Thanks for the kind words. I will continue to look for articles that deserve attention or amuse.
An article on government restrictions on "news"
On a completely unrelated note, New York plans on increasing fees for people driving in the State. Hmmmm. Could be a problem there. I recommend that people across the nation watch out for such foolishness.
Here is the information. Fees must be related to the service or product received. Taxes are monies taken that can be used for anything. The difference is that taxes must be voted on.
An example would be trash pick up. The City can only charge what it costs them to pick up the trash. They cannot increase the fee and use the overage to fund the police unless voted on. The rules for taxes and fees are different. One can require that a legislature prove that the funds are used only for the purpose they were intended. New York has plenty of lawyers, we may just see the suit.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
A New Blog Record
Today we have a sixth, SIXTH, follower. Hello. I often wonder if anyone reads what I post, I always surprised when someone does. I try very hard to find interesting stories in the news or discuss things from a different perspective. Sometimes I wonder if anyone hears it. I write anyways.
Someone once asked a writer, I think it was Stephen King, what they should do to become a writer. The answer was, "Write". I love writing, I love the idea of formalizing a thought into words. There is a beauty in the written word, in can outlast the writer, I doubt mine will; but, love the thought. More than the written word, I love the spoken word.
I love to hear speeches, to watch peoples immediate response to new thoughts and different views. The tension in the air, the anticipation, the uncertainty. I have spoken in public many times and have even been televised. The feeling just before you speak in public is amazing, complete fear and uncertainty. What a joy. Put it out there, risk ridicule, risk proving a point.
We all want to be understood and the only certainty is that few will ever understand any of us. We want to be understood because we want our opinion to matter, we want some say in what happens. This is being threatened by your government. It is currently being discussed in congress whether or not bloggers should be required to pass a test as journalists or be at risk for what they write. Different rights for different people. Perhaps we shall do the same in regards to speech, verbal.
Fortunately for me, I don't write news stories, I only link to them or discuss my opinion of them. I guess I don't qualify as a blogger, just opinionated. I can live with that, I don't respect most of what I see that passes as journalism.
Someone once asked a writer, I think it was Stephen King, what they should do to become a writer. The answer was, "Write". I love writing, I love the idea of formalizing a thought into words. There is a beauty in the written word, in can outlast the writer, I doubt mine will; but, love the thought. More than the written word, I love the spoken word.
I love to hear speeches, to watch peoples immediate response to new thoughts and different views. The tension in the air, the anticipation, the uncertainty. I have spoken in public many times and have even been televised. The feeling just before you speak in public is amazing, complete fear and uncertainty. What a joy. Put it out there, risk ridicule, risk proving a point.
We all want to be understood and the only certainty is that few will ever understand any of us. We want to be understood because we want our opinion to matter, we want some say in what happens. This is being threatened by your government. It is currently being discussed in congress whether or not bloggers should be required to pass a test as journalists or be at risk for what they write. Different rights for different people. Perhaps we shall do the same in regards to speech, verbal.
Fortunately for me, I don't write news stories, I only link to them or discuss my opinion of them. I guess I don't qualify as a blogger, just opinionated. I can live with that, I don't respect most of what I see that passes as journalism.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
More DWP attempts at suicide
After a complete public relations fiasco over raising electricity rates, the Department of Water and Power has decided to ask for a 8% raise in water rates. This is political suicide and the employees of DWP, who have no say in the matter, don't even support it. I guess they will keep making sink holes and asking for raises until they are contracted out. Who benefits, not the employees.
Raise the water rates
Raise the water rates
Monday, May 31, 2010
Newpaper writer on pot
I was reading the LA Times and and they published this article on the statistics regarding legalizing Marijuana in California. I don't care about the article or people's opinions on Marijuana, I loved the statistics.
According to the article 57% of voters said they had never tried marijuana. 37% said they had tried marijuana. What about the other 6%, were they unsure? Were they like Bill Clinton, they puffed but did not inhale? Nationally this would mean somewhere around 20 MILLION people don't know if they have tried marijuana.
Marijuana legalization
According to the article 57% of voters said they had never tried marijuana. 37% said they had tried marijuana. What about the other 6%, were they unsure? Were they like Bill Clinton, they puffed but did not inhale? Nationally this would mean somewhere around 20 MILLION people don't know if they have tried marijuana.
Marijuana legalization
Idiot Contest
Michele Obama was recently at a school and a child asked her about the President wanting to deport illegal aliens. Mrs. Obama responded by saying only people without the proper papers would be deported. The little girl said that her mother didn't have any papers. The little girls mother ran out of the room and is now in hiding. The little girl was born in the United States.
The article about the girl
Lets start with the obvious. Do you really believe that every child in that class didn't get a background check along with their parents? How dumb do they think we are? The first lady doesn't go to places at random, there is an office of people dedicated to managing everyone of her public appearances. The timing is also perfect in light of the law passed in Arizona.
The argument will now be over whether or not children of illegal aliens should be given citizenship. The argument continues to be over what rights people should have. People are being led by their biases and bigotry to destroy our national rights. It is not about illegal aliens, it is about rights.
