Tuesday, February 27, 2007


Well, my spring cleaning degenerated into spring daydreaming. Man, would I love to be lounging on a nice warm beach right now, sipping a pina colada and listening to the gentle surf.



Sorry for not posting for so long. I guess I over-exerted myself with that big roast.

Since the weather here has become more spring-like I've been inspired to do some spring cleaning. Cleaning usually coincides with lots of thinking, and most of my recent mental energy has been spent on the health care issue. It's pretty clear that there are some serious problems with the health care system of the U.S. I can't say that I've discovered any solutions, but I have finally resolved my basic moral ambiguity about it. And that, I think, is probably the first step to solving any problem.

Since I am a big believer in and supporter of public education, it finally occurred to me that it would be isomorphic for me to see health care in the same light as education. Since I believe that all have a right to education, then why should I think differently about health care (which is probably an even more basic need than education)? Now, I'm not beginning some swing to the left here, but it does seem more consistent to treat the two in similar ways.

My primary reason for supporting public education, despite its problems, is because it is in the best interest of a society for its citizens to be educated, and it seems like a valid pursuit of the society as a whole to provide a basic education for all. Now if I just replace "education" with "health care" it seems to also apply. It is in the best interest of a society to assure that all citizens have access to basic health care.

Okay, so now I've found my moral "north" about it. The next step is to consider the "hows" of it.

Well, I still have lots of cleaning to do, so I must go get started.

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Pork Roast

Allow me to apologize for the delay in getting this Pork Roast done. It takes an awful long time to roast a whole hog, and this is my first time doing that so, of course, it took even longer than average to get it done. Actually, it was first started way back last September but was left to "cure" for all these months. So sorry, too, if it's a little tough or otherwise unpalatable. ;-)

However, the timing is now even better since we can also take this as an opportunity to celebrate the Chinese Year of the Fire Pig (burn, baby, burn! lol).

And on top of that we could make this a kind of dinner theater in conjunction with CIP's fun story, The Easterner.

Oh, and one last note. Since pork isn't Kosher then consume at your own risk. ;-)

The 7 Commandments are abridged for the last time, simply reading, "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others."

George Orwell, Animal Farm

CapitalistImperialistPig did a post last year "Self Evident Truths" that pretty well sums up his porcine flavor.

His concoction doesn't agree with me so allow me to serve up my own alternative recipe. To start here is the first part of the Declaration of Independence:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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.

First off, cip skipped that first paragraph. The following is a very important omission in his case:

...to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...

That's a big set-up for the "self evident truths" and "inalienable rights". The Forefathers are establishing that there are indeed "separate and equal" positions that are determined by Nature and God. What that means is that all people are equal no matter who they are, what characteristics they have, or whatever things separate them. The plumber's value is the same as the doctor's value even though they have been endowed with different skills, interests, etc. that put them in different "stations" in life.

Unlike the aristocracy of England they did not accept that being born into a particular family made someone in any way superior or inferior. Also the Forefathers did not believe or assert that they were in some way superior, or even more equal ;-), to the aristocrats. They said they were separate and equal. You can also think of that as meaning 'different and equal'. They meant it as individuals as well as collectively. (and please, let's not get in a tizzy over the slavery issue because it was a sociological error and has been mostly resolved, and this is my feast and that subject isn't welcome, thank you)

CIP goes into something about 'ordinary truths' and 'great truths' and how these "self evident truths" are 'great truths', but I'm not sure I understand the rhetorical difference between them. He said:

Ordinary truths, said Bohr, are statements whose opposites are false, whereas great truths, are distinguished by the circumstance that their opposites are also great truths.

Maybe I'm just dumb or lack some imagination at the moment, but that just doesn't make sense to me. Anyway, I think the "self evident truths" are not determined by myself or himself but by themselves. They are the truths that are determined by "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God." I need a good example of a law of nature that qualifies as one of Bohr's "great truths" that is true and opposite at the same time. Or is that Bohr's odd way of saying that it is very Natural that there are "separate and equal" things?

Okay, I just looked it up found that the basis of Bohr's idea is his "principle of complementarity: that items could be separately analyzed as having several contradictory properties. For example, physicists currently conclude that light is both a wave and a stream of particles — two apparently mutually exclusive properties — on the basis of this principle." (wikipedia) That sounds pretty close to "separate/different and equal" to me. ;-)

But, CIP, I also found that Bohr said that the opposite of a great or profound truth might be another great or profound truth. That "might" and the other differences in wording do make a difference, just as different ingredients can't always be substituted in a recipe. And I'm glad I looked that up for some clarification because it sure didn't sound like something that Bohr would say the way that CIP presented it.

Let's move on to the great truths:

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.

