My Townhall address has become my permanent blog residence.
http://seekingtruth.townhall.com/
Comments are warmly welcomed!
over and out
25.9.06
21.8.06
Two Locations for Your Enjoyment!
Townhall is having some technical problems (i.e. I'm unable to log in at all) so until they solve them, I shall remain here at Blogger.
over and out
over and out
19.8.06
We've Moved!
You can now find Seeking Truth at TownHall.com, residing at its new address:
http://seekingtruth.townhall.com/
over and out
http://seekingtruth.townhall.com/
over and out
26.7.06
Important
Please read this article. Thanks.
over and out
P.S.
I'm going to be moving this blog from Blogger to TownHall within the next couple of days. If you want to know why, just ask.
over and out
P.S.
I'm going to be moving this blog from Blogger to TownHall within the next couple of days. If you want to know why, just ask.
4.7.06
Our 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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
31.5.06
*shudders*
"Is there a human right to be superhuman?"
by Brian Alexander
While America was rushing to see sharp metal blades jut from Wolverine’s fists during the opening of the third "X-Men" movie last weekend, an academic conference was being held at Stanford University to discuss what might happen if people with special powers really existed.
The coincidence was too remarkable to ignore.
In the movie, the plot is driven by the government’s attempt to “cure” the mutants so they’ll be “normal,” the very sort of issue the conference, called “Human Enhancement Technologies and Human Rights,” addressed.
The meeting, sponsored by Stanford University’s Center for Law and the Biosciences, the Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics, and the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, was remarkable for several reasons.
First, leaders of the latter two organizations are “transhumanists” who believe better days are ahead if we take advantage of new technologies to magnify normal human abilities with a full menu of add-ons. Transhumanism has a long history, but in modern times, it has been dismissed by most as a fringe element of comic-book-reading, sci-fi aficionados. No more.
Second, the question of enhancement and human rights is surprisingly topical rather than futuristic, and not just because of the "X-Men" movie.
Finally, the conference was surprising for how far some bioethicists, who were once largely silent on the issue, have come towards not only accepting the concept of human alteration, but asserting that it’s a right.
Coming in from the fringe
Transhumanism is being taken seriously by an increasing number of scholars. The fact that Stanford’s respected legal bioethics program hosted the 150 or so attendees from Europe, Asia, New Zealand and North America to discuss issues raised by human enhancement is testimony to how far transhumanism has come in from the fringe.
Even the government has taken a position — against — in the second report out of President Bush’s bioethics council. Titled “Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness,” the 2003 report suggested the need for regulations to prevent the use of biotech to give people powers they did not have naturally.
But the fact is, human enhancement has already arrived. The drug modafinal, for example, was approved for the treatment of narcolepsy. But it is often used by people who just want to stay awake and alert without the side effects of amphetamines. The military is already enhancing pilots with it so they can fly long missions.
The response of bioethics to such new technologies is hardly uniform. Some conservative and religiously based bioethicists oppose enhancement, often basing that opposition on appeals to God, Nature or social equity.
But as San Francisco State University professor of bioethics Anita Silvers pointed out in her presentation, there is a strong case to be made for “enhancement” as a human rights issue. Silvers bases this argument not on the idea of making the healthy stronger and smarter, but from the rights of the disabled.
Consider Oscar Pistorius, a South African who won bronze and gold in the 100 and 200 meter sprints respectively at the Athens Paralympics, and swept the events in last month’s Visa Paralympic World Cup in Manchester, UK. Pistorius, 19, who is missing both legs below the knee, wears carbon fiber prosthetic devices.
Faster than flesh
Those devices can be adjusted to enable a longer stride, an advantage in a running race. What would happen, Silvers asked, if Pistorius qualified for the able-bodied Olympics, a goal he is pursuing and one he might attain given his remarkable times?
“There are those who would deny them what any other runner would earn by running this fast time just because their feet are metal rather than flesh…” Silvers said. “Without the right to opportunity free of penalties for being biologically different, amputees may be denied participation with the old prosthetics for not being competitive enough, and then denied participation with the new prosthetics for being too competitive. This is undemocratic whiplash exclusion.”
Silvers argues that the right not to be normal, is, in fact, the essence of freedom. Human beings, she argues, have always modified themselves, usually because we see the modifications as some kind of advantage. Banning it, as some have argued for, means forcing people to adhere to a government-imposed standard of normal.