Some will argue that being born here does not entitle one to citizenship. That is a dangerous and slippery slope. How far back do you want to go, how many came here legally. The American Indian might argue that none of us is here legally.
UPDATE
So the idiots have already been posting responses to the article on Yahoo News. They have found a novel interpretation of the Constitution. The article in question says, "all persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". The writer states that this clause was meant to deny citizenship to those who held allegiance to other countries; but, were born here.
730 idiots agreed with his interpretation. I think it is the 6% that don't know if they have ever smoked marijuana. Lets start simple. It says born or naturalized. Two different things. If you are born in a country you are almost always a citizen of it. When are you not? When you are not subject to it's jurisdiction. Who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States but are born here?
Two cases I can think of. Firstly, people born here while their parents were on vacation. This was especially true in the 1700s, vacations went on for months. Secondly, and more importantly, children of people who were part of an embassy. The question was concerned with not denying someone their own citizenship. It was answered by their parents, a parents choice if you will.
The coming argument will have to do with pledging allegiance to ONLY the United States. Personally, I am unwilling to pledge allegiance to a piece of dirt or a governmental structure. Dirt is just dirt and governmental structures change. The founding fathers pledged their fortunes and lives to each other not to the land or the government.
A country is not a place, boundaries change. It is not a form of government or financial system. It is each other. We promise our help to each other, we commit to each other.
The article about the girl
Lets start with the obvious. Do you really believe that every child in that class didn't get a background check along with their parents? How dumb do they think we are? The first lady doesn't go to places at random, there is an office of people dedicated to managing everyone of her public appearances. The timing is also perfect in light of the law passed in Arizona.
The argument will now be over whether or not children of illegal aliens should be given citizenship. The argument continues to be over what rights people should have. People are being led by their biases and bigotry to destroy our national rights. It is not about illegal aliens, it is about rights.
Some will argue that being born here does not entitle one to citizenship. That is a dangerous and slippery slope. How far back do you want to go, how many came here legally. The American Indian might argue that none of us is here legally.
UPDATE
So the idiots have already been posting responses to the article on Yahoo News. They have found a novel interpretation of the Constitution. The article in question says, "all persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". The writer states that this clause was meant to deny citizenship to those who held allegiance to other countries; but, were born here.
730 idiots agreed with his interpretation. I think it is the 6% that don't know if they have ever smoked marijuana. Lets start simple. It says born or naturalized. Two different things. If you are born in a country you are almost always a citizen of it. When are you not? When you are not subject to it's jurisdiction. Who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States but are born here?
Two cases I can think of. Firstly, people born here while their parents were on vacation. This was especially true in the 1700s, vacations went on for months. Secondly, and more importantly, children of people who were part of an embassy. The question was concerned with not denying someone their own citizenship. It was answered by their parents, a parents choice if you will.
The coming argument will have to do with pledging allegiance to ONLY the United States. Personally, I am unwilling to pledge allegiance to a piece of dirt or a governmental structure. Dirt is just dirt and governmental structures change. The founding fathers pledged their fortunes and lives to each other not to the land or the government.
A country is not a place, boundaries change. It is not a form of government or financial system. It is each other. We promise our help to each other, we commit to each other.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
News of the Day
The New York City Science Fest is a gathering of scientists to discuss, well, science. One of the major topics this year is "Are we holograms". Yes, science has gone so far as to become spiritual and ask about consciousness. While I applaud their investigation, science can never answer the question of consciousness, it cannot be measured or replicated. LOL. It is and always will be the elephant that science and logic and all the garbage can never explain.
Science asks if we are Holograms
Lets talk about Near Death Experiences and Scientists
From India, NDE caused by electric surges in the brain. The article claims this is the first time someone had a physical reason for NDEs. Not so, read the other articles.
NDEs have been blamed on Carbon Dioxide, oxygen deprivation, hallucinations and whatever you can imagine. The scientists can no more explain death than they can consciousness. Neither fits with science, it goes beyond mechanical. My answer to the scientists is simple, if you can, duplicate it. LOL. Don't give me a scientific answer that you cannot duplicate or accept other beliefs that cannot be duplicated, hypocrites.
I will simplify my answer. How can science explain any conscious experience if it cannot explain self awareness? It cannot. We are taught by science how meaningless we are and how important nature and the universe are. We are merely coincidental to the universe, that is sciences answer. How can it therefore explain the importance of being, it cannot.
The meaning of the show Lost
Science asks if we are Holograms
Lets talk about Near Death Experiences and Scientists
From India, NDE caused by electric surges in the brain. The article claims this is the first time someone had a physical reason for NDEs. Not so, read the other articles.
NDEs have been blamed on Carbon Dioxide, oxygen deprivation, hallucinations and whatever you can imagine. The scientists can no more explain death than they can consciousness. Neither fits with science, it goes beyond mechanical. My answer to the scientists is simple, if you can, duplicate it. LOL. Don't give me a scientific answer that you cannot duplicate or accept other beliefs that cannot be duplicated, hypocrites.