Those "great and self evident truths" are that

1) all men are created equal (by virtue of the Laws of Nature and Nature's God, and 'equal' can be 'different' and 'separate'),

2) they are endowed by their Creator (or Nature) with certain unalienable Rights including Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Unalienable Rights are not only Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness but include those, but I don't think there is any way to interpret that as saying that unalienable rights are negotiable.

If you apply Bohr's idea, as CIP tells it, to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness what happens? You get what CIP did. He degenerated into a rant about some aristocratic elite in control of the country and other mostly indecipherable things. Just like when a recipe goes wrong. Why is it his application of Bohr's idea failed in this case? Because he took a wrong turn in his calculations or he flubbed up his recipe:

Great truths are subject to the "Tinker Bell" effect. Their power can endure only as long as people believe in them.

Actually, that is probably a good summary of the Liberal Outlook on Life (L.O.L., lol). They would like to believe that the Laws of Nature, or the real "great truths" and therefore "self evident truths" can somehow become untruths or opposites or 'separate but not equal' just by refusing to accept them. Well, that's about as satisfying as a Tofurkey on Thanksgiving Day instead of a nice baked ham.

Remember I what I said a little ways up? 'Anyway, I think the "self evident truths" are not determined by myself or himself but by themselves. They are the truths that are determined by "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God."' If they are really "great truths" they will be true and powerful regardless of people's belief or non-belief in them.

Why is it so hard for Liberals to accept these Laws of Nature? 'Equality' does not mean even more equal. 'Separate' does not mean even more equal. 'Different' does not mean even more equal.

(please note the dangerous weapon carried by the pig: a pitchfork, no less!)

Well, now back to Animal Farm. Let's recall that the pigs led the Animal Farm after the Great Animal Revolt, and it didn't take long for them to start changing the Seven Commandments to suit their needs. Hmmm, doesn't that sound just like:

... the "Tinker Bell" effect. Their power can endure only as long as people believe in them

So here we are with the piggish thinking. They had no "great truths." They only applied the rules to everyone else and not themselves. Sounds just like a pig sty, doesn't it?

The Pigs became the new elite aristocracy because they didn't truly believe in equality for all. They only believed in themselves. The lived by the "Tinker Bell" philosophy of changeable truths. Not "self evident truths" or "great truths." They didn't respect the differences in the animals that separated them. They saw these differences as reasons to oppress and mistreat the others. They clearly had no understanding of the "separate but equal" aspects of Nature.

And it's quite apparent that CapitalistImperialistPig is not any different from any other Pigs. Except that now he has been roasted! ;-)

By the way, I must assure all that I wasn't the one who put the Big Pig on the spit, a job much too demanding of my stature. I asked some of my scary hillbilly buddies to take care of that for me. ;-) Funny thing, while they were working at it I did hear the tune Duelling Banjos playing. And I think I even heard one of them saying something about making pigs squeal.... Weeeeeee! Weeeeee! ;-)

Warning: Only those with very strong stomachs should click that last link. Trust me.

Side note: Apparently, the smell of roasted pork in the air has some pigs in Washington on the warpath. ;-)

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Freedom and Free Will

America was founded under the assumption of Divine Providence. Whether or not some segments of our current population might like it, our Founding Fathers believed that God had given them this opportunity, and in fact, duty, to establish a new kind of nation in which the people had protected personal freedoms, the utmost among those the Freedom of Religion. They were well aware that with great freedom comes great responsibility.

Humans have always had trouble obeying rules. Part of that problem is that we have these wonderful, highly evolved minds that live in still rather animalistic bodies that can and do overwhelm our minds sometimes. And then there are just some people whose minds are faulty too. ;-)

What can people do if they want to allow everyone to have great Freedom but some people aren't really capable or even willing to exercise the responsibility that comes with that Freedom? Well, usually, we have to make some rules that protect everyone's freedoms, and when certain people refuse to honor those rules then we try to reform them or remove them from society.

God gave Mankind "free will" which means that we have the choice to do what's right or to do what's not right and many other things in between. God knew that this free will put a lot of pressure on mankind to learn how to respect each other and further evolve spiritually, emotionally, and mentally, and that's why He did it. (just as we challenge our own children to become 'better' people)

What would be the point of a Universe with no degrees of freedom? String theory suggests that even in the "beginning" there were/are at least 10^500 degrees of freedom. ;-) Well, I'm probably (or definitely) misusing that whole thing, but please forgive me since my own brain's 10^500 degrees of freedom are a bit unruly today. ;-)

Of course, I know by looking at the natural world that we do operate under a certain amount of determinism in the form of the Laws of Nature. But the Laws of Nature/God and the Laws of Man do basically serve the same purpose of containing chaos, though usually the Laws of Man achieve this by severely limiting choices and freedoms. And that's just not Natural. While the Laws of Nature tell me that I can't flap my arms and start to fly (except when dreaming), they also tell me that I have the choice as to how I think (or don't think) about God, religion, science, and just about everything else. Our minds are kind of a reflection of all those degrees of freedom.