The instinct to prevent people from making alterations to themselves worries British philosopher Andy Miah, a lecturer in media, bioethics and cyber culture at the University of Paisley in Scotland. “I explain it as a contempt for ‘Otherness.’ We seek to suppress people whom we feel are abnormal, mutants or monsters. Historically, societies have done this a lot. They continue to do it and I find it embarrassing.”
Silvers argues that fears expressed by many opponents of human enhancement, that modification itself will lead to a standardized human being so we’ll all try to look like Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie, are unfounded. In fact, she takes issue with transhumanists and their use of the word “enhancement,” arguing that an enhancement in one arena may be a handicap in another. Instead, she prefers “biological contingency.”
Eye of the beholder
Biological qualities “are not intrinsic strengths nor weaknesses, nor is any biological property essentially functional nor dysfunctional.” It all depends on context. In other words, Cyclops of the X-Men can shoot energy beams out his eyes, which is great for fighting bad guys, but he can never look in his girlfriend’s face without his visor.
Some people might think that’s a fair trade. Most won’t.
Still, the idea of modifying people does have a great many ethical implications, as keynote speaker Walter Truett Anderson pointed out. Anderson, president of the World Academy of Art and Science, a consultant, and an author of books about the human future, asked his audience to consider the health of the planet when they thought about what rights people should have to change our biology. There is more at stake, he said, than just ourselves. We are part of something bigger.
“We will have to think about it in a global context,” he told me. “A new population problem looms, which has to do, not with birth rates, but death rates and the question of whether we can begin to increase life spans for large numbers of people,” a prospect that could tax global resources.
While the idea of a serious academic conference on these issues might seem to verge on kooky, Anderson thinks the dialogue has to begin now. “There are a lot of issues that are going to begin to surface. People will have to confront them.”
We might not be ready to give people X-Men style options like the wings of Angel, or the fur and agility of Beast, but, he said, it is not too early to begin thinking about what happens when we can.
.~.~.~.~.~.~.
I suppose nobody asked Miss Anita Silver what she exactly meant by saying "Human beings...have always modified themselves, usually because we see the modifications as some kind of advantage". I don't think we ever modify ourselves in "super" ways.
This seems... so unreal. I mean, they're talking about really modifying the natural state of a human being, yet they use an example of a man using prosthetics? That doesn't seem to be the same issue.
I don't think the natural state of human beings should be altered by enhancing drugs. If you're working toward fixing something that actually can be fixed, that's okay. But enhancing a healthy human being? That upsets the body, and you're going to run into major problems because it's unnatural.
Just look at people who've used steroids. There are serious side effects to that "enhancing" drug. Sure, you're going to get muscle build-up, but the side effects are not worth it. Steroids were meant for those with muscles in the healing process, to keep them from atrophying, and only for a short time. When used on a healthy human being, the body can't handle it.
over and out
by Brian Alexander
While America was rushing to see sharp metal blades jut from Wolverine’s fists during the opening of the third "X-Men" movie last weekend, an academic conference was being held at Stanford University to discuss what might happen if people with special powers really existed.
The coincidence was too remarkable to ignore.
In the movie, the plot is driven by the government’s attempt to “cure” the mutants so they’ll be “normal,” the very sort of issue the conference, called “Human Enhancement Technologies and Human Rights,” addressed.
The meeting, sponsored by Stanford University’s Center for Law and the Biosciences, the Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics, and the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, was remarkable for several reasons.
First, leaders of the latter two organizations are “transhumanists” who believe better days are ahead if we take advantage of new technologies to magnify normal human abilities with a full menu of add-ons. Transhumanism has a long history, but in modern times, it has been dismissed by most as a fringe element of comic-book-reading, sci-fi aficionados. No more.
Second, the question of enhancement and human rights is surprisingly topical rather than futuristic, and not just because of the "X-Men" movie.
Finally, the conference was surprising for how far some bioethicists, who were once largely silent on the issue, have come towards not only accepting the concept of human alteration, but asserting that it’s a right.
Coming in from the fringe
Transhumanism is being taken seriously by an increasing number of scholars. The fact that Stanford’s respected legal bioethics program hosted the 150 or so attendees from Europe, Asia, New Zealand and North America to discuss issues raised by human enhancement is testimony to how far transhumanism has come in from the fringe.
Even the government has taken a position — against — in the second report out of President Bush’s bioethics council. Titled “Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness,” the 2003 report suggested the need for regulations to prevent the use of biotech to give people powers they did not have naturally.
But the fact is, human enhancement has already arrived. The drug modafinal, for example, was approved for the treatment of narcolepsy. But it is often used by people who just want to stay awake and alert without the side effects of amphetamines. The military is already enhancing pilots with it so they can fly long missions.