I will simplify my answer. How can science explain any conscious experience if it cannot explain self awareness? It cannot. We are taught by science how meaningless we are and how important nature and the universe are. We are merely coincidental to the universe, that is sciences answer. How can it therefore explain the importance of being, it cannot.
The meaning of the show Lost
In Honor of one of my Teachers
There has been a big fuss recently regarding a cross in the middle of the Mojave desert. To see it you would have to drive quite a distance from any city. The cross was erected to honor some WWII soldiers that died. The complaint, by a few, is that the cross is on government and therefore violates the separation of church and state.
I will begin by pointing out that I am a Christian. Now you know my bias. Alas, I do not include my bias in my understanding of the constitution. One of my professors was a true gentleman named Robert L. Cord. He was a great scholar of the constitution and wrote on it's meaning. He took the position that the constitution and the founding fathers did not prevent any spiritual beliefs. Oh, he was not religious and did not believe in God. In fact, I cannot say for sure if he was an atheist although we discussed such things. He was honest in his intellect.
I can say that I learned much from him and truly enjoyed his company. What he taught me helped me later to graduate Law School and receive the American Jurisprudence Award for Constitutional Law. I miss him and his teachings. I wish to honor him by showing that I heard and passing his simple teachings on.
In regards to the cross on government property. Ladies and gentlemen, many a fine person is buried in government property. Should they be denied a cross above their final resting place? I think not. The founding fathers placed many a cross on government property to fallen soldiers, should they be removed? That is what Mr. Cord would ask.
Mr. Cord and I disagreed on prayer in school. He accurately proved that the constitution would allow it, he was not a Christian. I, as a Christian, stated that I did not want it in school because I did not want non-Christians teaching Christianity to my children nor did I want non-Christians to teach any religion to my children, I don't want the government teaching spiritual beliefs to anyone.
I am posting an article where Professor Cord completely destroys the arguments of a professor taking the opposing side. On occasion, I reflect upon the people who taught me to look at things in new ways. I was very blessed in my life to have such fine friends and teachers.
I am reminded on one day when Professor Cord invited myself and a couple of other students to his apartment to discuss the law. I was an undergraduate and very brash, I had opinions and argued them. Professor Cord sat us down and gave us some 25 year old scotch. It was too strong for me; but, what an honor to sit with the man in his home and discuss the law.
Sometimes I teach people. Usually in a work setting, Professor Cord thought I should become a teacher; but, stubborn me, I wanted to be a practitioner. Perhaps someday I will teach, we shall see. Whereas Professor Cord was more in agreement with Plato and Socrates, I am with Aristotle and Rousseau, I do not trust government or right thinkers.
I doubt anyone will bother reading the link; however, I want to put it there. I want to put it there in remembrance of someone who told the truth rather than justifying his beliefs. My hat is off to you Professor Cord. Thank you for your integrity.
Church and State
I will begin by pointing out that I am a Christian. Now you know my bias. Alas, I do not include my bias in my understanding of the constitution. One of my professors was a true gentleman named Robert L. Cord. He was a great scholar of the constitution and wrote on it's meaning. He took the position that the constitution and the founding fathers did not prevent any spiritual beliefs. Oh, he was not religious and did not believe in God. In fact, I cannot say for sure if he was an atheist although we discussed such things. He was honest in his intellect.
I can say that I learned much from him and truly enjoyed his company. What he taught me helped me later to graduate Law School and receive the American Jurisprudence Award for Constitutional Law. I miss him and his teachings. I wish to honor him by showing that I heard and passing his simple teachings on.
In regards to the cross on government property. Ladies and gentlemen, many a fine person is buried in government property. Should they be denied a cross above their final resting place? I think not. The founding fathers placed many a cross on government property to fallen soldiers, should they be removed? That is what Mr. Cord would ask.
Mr. Cord and I disagreed on prayer in school. He accurately proved that the constitution would allow it, he was not a Christian. I, as a Christian, stated that I did not want it in school because I did not want non-Christians teaching Christianity to my children nor did I want non-Christians to teach any religion to my children, I don't want the government teaching spiritual beliefs to anyone.
I am posting an article where Professor Cord completely destroys the arguments of a professor taking the opposing side. On occasion, I reflect upon the people who taught me to look at things in new ways. I was very blessed in my life to have such fine friends and teachers.
I am reminded on one day when Professor Cord invited myself and a couple of other students to his apartment to discuss the law. I was an undergraduate and very brash, I had opinions and argued them. Professor Cord sat us down and gave us some 25 year old scotch. It was too strong for me; but, what an honor to sit with the man in his home and discuss the law.
Sometimes I teach people. Usually in a work setting, Professor Cord thought I should become a teacher; but, stubborn me, I wanted to be a practitioner. Perhaps someday I will teach, we shall see. Whereas Professor Cord was more in agreement with Plato and Socrates, I am with Aristotle and Rousseau, I do not trust government or right thinkers.
I doubt anyone will bother reading the link; however, I want to put it there. I want to put it there in remembrance of someone who told the truth rather than justifying his beliefs. My hat is off to you Professor Cord. Thank you for your integrity.
Church and State
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)