Well, what was I trying to say anyway? I guess the point I'd like to make is that God/Nature has "given" us a great deal of freedom by virtue of Free Will and that America was founded on the precept that using this Free Will for the advancement of individual Freedoms was the purest use of that Free Will.

Unfortunately, I see too many people forgetting all about Free Will and Freedom in the way they think and act. They forget that their Freedom ends where someone else's begins. They forget that with their Freedom they have a lot of Responsibility, including not to infringe on others' freedoms. And it is hard sometimes to accept that others have the freedom to do or think things that we disagree with or don't like. The point of Freedom of Speech, for example, is not to protect abusive behavior because abuse is the result of exercising no Responsibility. The point of it all is to learn tolerance and to transcend the base impulses to oppress the Freedom of others in whatever forms that oppression might take (abuse, ridicule, insult, imprisonment, etcetera).

Freedom does not insure constant Happiness. But it does insure the Pursuit of Happiness, as our founding fathers already told us. Free Will is our gift from God/Nature. Freedom is that gift in action. And Responsibility is what keeps it pure.

Amen. Go in Peace.

Monday, February 19, 2007

Lucky Guess?

While cooking supper a little while ago I was also listening to the news (FoxNews because cnn isn't conducive to good digestion). There was a guy on there who was organizing a boycott of Bank of America in response to its deal with the no social security number credit card. (not being a good blogger right now and adding links to the relevent articles, etc., maybe I'll have time later)

It struck me as kind of funny that just recently I had mentioned that banking was not exactly a pristine industry and so on. My observations about banking were made well before the current hoopla about Bank of America. Isn't that an interesting "coincidence"?

Things that make you go "hmmm." Well, draw your own conclusions. ;-)

Sunday, February 18, 2007

Chivalry is Dead (or senile at best)

The definition of chivalrous is "marked by gracious courtesy and high-minded consideration especially to women."

There is a sad lacking in today's world of gallant or distinguished gentlemen (though I'll say that most of the men who come here are the exception). I'm tempted to blame the feminazis for that. Well, it's probably not all their fault, but they are probably a big part of it. They insist that they be treated as men, and so then you have all these men who think that all women want to be treated as men. Sorry, that just ain't so.

I am a woman and feminine and happy to be feminine. And I expect to be treated as a feminine woman. I don't mind being 'delicate' or 'fragile'. This isn't to say that I'm weak or incapable. I've been through three pregnancies, labors, deliveries via c-section, and the recoveries of those surgeries. The feminine kind of strength it takes to do that is much greater than whatever exertion it might have taken for the male to plant his seed. Women are not the 'weaker vessel' unless you are comparing something basically trivial like the average muscle strength of men and women.

It's probably easier for men to treat women as men. That takes no consideration or thought about adjusting speech and actions. It's the lazy way out.

One of the worst results of this lack of chivalry is that men assume that a strong, capable, intelligent woman can, or wants to, take care of herself and doesn't want any help with problems, car doors, or whatever. I like help. I don't resent the offer of help. I'm usually not afraid to ask for help. And if you want to know the God's honest truth, I'm pretty disappointed when I'm not offered help when it looks like I might need it. I know I should probably take that as other people having confidence in my ability to handle things on my own. I appreciate that thought, but I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm not a Superwoman who can handle it all without some help and support at times. There is no such thing as a completely independent person- male or female.

Anyway, when a man mistreats a woman it is a sure sign that he is underendowed in many ways. He can't use the excuse that if a woman is 'equal' to him that she should expect to be treated as roughly as he would treat a man. That's not equality. That's meanness. I can't pretend to understand why some men are so hateful, angry, and unmanly that they think it's okay to beat up on a woman.

But it's clear that any man who does abuse a woman, verbally or physically, is too weak and cowardly to beat up on other men. A woman is an easy target. And of course, the bad men will use anything she might do in attempting to defend herself or fight back as some kind of evidence that she has no honor for others to defend. It's just like the old witch tests where they'd throw an accused witch into the river, and if she floated/swam she was a witch and had be burned, but if she drowned, well, then she was a good woman who unfortunately died.

So this brings me to a complaint that I've been very hesitant to make. But I really do want to say it and I will. I'm shocked that practically no 'chivalrous' men who have witnessed my abuse by a nasty and underendowed man have stepped up to intervene. WTF?? If you saw a man abusing one of your female friends in your office, for example, would you just turn away and pretend that it wasn't happening? Would you think, "Oh, she can handle that herself. I don't want to get involved"? Well, I don't know. Maybe you do think that, but if you do then whatever 'superior' male endowments that Nature has given you are being completely wasted.