The response of bioethics to such new technologies is hardly uniform. Some conservative and religiously based bioethicists oppose enhancement, often basing that opposition on appeals to God, Nature or social equity.
But as San Francisco State University professor of bioethics Anita Silvers pointed out in her presentation, there is a strong case to be made for “enhancement” as a human rights issue. Silvers bases this argument not on the idea of making the healthy stronger and smarter, but from the rights of the disabled.
Consider Oscar Pistorius, a South African who won bronze and gold in the 100 and 200 meter sprints respectively at the Athens Paralympics, and swept the events in last month’s Visa Paralympic World Cup in Manchester, UK. Pistorius, 19, who is missing both legs below the knee, wears carbon fiber prosthetic devices.
Faster than flesh
Those devices can be adjusted to enable a longer stride, an advantage in a running race. What would happen, Silvers asked, if Pistorius qualified for the able-bodied Olympics, a goal he is pursuing and one he might attain given his remarkable times?
“There are those who would deny them what any other runner would earn by running this fast time just because their feet are metal rather than flesh…” Silvers said. “Without the right to opportunity free of penalties for being biologically different, amputees may be denied participation with the old prosthetics for not being competitive enough, and then denied participation with the new prosthetics for being too competitive. This is undemocratic whiplash exclusion.”
Silvers argues that the right not to be normal, is, in fact, the essence of freedom. Human beings, she argues, have always modified themselves, usually because we see the modifications as some kind of advantage. Banning it, as some have argued for, means forcing people to adhere to a government-imposed standard of normal.
The instinct to prevent people from making alterations to themselves worries British philosopher Andy Miah, a lecturer in media, bioethics and cyber culture at the University of Paisley in Scotland. “I explain it as a contempt for ‘Otherness.’ We seek to suppress people whom we feel are abnormal, mutants or monsters. Historically, societies have done this a lot. They continue to do it and I find it embarrassing.”
Silvers argues that fears expressed by many opponents of human enhancement, that modification itself will lead to a standardized human being so we’ll all try to look like Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie, are unfounded. In fact, she takes issue with transhumanists and their use of the word “enhancement,” arguing that an enhancement in one arena may be a handicap in another. Instead, she prefers “biological contingency.”
Eye of the beholder
Biological qualities “are not intrinsic strengths nor weaknesses, nor is any biological property essentially functional nor dysfunctional.” It all depends on context. In other words, Cyclops of the X-Men can shoot energy beams out his eyes, which is great for fighting bad guys, but he can never look in his girlfriend’s face without his visor.
Some people might think that’s a fair trade. Most won’t.
Still, the idea of modifying people does have a great many ethical implications, as keynote speaker Walter Truett Anderson pointed out. Anderson, president of the World Academy of Art and Science, a consultant, and an author of books about the human future, asked his audience to consider the health of the planet when they thought about what rights people should have to change our biology. There is more at stake, he said, than just ourselves. We are part of something bigger.
“We will have to think about it in a global context,” he told me. “A new population problem looms, which has to do, not with birth rates, but death rates and the question of whether we can begin to increase life spans for large numbers of people,” a prospect that could tax global resources.
While the idea of a serious academic conference on these issues might seem to verge on kooky, Anderson thinks the dialogue has to begin now. “There are a lot of issues that are going to begin to surface. People will have to confront them.”
We might not be ready to give people X-Men style options like the wings of Angel, or the fur and agility of Beast, but, he said, it is not too early to begin thinking about what happens when we can.
.~.~.~.~.~.~.
I suppose nobody asked Miss Anita Silver what she exactly meant by saying "Human beings...have always modified themselves, usually because we see the modifications as some kind of advantage". I don't think we ever modify ourselves in "super" ways.
This seems... so unreal. I mean, they're talking about really modifying the natural state of a human being, yet they use an example of a man using prosthetics? That doesn't seem to be the same issue.
I don't think the natural state of human beings should be altered by enhancing drugs. If you're working toward fixing something that actually can be fixed, that's okay. But enhancing a healthy human being? That upsets the body, and you're going to run into major problems because it's unnatural.
