Prince Harry, third in line to the British throne, saw combat in Afghanistan.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/02/29/prince.afghanistan/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
Can we say the same for our leaders today? How many of our leaders who support the war in Iraq and/or Afghanistan would willingly allow or--heaven forbid--even encourage their children to serve in active combat?
It's one thing to make passionate patriotic pronouncements on the legislative floor, but quite another to set a patriotic example to demonstrate that those pronouncements aren't just empty words and political maneuvering.
What does it mean to lead by example?
Friday, February 29, 2008
Friday, February 8, 2008
Berkeley Protests
Edit:
Thanks Jung, for the comment. But the city is not kicking out the Marines. The city only said that the Marines are unwelcome. As the article said, the Marines have no intention of leaving. This is not like kicking out NCLB officials, this is like officially saying NCLB is a dumb idea.
At any rate, like I said, the Marine Corps has the moral high ground. They have their right to stay and express what they want, but they also respect the protesters right to free speech, and the Marines should be honored for their defense of the Constitution.
---------------------------------------------------
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/07/berkeley.protests/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
What really disturbs me is not the issue being protested--whether the Marine Corps should be allowed to recruit, what methods they should be allowed to use, and the places they can recruit from. What is most disturbing is the action Congress is taking.
In particular, this passage: "Republican lawmakers in Washington fired back this week, threatening to take back more than $2 million of federal funding to the city as well as money designated for the University of California-Berkeley."
What is this saying? This is the federal government threatening a city and its residents for excercising their freedom of speech. The only thing these people are guilty of is expressing what they believe is right in the form of protests. What right does the government have to punish them for it? Threatening to punish the city for expressing the beliefs of, apparently, the majority of its citizens is telling them that they can't say it at all. This country, founded on the basis of freedom of expression, is now telling protestors to shut up or suffer the consequences?
I think the Marine Corps has the moral and constitutional high ground here. Says one Marine official: ""The Marine Corps is here to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, which does guarantee the freedom of speech," Franklin said. "In terms of the situation in Berkeley, the City Council and the protesters are exercising their right to do so." "
The Marine Corps cannot like the way they are being treated; yet, they understand the Constitution and the rights that it gives, and are accepting that these people are allowed to express what they believe. And yet, congressman Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina and David Vitter, R-Louisiana and their cohorts, who are supposed to know such things, cannot comprehend this simple fact, and try to sugarcoat their actions by taking advantage of the pride people feel in the military. All I can say is this is some political BS. There is no way such a bill, punishing Berkeley for peaceful protests, can be allowed to remain in existence, even if it is passed. The unconstitutionality of it is so blaringly obvious--punishment for a deed is as good as censorship--that any support for this violation of the Bill of Rights should be a stain upon the honor of all lawmakers.
I would also like to address the statement made by Senator Vitter, as quoted here from CNN: ""...I really get disturbed when taxpayer money goes to institutions which proceed to take votes, make policy or make statements that really denigrate the military," said Sen. David Vitter, R-Louisiana, a co-sponsor of the bill."
Well Sen. David Vitter, R-Louisiana, I really get disturbed when taxpayer money goes to representatives of my fellow citizens--representatives who believe and decide that stifling freedom of speech is the right thing to do.
Whatever your belief, it is not right to suppress the beliefs of others merely because you don't like it.
The bill is no longer about Berkeley protesting; it is about protecting freedom of speech.
Thanks Jung, for the comment. But the city is not kicking out the Marines. The city only said that the Marines are unwelcome. As the article said, the Marines have no intention of leaving. This is not like kicking out NCLB officials, this is like officially saying NCLB is a dumb idea.
At any rate, like I said, the Marine Corps has the moral high ground. They have their right to stay and express what they want, but they also respect the protesters right to free speech, and the Marines should be honored for their defense of the Constitution.
---------------------------------------------------
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/07/berkeley.protests/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
What really disturbs me is not the issue being protested--whether the Marine Corps should be allowed to recruit, what methods they should be allowed to use, and the places they can recruit from. What is most disturbing is the action Congress is taking.