Think about your mother, your wife, your sister, or your daughter. Would you like it if someone mistreated them? It's inexcusable to me for someone to ignore or dismiss a man attacking, mistreating, abusing, etc., a woman. It's as if it's an endorsement of that behavior.

To disagree with someone and have civil debates is one thing. But to allow someone to relentlessly verbally abuse another is downright plebeian. And it's NOT EVEN LIBERAL.

Saturday, February 17, 2007

Momma's Moon Lodge

No Men Allowed

This post is a place where women can come and commiserate about how stupid men are sometimes and any other thing that they need to get off their chests. For further explanation of moon lodges click here.

Women, feel free to rant and vent.

Friday, February 16, 2007

Al Gore Is The AntiChrist

Update 3-2-07: Holy Sh*t! This is getting a little weird. ;-)

The Beast from the Sea: And the dragon stood on the sand of the seashore. Then I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns were ten diadems, and on his heads were blasphemous names.

Revelation 13:1

The Seven Heads had the names of the Seven Deadly Sins: Luxuria (extravagance, later lust), Gula (gluttony), Avaritia (avarice/greed), Acedia (sloth), Ira (wrath), Invidia (envy), and Superbia (pride/hubris) which is the worst of the Seven.

The ten horns and crowns have generally been interpreted as representing world leaders.

I saw one of his heads as if it had been slain, and his fatal wound was healed. And the whole earth was amazed and followed after the beast;

Revelation 13:3

The fatal wound was to the head of Hubris and refers to Gore's "loss" of the Presidency. Let's recall what happened to Gore after the 2000 election. He kind of fell into a funk that could be described as a sort of political death:

From cnn

He had been for eight years the Vice President of the most powerful nation in the world but lost it all. Certainly, that would be consistent with the imagery of his head of Hubris being fatally wounded. But it has healed now, and Gore is full of even more Hubris than ever before. He has his movie which has gained him much (ill-gotten) acclaim with a nomination for a Nobel Peace Prize as well as an Academy Award. And now he is organizing a "Live Aid" type of concert for this summer devoted to "stopping" Global Warming.

They worshiped the dragon because he gave his authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, “Who is like the beast, and who is able to wage war with him?” There was given to him a mouth speaking arrogant words and blasphemies, and authority to act for forty-two months was given to him. And he opened his mouth in blasphemies against God, to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle, that is, those who dwell in heaven.

It was also given to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them, and authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation was given to him. All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.

Revelation 13:4-8

I'm not sure about the forty-two months, or 3.5 years, and when it actually starts. If it begins at the general release date of the movie, June 2, 2006, then the 3.5 years is up in November 2009.

(You know that when communists and capitalists agree on something then it must be true. ;-) In fact there is growing awareness. ;-) )

If Gore gets his way then he will essentially be given authority over every tribe and peoople and tongue and nation. And all who dwell on earth will be forced to follow him and his Global Warming teachings. Everyone who rejects the laws of Nature in favor of Gore's Impending Disaster will be removing their names from the book of life. The Global Warming Alarmists are committing the Deadly Sin of Hubris to think that we can really induce or stop large climatic changes. (first said here)

The Beast from the Earth: Then I saw another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb and he spoke as a dragon. He exercises all the authority of the first beast in his presence. And he makes the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose fatal wound was healed. He performs great signs, so that he even makes fire come down out of heaven to the earth in the presence of men. And he deceives those who dwell on the earth because of the signs which it was given him to perform in the presence of the beast, telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who had the wound of the sword and has come to life. And it was given to him to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast would even speak and cause as many as do not worship the image of the beast to be killed.

Revelation 13:11-15

The name of this beast from the earth that the beast from the sea has given the power to perform "great signs" is clearly the movie An Inconvenient Truth. Imagine how John who wrote the book of Revelation would interpret his visions as real beings when he might have actually seen visions from the film. He had no way of knowing that mankind would have created such realistic "graven images." This is how visions usually work. We don't always know exactly how to interpret them because of our limited knowledge at the time.

As we are beginning to see any of us who do not accept the "great signs" presented by the beast of the earth (the film) are being severely criticized, ridiculed, and otherwise character-assassinated. Now we've even been ridiculously and maliciously equated with the "Holocaust Deniers." If that isn't a blasphemous abuse of the Jewish People and their trials then I don't know what is. In fact, it seems to be very consistent with the picture presented in the book of Revelation.

And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that of a man; and his number is 666.

Revelation 13:16-18

If Gore and the AGW Devils win the "debate" about the future of the world we all will be required to accept an AGW mark in order to function in the world.

Well, apologies for cutting off abruptly. I just can't stomach the further exploration of these possibilities. But I do want to say that if I mysteriously disappear or even die then it's probably because I've exposed Al Gore for what he really is. ;-)

And that is today's (satiric) sermonette.