Just look at people who've used steroids. There are serious side effects to that "enhancing" drug. Sure, you're going to get muscle build-up, but the side effects are not worth it. Steroids were meant for those with muscles in the healing process, to keep them from atrophying, and only for a short time. When used on a healthy human being, the body can't handle it.
over and out
29.5.06
Memorial Day
"Mama Look Sharp" from 1776
Momma, hey momma, come lookin' for me
I'm here in the meadow by the red maple tree
Momma, hey momma, look sharp, here I be
Hey, hey, momma look sharp
Them soldiers, they fired. Oh ma, did we run
But then we turned round and the battle begun
Then I went under, oh ma, am I done?
Hey, hey, momma look sharp
My eyes are wide open, my face to the sky
Is that you I'm hearin' in the tall grass nearby?
Momma come find me before I do die
Hey, hey, momma look sharp
I'll close your eyes, my Billy
Them eyes that cannot see
And I'll bury you, my Billy
Beneath the maple tree
And never again will you whisper to me
Hey, hey, momma look sharp
.~.~.~.~.~.~.
Hmm. Just reading these lyrics doesn't cut it; you must hear the song! It makes me cry every time I hear it...
over and out
Momma, hey momma, come lookin' for me
I'm here in the meadow by the red maple tree
Momma, hey momma, look sharp, here I be
Hey, hey, momma look sharp
Them soldiers, they fired. Oh ma, did we run
But then we turned round and the battle begun
Then I went under, oh ma, am I done?
Hey, hey, momma look sharp
My eyes are wide open, my face to the sky
Is that you I'm hearin' in the tall grass nearby?
Momma come find me before I do die
Hey, hey, momma look sharp
I'll close your eyes, my Billy
Them eyes that cannot see
And I'll bury you, my Billy
Beneath the maple tree
And never again will you whisper to me
Hey, hey, momma look sharp
.~.~.~.~.~.~.
Hmm. Just reading these lyrics doesn't cut it; you must hear the song! It makes me cry every time I hear it...
over and out
26.5.06
Confusion
Recently we received a letter from Netflix (for we are members of their service) saying that if we have been members since such and such a date, we could receive a membership upgrade free of charge directly resulting from the law suit recently brought against them. This law suit was brought against them because they falsely advertised their services, saying that one could receive "unlimited" dvd rentals and receive them "next-day" or in "one day", which makes me beg the question: why only Netflix? And aren't people smart enough to know better?
Netflix provides certain movie rental services (which some of you already know). For instance, you can pay $9.95 a month to receive 3 dvds at a time. This does not limit you however, to only renting 3 dvds a month; you can rent as many as possible in a month, but you only receive 3 at a time. In that sense, I suppose it could be considered as unlimited amount---3 at a time.
As to next day or one day shipping, since we live in southern California, we do tend to receive them in one day, because there's a Netflix shipping office near where we live. For us, it's one day. But I suppose that isn't always the case nationwide.
I admit, this can be considered as false advertising, but is one going to take up a law suit against Lancome for advertising a mascara that will lengthen your natural eyelashes, but show in that same ad a woman with eyelashes extending past her eyebrows? Those can't be her natural eyelashes. Can't that be considered "false advertising" as well?
The truth of the matter: People should not be filing bogus lawsuits against companies unless they've been injured in some real manner (I believe it's a waste of the court's time; like they have enough of it anyway...) and certain companies should learn to insert disclaimers into their ads, or just tell the truth.
over and out
Netflix provides certain movie rental services (which some of you already know). For instance, you can pay $9.95 a month to receive 3 dvds at a time. This does not limit you however, to only renting 3 dvds a month; you can rent as many as possible in a month, but you only receive 3 at a time. In that sense, I suppose it could be considered as unlimited amount---3 at a time.
As to next day or one day shipping, since we live in southern California, we do tend to receive them in one day, because there's a Netflix shipping office near where we live. For us, it's one day. But I suppose that isn't always the case nationwide.
I admit, this can be considered as false advertising, but is one going to take up a law suit against Lancome for advertising a mascara that will lengthen your natural eyelashes, but show in that same ad a woman with eyelashes extending past her eyebrows? Those can't be her natural eyelashes. Can't that be considered "false advertising" as well?
The truth of the matter: People should not be filing bogus lawsuits against companies unless they've been injured in some real manner (I believe it's a waste of the court's time; like they have enough of it anyway...) and certain companies should learn to insert disclaimers into their ads, or just tell the truth.
over and out
24.3.06
Conformity or Non-Conformity?
"Every fresh advance which we make only reveals a fresh ridge beyond" (A.C.D.)
That basically sums up yesterday's discussion in Foundations for me. We made...two or three steps of progress?
Complicated subject.
over and out
That basically sums up yesterday's discussion in Foundations for me. We made...two or three steps of progress?