In particular, this passage: "Republican lawmakers in Washington fired back this week, threatening to take back more than $2 million of federal funding to the city as well as money designated for the University of California-Berkeley."
What is this saying? This is the federal government threatening a city and its residents for excercising their freedom of speech. The only thing these people are guilty of is expressing what they believe is right in the form of protests. What right does the government have to punish them for it? Threatening to punish the city for expressing the beliefs of, apparently, the majority of its citizens is telling them that they can't say it at all. This country, founded on the basis of freedom of expression, is now telling protestors to shut up or suffer the consequences?
I think the Marine Corps has the moral and constitutional high ground here. Says one Marine official: ""The Marine Corps is here to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, which does guarantee the freedom of speech," Franklin said. "In terms of the situation in Berkeley, the City Council and the protesters are exercising their right to do so." "
The Marine Corps cannot like the way they are being treated; yet, they understand the Constitution and the rights that it gives, and are accepting that these people are allowed to express what they believe. And yet, congressman Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina and David Vitter, R-Louisiana and their cohorts, who are supposed to know such things, cannot comprehend this simple fact, and try to sugarcoat their actions by taking advantage of the pride people feel in the military. All I can say is this is some political BS. There is no way such a bill, punishing Berkeley for peaceful protests, can be allowed to remain in existence, even if it is passed. The unconstitutionality of it is so blaringly obvious--punishment for a deed is as good as censorship--that any support for this violation of the Bill of Rights should be a stain upon the honor of all lawmakers.
I would also like to address the statement made by Senator Vitter, as quoted here from CNN: ""...I really get disturbed when taxpayer money goes to institutions which proceed to take votes, make policy or make statements that really denigrate the military," said Sen. David Vitter, R-Louisiana, a co-sponsor of the bill."
Well Sen. David Vitter, R-Louisiana, I really get disturbed when taxpayer money goes to representatives of my fellow citizens--representatives who believe and decide that stifling freedom of speech is the right thing to do.
Whatever your belief, it is not right to suppress the beliefs of others merely because you don't like it.
The bill is no longer about Berkeley protesting; it is about protecting freedom of speech.
Global Warming: The Next Step in Evolution
A source of constant debate and controversy is global warming. On one side, people are arguing that it is happening, along with a host of other problems, and on the other people are arguing that there is no such thing and the former side is being alarmist, etc etc. These sides will not be named.
However, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I'm going to have to go with the opinion of the latter. Whatever it is that's happening is essential for the survival and betterment of humanity--it is the next step in evolution.
We are killing our atmosphere, killing our planet, killing our people, but there is a reason, which is that those who can survive the upcoming catastrophes will be a newer, stronger, better breed of humans. What doesn't kill us as a species can only make us stronger.
There really isn't a point in fixing these problems. The only reason we got to this point is through surviving through hardships, such as the bubonic plague. Such as the Ice Age. And so, the latter group, by insisting nothing bad is happening, is merely preparing for the genetic advancement of all of humanity. Those left will have better heat tolerance, better disease tolerance, stronger resistance to UV radiation, eyes that can see through smog, stomachs that can hold acid rain, and lungs that convert carbon dioxide to oxygen thus eliminating the need for fresh air.
All in all, it would lead to a race of super humans, perhaps dubbed homo sapiens sapiens sapiens or something.
So, in conclusion, the people who believe that nothing catastrophic is happening and who refuse to cut emissions or make any effort to protect the environment are forward thinking people who have the best interest of humans as a species in mind, since humans as a species have stagnated without disease and natural disasters to wipe us all out once in a while.
However, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I'm going to have to go with the opinion of the latter. Whatever it is that's happening is essential for the survival and betterment of humanity--it is the next step in evolution.
We are killing our atmosphere, killing our planet, killing our people, but there is a reason, which is that those who can survive the upcoming catastrophes will be a newer, stronger, better breed of humans. What doesn't kill us as a species can only make us stronger.