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Love Is A Battlefield

Heartache to heartache we stand
No promises, no demands
Love is a battlefield

We are strong, no one can tell us we're wrong
Searchin' our hearts for so long, both of us knowing
Love is a battlefield

Love Is A Battlefield by Pat Benatar

The Kiss by Gustav Klimt, one of my very favorite artists

Once I had a love and it was a gas
Soon turned out had a heart of glass

Heart of Glass by Blondie

heart of glass

A few months ago I traded in my heart of glass for a heart of titanium because the transparent and fragile glass one had been broken so many times. But my body is rejecting that transplant, which is the real reason why I keep getting sick, so I'm shopping for a new one.

The strongest and most fiery is certainly a diamond heart
but they are just too expensive.

Of course, there are cheaper alternatives to diamonds like Moissanite and Cubic Zirconia, but still for something the size of a human heart it is too much money and untested for these purposes besides.

While a heart of chocolate
would be very sweet and easily melt, I don't think that is any more practical or durable than a heart of glass.

So I just don't know exactly what would be best. It needs to be something that works well and is durable and tough without being too hard and impenetrable. Love is a battlefield, and hearts get broken and mended. Maybe I should just see if I can get back my old, battle-scarred but familiar and full of love heart. Maybe if I keep working on it I'll finally get that alchemical formula for a heart of gold.

For each man in his time is Cain
Until he walks along the beach
And sees his future in the water
A long lost heart within his reach

The One by Elton John

Happy Valentine's Day!

The True Danger of Global Warming

Image of Sun's UV radiation from NASA

No, this title does not mean that overnight I have miraculously accepted that humans are destroying the planet. ;-) It means that the hysteria over AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is very dangerous for us all. Allow me to list my primary points first, and then we'll discuss them in more detail.

1. It is a distraction from very real and immediate threats to our well-being.

2. It gives people a false sense of control over things that they really can't control.

3. It aims to "equalize" the entire globe which is contrary to the very laws of Nature.

4. It seeks to shift power and influence from those who provide, support, and sustain progress to those who want to stifle, suppress, and cripple growth and development.

Point 1

We have a global war on terror and many other serious and immediate concerns that are much more likely to cause widespread death and destruction than normal climate changes. Do you think that any Iraqis are sitting around worrying about an impending Ice Age or Hot Age? No, they are fighting for their basic rights and survival. AGW is taking valuable resources, attention, and energy away from helping them attain a decent way of life. If half the AGW activists would actually stop frivolously expelling extra CO2 and would concentrate on truly improving the world, we might actually see some progress.

Point 2

We cannot control the global climate, by "accident" or by "design". We do have a limited effect on our local conditions, but this influence is like gravity and weakens significantly with increasing distance. For the AGW alarmists to make people think that we have more control than we do is a delusion that we must not accept because it gives people a false sense of security. While we are told that we must go to extreme meausures to keep the global average temperature at some imaginary "ideal," we are not putting enough time, thought, and resources into preparedness. The Katrina disaster is a perfect example of this problem. Instead of throwing blame around people should say, "Wow, we really need to make some real and tangible plans to deal with natural disasters." Not, "Wow, we really need to stop these natural disasters." That is pure foolishness!

People need to wake up from their delusion of controling Nature and start doing real things to prepare for when Nature gets extreme. Instead of putting time and energy into manipulating emissions, etc., our leaders should be spending much more time on designing plans for evacuating people from threats and delivering food and water and assistance to those who could not be evacuated. They need to establish plans for mass communication in the event that the usual technological communication is disabled. And so on. The bottom line is that people must begin to focus on readiness and preparedness, as our long ago ancestors had to do in order to survive so that we could be here.

Points 3 and 4 (combined because they are so closely related)

Is the climate significantly changing? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. In the long term most of us won't live to really know. And there's a question in my mind as to whether or not we should really be all that concerned with "global climate" anyway. Sure, the weather is global system, but it is so variable and unpredictable that to view it from one angle is just silly.

And from the policital perspective the AGW movement is at its heart seeking to "redistribute the wealth" in the guise of "saving the planet" from the greedy consumers. The United States, we are told, uses the largest percentage of the world's resources and so on. Well, the United States also pretty much supports most of the world economy. The communist AGW alarmists hate the ecomony and anything that might cause some to have more than others, regardless of the effort they expend for themselves. I think that communism violates the laws of nature because it seeks to equalize all things, but that is absolutley NOT the purpose and drive of life and evolution. If things never changed then there would be no life. The very essence of life is change. The AGW movement is trying to stop the process of life. And that is just plain wrong.

In this day and age of 24 hour weather channels and news broadcasts we are much more aware of what is going on in places other than our local areas. The weather has been sensationalized to boost ratings. More people are living in areas where people haven't lived before, like all along the coastlines and in other less than stable places. The weather hasn't really gotten worse. We are just more aware of it and more people are being affected by it due to their choices of habitat.