Complicated subject.
over and out
6.3.06
Now I see ...
I can now fully comprehend and state what our problem is here in America!
And I quote: "Democratic government, which is founded on an idea so simple and natural, nevertheless always supposed the existence of a very civilized and very learned society" (Democracy In America, 199).
That's our problem: we are no longer the civilized and learned society that we once were. If we had continued in the path started after the Revolution, we wouldn't have the idiots in office that we do today.
Go figure.
over and out
And I quote: "Democratic government, which is founded on an idea so simple and natural, nevertheless always supposed the existence of a very civilized and very learned society" (Democracy In America, 199).
That's our problem: we are no longer the civilized and learned society that we once were. If we had continued in the path started after the Revolution, we wouldn't have the idiots in office that we do today.
Go figure.
over and out
9.2.06
Anew
The general notion that men are frustrating has a whole new meaning for me. I understand the feelings of every woman who experiences the reality of that statement much clearer now that I have truly experienced it for myself. (This experience ocurred a few days ago---Sunday night actually---and I don't think I've ever had such a frustrating time)
"Silence is Golden" also rings truer for me as well, especially to-day; if the people around you aren't talking, the tv or radio is, or maybe the bloody jackhammer down the street, or the screaming child in the restaurant --- all resounding in a giant NO! to my question: can't there ever be silence?
I know, I'm probably over-reacting, but I deeply and truly feel like I can hardly ever find silence anywhere. Everyone, it seems, feels this terrible need to fill up space.
Yes, I admit, I need to release things orally sometimes. Which, inturn, makes me a bit of a hypocrite, eh? Everything eventually comes back around to bite one in the butt, to put it vulgarly.
over and out
"Silence is Golden" also rings truer for me as well, especially to-day; if the people around you aren't talking, the tv or radio is, or maybe the bloody jackhammer down the street, or the screaming child in the restaurant --- all resounding in a giant NO! to my question: can't there ever be silence?
I know, I'm probably over-reacting, but I deeply and truly feel like I can hardly ever find silence anywhere. Everyone, it seems, feels this terrible need to fill up space.
Yes, I admit, I need to release things orally sometimes. Which, inturn, makes me a bit of a hypocrite, eh? Everything eventually comes back around to bite one in the butt, to put it vulgarly.
over and out
5.2.06
Incredible?
Yesterday was my first blog anniversary! I've had this blog for one whole year now. And ironically, my first real post was on the Superbowl.
This isn't important or anything, but I just thought I'd share it.
over and out
This isn't important or anything, but I just thought I'd share it.
over and out
1.2.06
"Turner blasts Fox Network"
This is a pretty old article, but it hasn't lost its comic value yet for me, so I thought I'd share it with...you all.
It was taken from The Californian's "Back Page" in which all articles or clips possessing a strange nature are printed.
(AP) --- Cable news pioneer Ted Turner used an apperance before a group of TV executives to criticize the Fox network as a "propaganda voice" of the Bush administration and to compare Fox News Channel's popularity to Adolf Hitler's rise to power in Germany before World War II.
Turner, 66, in a speech Tuesday (whenever that was) before about 1,000 people at the National Association of Television Programming Executives targeted "gigantic companies whose agenda goes beyond broadcasting" for timidity in challenging the Bush White House.
"There's one network, Fox, that's a propaganda voice for them," Turner said. "It's certainly legal. But it does pose problems for our democracy (it's a republic, I say once again...) when the news is 'dumbed-down.'" (no comment..)
Fox News in New York issued a statement Tuesday saying, "Ted is understandably bitter having lost his ratings, his network, and now his mind --- we wish him well."
over and out
It was taken from The Californian's "Back Page" in which all articles or clips possessing a strange nature are printed.
(AP) --- Cable news pioneer Ted Turner used an apperance before a group of TV executives to criticize the Fox network as a "propaganda voice" of the Bush administration and to compare Fox News Channel's popularity to Adolf Hitler's rise to power in Germany before World War II.
Turner, 66, in a speech Tuesday (whenever that was) before about 1,000 people at the National Association of Television Programming Executives targeted "gigantic companies whose agenda goes beyond broadcasting" for timidity in challenging the Bush White House.
"There's one network, Fox, that's a propaganda voice for them," Turner said. "It's certainly legal. But it does pose problems for our democracy (it's a republic, I say once again...) when the news is 'dumbed-down.'" (no comment..)