There really isn't a point in fixing these problems. The only reason we got to this point is through surviving through hardships, such as the bubonic plague. Such as the Ice Age. And so, the latter group, by insisting nothing bad is happening, is merely preparing for the genetic advancement of all of humanity. Those left will have better heat tolerance, better disease tolerance, stronger resistance to UV radiation, eyes that can see through smog, stomachs that can hold acid rain, and lungs that convert carbon dioxide to oxygen thus eliminating the need for fresh air.
All in all, it would lead to a race of super humans, perhaps dubbed homo sapiens sapiens sapiens or something.
So, in conclusion, the people who believe that nothing catastrophic is happening and who refuse to cut emissions or make any effort to protect the environment are forward thinking people who have the best interest of humans as a species in mind, since humans as a species have stagnated without disease and natural disasters to wipe us all out once in a while.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Letter From Beyond The Veil
Dear Friends,
I regret to say that I write this letter from somewhere that is unfathomable for you, you who are still mere mortals and clinging to the threads of life. I have ascended beyond.
But, here now, what am I saying? I am not here to promote more strife, but merely to clear up some misunderstandings. Recently, a series of books have been published by one J.K. Rowling detailing the exploits of a young boy by the name of Harry Potter. I will not accuse her of libel--since I am dead, your legal system does not apply to me--but I will insinuate it.
Ms. Rowling took some extreme literary license with the facts. Although I do admit that I did commit some--okay, most--of the actions she attributed to me, I believe everything was misconstrued.
First of all, I would like to make clear that my position on blood purity was nothing more than a whim--you may have noticed all the (true) rumors of me being a half-blood. I ask you, would it make sense if I only approved of pure -bloods? I'd have to kill myself! Seven times! No, to me, pure-bloods were more like a collectible, much like Professor Horace Slughorn's vautned "Slug Club." Pure-bloods are much easier to collect than any other Wizarding group; after all, they take so much stock in blood purity that they practically complete my set for me! The Averys, the Malfoys, the Parkinsons...easy as stealing the Philosopher's Stone from Hogwarts!
Well, if it weren't for that blasted Lily Evans, bestowing that stupid ancient blood magic.
Anyway, I wasn't a psychotic madman, only a misunderstood collector. And now, to address the second issue: Muggle massacres.
Now, this is hardly an objective term. Massacres imply something horrifying and monstrous. But, if you take only a moment to think, my actions are no different than those of others. For example, do Muggles not hunt deer? Do wizards not hunt nogtails? And the answer is, by the way, yes. Similarly, I went hunting for Muggles. It was merely sport.
And, of course, in light of seven whole books of "evidence" against me, I realize that my supposed "crimes" will probably never be absolved. That's okay--I didn't do what I did to be accepted. What you must understand is the true nature of a Dark Lord.
A Dark Lord does not exist to spread what those propagandists call "evil" and "darkness;" no we exist for a far nobler purpose. Dark Lords exist to establish an institution, something that will last far longer than themselves. Grindelwald helped to cement the legends of the Deathly Hallows, Morgana le Fay left the downfall of Camelot, most miraculous kingdom of all time. And I?
I leave the question of life and death. What is life? What is death? Is a fragmented soul truly alive? Is it truly dead? Should death be fearsome or, as the esteemed Albus Dumbledore put it, merely the "next great adventure?"
I know it will be hard for you, but please for the sake of justice, read the stories with an open mind, unfettered by prejudices.
Thank you.
With great love,
Tom "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named" Marvolo "You-Know-Who" Voldemort "The Dark Lord" Riddle
I regret to say that I write this letter from somewhere that is unfathomable for you, you who are still mere mortals and clinging to the threads of life. I have ascended beyond.
But, here now, what am I saying? I am not here to promote more strife, but merely to clear up some misunderstandings. Recently, a series of books have been published by one J.K. Rowling detailing the exploits of a young boy by the name of Harry Potter. I will not accuse her of libel--since I am dead, your legal system does not apply to me--but I will insinuate it.