You know, if our ancestors had taken the philosophy of the AGW alarmists and had put all their time and energy into trying to control the climate instead of adapting and preparing for it, we wouldn't be here.

Say, why don't we show a little appreciation to the cavemen who have endowed us with the ability to plan and prepare? Maybe it's because I might be a Neanderthal ;-), but I've always kinda liked the Geico caveman:

Incidentally, I'm in good company in my views on AGW. ;-)

Monday, February 12, 2007

More About Anna Nicole

I feel especially sorry for her little baby. All of these people fighting over her possible inheritance, but they don't really care about her. This poor child will probably never have a normal life, and that is the biggest tragedy of the whole situation.

Despite whatever some people might say about Anna Nicole and her (bad) choices in life, I do kinda feel sorry for her because nearly everyone around her was only using her. She had spoken of feeling "alone" in the world in some interviews, and I think that she felt that way because on a certain level she knew that most of the people in her life were there for the fame and fortune and not because they genuinely liked and cared for her. I can't really say about Howard K. Stern. I think he probably always loved her but that she couldn't fully trust that anyone's feelings for her were true and genuine. That would most definitely cause one to feel "alone" in the world even though she is surrounded by many people.

Normally, I generally agree with Bill O-Reilly, but he has been quite harsh in regards to Anna Nicole's death. Well, maybe she was a little dumb about her choices in life, but I don't think that's a good reason to scorn her. Who among us has never made a bad choice? Or even several bad choices? And why ridicule someone for not being especially "smart" when her "dumbness" has made her rich and famous? Well, of course, we're all entitled to our own opinions.

I hereby formally and posthumously induct Anna Nicole Smith into the Hoe Hall of Fame. She was a Hoe as much as her idol, Marilyn Monroe. Well, some might object and say that Marilyn had more class, etc., but I think that is an unfair statement because if Marilyn had lived in our current crazy media culture, she would have been ridiculed for the same things as Anna Nicole, or even worse since as far as we know Anna Nicole wasn't sleeping with a President and his brother.

The parallels between Anna Nicole's and Marilyn's lives and deaths are striking, and perhaps that was by Anna Nicole's design, though it could be argued that Anna Nicole's life was even more difficult and tragic. While Marilyn endured many failed marriages and at least one miscarriage, she was never a mother and never suffered the loss of a child, which is any mother's worst nightmare. Both women were used and thrown away by people who claimed to love her.

And while I'm preaching a little, let me add that Anna Nicole's tragic life can be seen as evidence that Hugh Hefner truly is the Devil. Let us not forget that Hefner and Playboy are also a common and primary thread in the stories of Anna Nicole Smith and Marilyn Monroe. When you extend his philosophy of women to its logical conclusion you will find yourself staring at the dead bodies of Anna Nicole and Marilyn Monroe.

In conclusion, I'd just like to say that despite all the hoopla about her life and death, we must remember that Anna Nicole Smith was a human being with real feelings and needs and challenges. None of us should feel superior because we don't really know how hard it was for her to live with what life gave her.

Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

Matthew 7: 1-5

Afterthought: I do realize that by judging Hefner so harshly I am guilty of a bit of hypocrisy about not judging others, but sorry, I stand by my evaluation of his Devilness.

Another afterthought: I had meant to mention that I had no opinion about Anna Nicole until I started watching her "reality" show when I was laid up in bed and tethered to a catheter for two weeks after my hysterectomy. I had to have the catheter because my insides were all messed up from the c-sections and they had to cut my bladder to get the other stuff out. That was about as non-graphic a description as I could think of so sorry if it was still gross. Anyway, her show was a fun distraction from my own troubles and for that I am/was thankful. And I could say that it helped my recovery as it forced me to laugh and therefore exercise my wounded abdomen. And laughing was better than making myself cough as the doctors had instructed.

Sunday, February 11, 2007

Thursday, February 08, 2007

Anna Nicole Smith, Rest In Peace

This is a developing story. Anna Nicole Smith has died at the age of 39. Apparently, she collapsed in her Florida hotel room and could not be resuscitated there or at the hospital. She is survived by her five month old daughter. An autopsy will be done tomorrow.

Chimerical Mail Time

Dear Rae Ann,

Don't you think you're being hypocritical to accuse William Oefelein of playing a "wicked game" when you are guilty of flirting with men online?

The Flirtation Police

Dear Flirtation Police,

Well, that's alltogether different because I don't know any of them in "real life". And I have it from a reliable source that the "e-world" is most definitely not the same as the "real world." Besides, Oefelein seemed to be involved in a simple, ordinary Euclidean love triangle, but I have no desire for such a thing as that. Oh, no. I would require something more like a very complex and multidimensional love Calabi-Yau manifold. ;-)

Rae Ann

Hi Rae Ann,

How in the world did you get all mixed up with a bunch of scientists, especially physicists?