Fox News in New York issued a statement Tuesday saying, "Ted is understandably bitter having lost his ratings, his network, and now his mind --- we wish him well."
over and out
The word's the limit
I've reached the limit in how many books I can put on my favourites list on my profile.
*panics*
For the most part, I've liked every book I ever read. Except for two. That shall not be named. Oh, maybe three. Nevermind.
That reminds me...
Our Barnes and Noble (no Borders! what am I to do??) has the worst selection of books because it's too small for our rapidly growing area. They only had one copy left of "Frankenstein" and had no copies of "A Tale of Two Cities". Borders should move in here and give them some competition. Ah well. At least we're blessed with a major bookstore, so we can order things if we need them.
^_^
over and out
*panics*
For the most part, I've liked every book I ever read. Except for two. That shall not be named. Oh, maybe three. Nevermind.
That reminds me...
Our Barnes and Noble (no Borders! what am I to do??) has the worst selection of books because it's too small for our rapidly growing area. They only had one copy left of "Frankenstein" and had no copies of "A Tale of Two Cities". Borders should move in here and give them some competition. Ah well. At least we're blessed with a major bookstore, so we can order things if we need them.
^_^
over and out
29.1.06
It is found
While rummaging through my desk, I found a composition book that wasn't being used for any specific purpose, so I decided to use it as my blog journal. Between the time that I found it last night and the time I fell asleep at I produced one post ^_^.
Upon learning that among the first assignments for the semester was the task of re-listening to the Hermeneutics lectures, I became a bit irritated because I thought I already know all this stuff and Torrey helps pound it in...why do I have to listen to them again? Fortunately, I've been blessed with parents who have always taught me to directly interpret texts: whatever the author says is exactly what he or she means, and not to personally interpret their words to apply to myself only. As I stated before, Torrey hast also pounded this into me --- to look at the context of what the author has writtenand directly interpret that text from there. After listening to the first two lectures, I realized that this refreshing of my miniscual hermeneutics knowledge will help me to clearly understand the knowledge previously instilled in me.
I'm thinking of going into constitutional law, and as Walt Russel mentions, how to interpret that particular document is quite a big issue. I believe that is should be directly interpreted according to the author's original intent (which I have better understood through my reading of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers). If one persists in relatively interpreting law, why follow it at all if each individual person is going to follow it as they see fit?
Upon learning that among the first assignments for the semester was the task of re-listening to the Hermeneutics lectures, I became a bit irritated because I thought I already know all this stuff and Torrey helps pound it in...why do I have to listen to them again? Fortunately, I've been blessed with parents who have always taught me to directly interpret texts: whatever the author says is exactly what he or she means, and not to personally interpret their words to apply to myself only. As I stated before, Torrey hast also pounded this into me --- to look at the context of what the author has writtenand directly interpret that text from there. After listening to the first two lectures, I realized that this refreshing of my miniscual hermeneutics knowledge will help me to clearly understand the knowledge previously instilled in me.
I'm thinking of going into constitutional law, and as Walt Russel mentions, how to interpret that particular document is quite a big issue. I believe that is should be directly interpreted according to the author's original intent (which I have better understood through my reading of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers). If one persists in relatively interpreting law, why follow it at all if each individual person is going to follow it as they see fit?
28.1.06
Running thoughts
They run away from me frequently.
Lately I've been trying to think of something to post on here. It has to be something special, profound, or spectacular, I think to myself. Every time I get to thinking about all those big questions and thoughts, I form posts in my head. My trouble is that I don't write them down, or they come at moments in which I am unable to write them down.
I've thought about posting thoughts and/or conclusions from my Foundations class, but all is forgotten by the time we reach home.
Next time I'm at an office supply store I'm going to buy a special "blog" notebook. Hopefully I will be able to produce more blogs from keeping this notebook. We'll see.
over and out
Lately I've been trying to think of something to post on here. It has to be something special, profound, or spectacular, I think to myself. Every time I get to thinking about all those big questions and thoughts, I form posts in my head. My trouble is that I don't write them down, or they come at moments in which I am unable to write them down.
I've thought about posting thoughts and/or conclusions from my Foundations class, but all is forgotten by the time we reach home.
Next time I'm at an office supply store I'm going to buy a special "blog" notebook. Hopefully I will be able to produce more blogs from keeping this notebook. We'll see.
over and out
6.1.06
Title?
If you've never heard Jack Johnson, go out and sample (if not buy) his cd "In Between Dreams".
If you don't...
There shall be harsh consequences. *sarcasm*
over and out
If you don't...
There shall be harsh consequences. *sarcasm*
over and out
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