Ms. Rowling took some extreme literary license with the facts. Although I do admit that I did commit some--okay, most--of the actions she attributed to me, I believe everything was misconstrued.
First of all, I would like to make clear that my position on blood purity was nothing more than a whim--you may have noticed all the (true) rumors of me being a half-blood. I ask you, would it make sense if I only approved of pure -bloods? I'd have to kill myself! Seven times! No, to me, pure-bloods were more like a collectible, much like Professor Horace Slughorn's vautned "Slug Club." Pure-bloods are much easier to collect than any other Wizarding group; after all, they take so much stock in blood purity that they practically complete my set for me! The Averys, the Malfoys, the Parkinsons...easy as stealing the Philosopher's Stone from Hogwarts!
Well, if it weren't for that blasted Lily Evans, bestowing that stupid ancient blood magic.
Anyway, I wasn't a psychotic madman, only a misunderstood collector. And now, to address the second issue: Muggle massacres.
Now, this is hardly an objective term. Massacres imply something horrifying and monstrous. But, if you take only a moment to think, my actions are no different than those of others. For example, do Muggles not hunt deer? Do wizards not hunt nogtails? And the answer is, by the way, yes. Similarly, I went hunting for Muggles. It was merely sport.
And, of course, in light of seven whole books of "evidence" against me, I realize that my supposed "crimes" will probably never be absolved. That's okay--I didn't do what I did to be accepted. What you must understand is the true nature of a Dark Lord.
A Dark Lord does not exist to spread what those propagandists call "evil" and "darkness;" no we exist for a far nobler purpose. Dark Lords exist to establish an institution, something that will last far longer than themselves. Grindelwald helped to cement the legends of the Deathly Hallows, Morgana le Fay left the downfall of Camelot, most miraculous kingdom of all time. And I?
I leave the question of life and death. What is life? What is death? Is a fragmented soul truly alive? Is it truly dead? Should death be fearsome or, as the esteemed Albus Dumbledore put it, merely the "next great adventure?"
I know it will be hard for you, but please for the sake of justice, read the stories with an open mind, unfettered by prejudices.
Thank you.
With great love,
Tom "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named" Marvolo "You-Know-Who" Voldemort "The Dark Lord" Riddle
I Object! Promoting truth in comics
First, the comic in question:
http://xkcd.com/380/
By the esteemed Randall Munroe.
Basically, the untruth is simple. Munroe's comic indicates that a basilisk's eyes have the ability to kill through computer screens. However, as we learned in J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, a basilisk's stare cannot, repeat--cannot, kill through some other medium, such as a ghost or a camera. What does this mean?
It means that, even with the basilisk emoticon, it would be conveyed through the computer screen and CANNOT KILL SOMEBODY. It can only petrify.
Thank you.
http://xkcd.com/380/
By the esteemed Randall Munroe.
Basically, the untruth is simple. Munroe's comic indicates that a basilisk's eyes have the ability to kill through computer screens. However, as we learned in J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, a basilisk's stare cannot, repeat--cannot, kill through some other medium, such as a ghost or a camera. What does this mean?
It means that, even with the basilisk emoticon, it would be conveyed through the computer screen and CANNOT KILL SOMEBODY. It can only petrify.
Thank you.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Mirror, mirror, on the ground
This entry is dedicated to my only dedicated reader who wanted an entry like a month ago, and is only getting one now =)
Blearily, I got up this morning, totally not looking forward to today. Having not gotten fewer than five hours of sleep since my last Math 230 (which I thankfully dropped) all-nighter--my pre-break all-nighters don't count, but that's another story--I didn't know how I'd handle going through today. After printing my Perspectives homework, I stumbled into Commons and grabbed a quick breakfast. Unfortunately, due to my lagging and reluctance to get up with my alarm this morning, I was a little late to Math 120 anyway.
I struggled to say awake through the class. It was a tough battle, which I almost lost. Twice, I left the room on the pretense of going to the bathroom or getting a drink, and crashed for a couple minutes on the padded bench right outside the room. Yeah, it's kinda scary how low my sleep-deprivation-tolerance has dropped. Four-hour-sleep-weeks used to never faze me. And how--wow.