Curious but not Britney Spears

Hi Curious but not Britney Spears,

I hope you are wearing underwear. ;-) To be totally honest, and I promise I'm not saying this just because everyone involved in the Scooter Libby trial is saying it, I don't remember. Really, I don't. What I do recall is that at some point in 2005 I stumbled upon CapitalistImperialistPig's blog. I can't remember if I got there by clicking "next blog" while browsing, or if his blog was listed on the Blogger Dashboard as "recently updated", or if I got there in some other way. But I'm not completely certain that was the true introduction into the physics blogosphere because it seems I had somehow stumbled upon Lubos Motl's Reference Frame prior to finding CIP. But, again, I really can't recall exactly. Sorry. I wish I could remember exactly.

Thanks for asking anyway,
Rae Ann

Dear Vicious Momma,

I've heard that your views on Hillary have "softened". What's up with that? Are you becoming a lilly-ass liberal?

Say it ain't so,
A Concerned Conservative

Dear Concerned Conservative,

It ain't so... I'm most definitely not becoming a lilly-ass liberal. Maybe I'm just getting older and a little less vicious? Hillary is still much too socialist for me, but I have to admit that I do admire her strength and confidence. Her joke about "bad, evil men" was hilarious and I never assumed she was referring (only) to her husband. That's what makes a great joke, when it can have many levels of meaning. But don't make the mistake of thinking that because she can tell a funny joke is why my view has "softened." Her remaining relatively strong in her support for the military is a point in her favor, but if she starts that John Edwards style waffling (he must have learned well from his time with Kerry) she will lose all credibility with me. If she wants to appeal to the more conservative voters she must be consistent. I don't think it would be a disaster if she became President, at least not as much of a disaster as with any of the other Democratic candidates. My biggest concern with her as President would be her husband being in the White House again. I think it would be wise for her to keep him out of the White House as much as possible, especially away from the interns. Really, if you boil it down, Bill Clinton is Hillary's biggest detriment and liability, and not just because of his wayward tendencies.

Hope that helps,
A Kinder, Gentler Momma ;-)

Laughed Til I Cried

While checking my statcounter last night I found that someone had gizoogled one of my old posts.

Even tha bizzle F-to-tha-izzall diznown sometizzle.

Apparently, it changes slightly with each page load, but the one last night absolutely cracked me up.

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Wicked Game

Updated: 2-10-07**

Strange what desire will make foolish people do

What a wicked game you play
To make me feel this way
What a wicked thing to do
To let me dream of you

"Wicked Game" by Chris Isaak

You know I can't let this story go without saying a few things about it. Certainly by now everyone has heard about the astronaut, Lisa Nowak, who drove 900 miles in a diaper to attempt to kidnap, and possibly murder, a perceived romantic rival, Colleen Shipman, for the affections of another married astronaut, William Oefelein. What would possess a highly intelligent, accomplished woman to do such a crazy thing?

Well, aside from the usual speculations about the emotional instabilities of women, as my husband likes to promote ;-)*, I think we should look at this situation from a wider perspective. What is so f*cking special about this Oefelein guy that would motivate a woman to throw her entire life away on his behalf? I don't think I'll pursue that line of thought, but feel free if you'd like to add to that subject.

I have to wonder what exactly his relationship was with Nowak. Was he playing some kind of wicked game with her (and Shipman?) and encouraging her romantic feelings while never really intending to have a real relationship? Was he just feeding his ego by playing with the emotions of these two women? Was he just an "innocent" recipient of unbidden affections from Nowak and/or Shipman? I don't think that these are irrelevant questions because we all have to have some responsibility for our interactions with others and the potential consequences of those interactions.

I'm very interested to hear the sides of the story from Shipman and Oefelein. It has been reported that Shipman claims that she had been stalked by Nowak. There is surely more to that story. However, since Oefelein is married, but to neither Shipman nor Nowak, there is yet another side of this story: Oefelein's wife's perspective. I'd be really pissed and disappointed for the whole world to learn that my husband was playing a wicked game with two other women. And of course, there's the sad situation for Nowak's children.

Certainly, there is much more to learn about the motivations and background of this story. But perhaps it is a vivid and intense reminder that human hearts (and minds) are very tender and that playing wicked games with them can only end in tragedy.

* We were talking/joking about this story this morning and I told him that I sure hoped he didn't have some girlfriend that was going to try to kidnap/kill me. Then he said it was the "old" ones who went nuts like that, but I reminded him of that crazy teenager Amy Fisher who shot her much older boyfriend's wife in the head. So age has nothing to do with it. Obviously age, education, success, renown, or any other thing has nothing to do with it. He still says that it's just women and their instability. Well, I still say that it's men and their stupidity that leads to women's instability. ;-)

** A new article discussing more details from the family perspectives reveals that Oefelein has been separated from his wife for a while. But it does not clearly specify his actual relationships with either Nowak or Shipman. I still think that if he was playing both of them in a "wicked game" of insincere encouragement that he has at least some psychological responsibility for what happened.

