; it has many stories and much to ponder.
, because I own older versions of both, and they are both good dictionaries. The American Heritage one includes a nice sounding CD-ROM, but that wouldn’t be much help on a desert island without electricity. 
book (or more if I could find one), or maybe crossword puzzles since I would have a dictionary. Of course, I’d also have to pack a lot of pencils and erasers.
—or 
by James Rollins, a SIGMA Force novel I haven’t read.
by James Rollins, another SIGMA Force novel I haven’t .
by James Rollins, another SIGMA Force novel.
by 
by Rita Mae Brown, part of the 