And then, after getting out of class, as if to make things worse, it began to rain. It wasn't just rain--the rain drops were icy cold, each strike sending a chill via impact. Bitterly, I vowed to never procrastinate again. Even more bitterly, I realized right away that I'd fail.
But as I was walking up Hillhouse feeling sorry for myself (how would I ever get through my disliked Chem class?) I happened to look down. And the almost-smooth unevenly-cut stone walkway with its veneer of water had the most beautiful reflection of the sky above. It was like a shadowed mirror, everything was shaded, there wasn't really color. But the sight of the leafless branches arch across the sidewalk, the gray sky broken only by cracks in the walkway was somehow serene and uplifting. It sounds unbelievable, but I actually felt better after seeing that. I wasn't as tired. In fact, I even stayed completely lucid for the first ten to fifteen minutes of Chem! But, as the event lagged further behind me, I relapsed into an alternating semi- and un-lucid state. Oh well.
Anyway, so this wasn't really an exciting story, but those stone blocks on Hillhouse are actually really cool. On a rainy day, drop by sometime and see the reflections. It's actually really amazing that those dull, prosaic slabs of stone can turn into mirrors on the ground.
MORAL OF THE STORY: DON'T PROCRASTINATE
Edit: So. The time is now about 3 or 4 hours after the post was first written. The rain is unrelenting. On my way down from Science Hill, I saw at least 10 enormous puddles. Like, practically ponds. I half-expected to see little crayfish swimming around. Wow. It's kind of amazing, but also kind of depressing--that rain could have been snow =D
Blearily, I got up this morning, totally not looking forward to today. Having not gotten fewer than five hours of sleep since my last Math 230 (which I thankfully dropped) all-nighter--my pre-break all-nighters don't count, but that's another story--I didn't know how I'd handle going through today. After printing my Perspectives homework, I stumbled into Commons and grabbed a quick breakfast. Unfortunately, due to my lagging and reluctance to get up with my alarm this morning, I was a little late to Math 120 anyway.
I struggled to say awake through the class. It was a tough battle, which I almost lost. Twice, I left the room on the pretense of going to the bathroom or getting a drink, and crashed for a couple minutes on the padded bench right outside the room. Yeah, it's kinda scary how low my sleep-deprivation-tolerance has dropped. Four-hour-sleep-weeks used to never faze me. And how--wow.
And then, after getting out of class, as if to make things worse, it began to rain. It wasn't just rain--the rain drops were icy cold, each strike sending a chill via impact. Bitterly, I vowed to never procrastinate again. Even more bitterly, I realized right away that I'd fail.
But as I was walking up Hillhouse feeling sorry for myself (how would I ever get through my disliked Chem class?) I happened to look down. And the almost-smooth unevenly-cut stone walkway with its veneer of water had the most beautiful reflection of the sky above. It was like a shadowed mirror, everything was shaded, there wasn't really color. But the sight of the leafless branches arch across the sidewalk, the gray sky broken only by cracks in the walkway was somehow serene and uplifting. It sounds unbelievable, but I actually felt better after seeing that. I wasn't as tired. In fact, I even stayed completely lucid for the first ten to fifteen minutes of Chem! But, as the event lagged further behind me, I relapsed into an alternating semi- and un-lucid state. Oh well.
Anyway, so this wasn't really an exciting story, but those stone blocks on Hillhouse are actually really cool. On a rainy day, drop by sometime and see the reflections. It's actually really amazing that those dull, prosaic slabs of stone can turn into mirrors on the ground.
MORAL OF THE STORY: DON'T PROCRASTINATE
Edit: So. The time is now about 3 or 4 hours after the post was first written. The rain is unrelenting. On my way down from Science Hill, I saw at least 10 enormous puddles. Like, practically ponds. I half-expected to see little crayfish swimming around. Wow. It's kind of amazing, but also kind of depressing--that rain could have been snow =D
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)