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Constitutional Study: Money

Update: Sorry, my premise for this post is probably invalid and I won't likely pursue it further. But I'm still pissed about it.

This is an incomplete post which I hope to finish later today.

Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

We've been hearing about some businesses and now a credit union who are encouraging their customers to use Mexican pesos for transactions, etc. instead of converting them to US Dollars. This is happening here in the US. And it is against everything I have even learned about how things are supposed to be in our country. It's an outrage and I don't know why more people aren't revolted and protesting this obvious new step in the Mexican Invasion.

Come on people. Can't you see what is happening here? It is unConstitutional for States and citizens to trade in non-US legal tender in the United States.

There are so many crimes at play here that I can't list them all.

Friday, February 02, 2007


Your Lucky Underwear is Blue

You are caring and extroverted. You've made relationships your number one focus, and your lucky blue underwear can bring some balance to them.
You thrive in one-on-one situations. You are a good listener and a natural born therapist.

Sometimes you let the concerns of others become too important in your life, leading to stress and worry.
If you want more balance, put on your blue underpants. They'll help you take care of yourself first.

Out of Balance?

Update 2-19-07: Just noting an interesting 'predictive' occurrence. Not long after this post, banking and its shady practices became a big news story. Well, make of it what you will, but this kind of thing happens to me often, just not always so quickly and in such big, obvious ways. And the really funny thing to me in looking back at this post is how especially well the title fits with these new developments. ;-)

I just have to rant a little about this stupid global warming crap with which groups like Greenpeace are polluting the world. Directly from their website (their bold emphasis):

We're seeing the effects of global warming all around us - more intense heat waves that disproportionately affect the elderly and poor, more severe storms that wreak havoc on our homes and communities, and all kinds of changing cycles in the natural world.

That's why it's unacceptable for the U.S. government and oil companies like ExxonMobil to continue to fuel global warming while refusing to support solutions to the problem. Fortunately, a clean energy revolution is sweeping across the country-we have the tools to put the Earth back in balance, and we can do it today.

Is that first paragraph not an obvious bunch of inflammatory lies meant to frighten and upset people? They should be sued for wrongful anxiety or something. And wow, "changing cycles in the natural world"? Since when did the cycles in the natural world not change? The Earth has never been a utopian paradise in some ideal "balance". That it was and that we in the last 100 years have ruined it is the biggest and dumbest and falsest myth of the whole global warming pile of bullcrap.

Now let me say one thing. I don't have a problem with a "clean energy revolution" as long as it doesn't involve some kind of communistic, socialistic, totalitarian regime imposed on unwilling people. I can't trust Greenpeace to follow those criteria because we all know that they don't respect the rights of anyone who disagrees with them. They clearly don't approve of choice unless the choices are the ones they have offered.

And why is ExxonMobil the only scapegoat bad guy here? It's one of the biggest publicly traded companies in the world, number 6 according to this Forbes list. What too many people don't stop to think about is that if you hurt a large publicly owned company you are hurting everyone. Well, it's just like global warming, right? ;-)

Let me go off on a little tangent here about the top five on that list.

1 Citigroup United States (Banking)
2 General Electric United States (Conglomerates)
3 Bank of America United States (Banking)
4 American Intl Group United States (Insurance)
5 HSBC Group United Kingdom (Banking)

Banking and Insurance. Yeah. Like those are pristine industries that do nothing to harm and exploit the poor and elderly and the environment. If I were a well-paid journalist I'd do a fancy, in-depth expose on those industries in comparison to ExxonMobil, and I suspect that the results would show that overall ExxonMobil is a choirboy in moral comparison to the evil that the banking and insurance companies do to all of us. But I'm not a well-paid anything. I'm just a random blogger, so sorry, I can't invest the time and energy on that project for free. I'm a capitalist at heart. ;-)

Militant Environmentalist Squirrel

It's easy to pick one company or person or thing to be a culprit, or boogeyman, that must be defeated. I sure hope that ExxonMobil isn't defeated by some squirrelly (by the way, I kind of hate squirrels) environmentalists. From what I've read they provide their employees with excellent benefits. On top of that imagine how much money is being earned by these people and how they in turn put that into the economy. Greenpeace and all the other people who vilify ExxonMobil need to realize that picking one company to blame imaginary problems on is just plain wrong.

Well, despite whatever those wackos say, the Earth is not out of "balance", and even if it was there is nothing that humans (or militant environmentalist squirrels with guns) could do to change it.

Still Around

ImageChef.com - Create custom images

Sorry I've been scarce the last few days. I'm still around, just kinda busy.