In keeping with my new-found determination to post this weekly segment, this week I'm putting up what is probably one of, if not the most recognizable monument in all of Logan City Cemetery...maybe even in all of Cache Valley. She belongs to Peter and Anna Cronqist. As with many such monuments, there are all sorts of folklore and legends surrounding her; people have claimed that she weeps (condensation is determined to be the agent of this phenomenon). I have heard that she is a hot ticket on Halloween and people seem to expect her to do some...thing. I did a little research (as always :-D ) and discovered that Peter and Anna (or Pehl and Annie as they appeared in the 1880 census) both came from Sweden. Peter was a plasterer and Anna was a housewife (you will notice that Anna was 18 years older than Peter...). And that's all the information I could find! But you know me...;-)

If anyone has any stories they would like to share, feel free to post them (here, please, not on Facebook. If you need a refresher on how to post then check out the FAQ).

The other day I was watching TV and I saw a commercial for some new college called Columbia College. From the commercial it looks just like all the other money-grubbing "colleges" that have been cropping up, seemingly weekly, to compete with the "traditional" universities. They claim to be better than "traditional" institutions because they can get you through the course quicker and they are more affordable. Really? They may get you through quicker but what price are you really paying?

According to Columbia College, they are an affordable alternative to the traditional university. On the Columbia College website they list tuition for full-time (12-18 credits) as $8,266 per semester. Each semester is 8 weeks long and there are 5 semesters each year. In just your first year at this college you would be paying $41,330! Let's say you take the 120-credit Bachelor of Business Administration course. That's 120 credit hours divided by a 12-credit-semester leaving you with 10 semesters, or 2 years to finish. In just 2 years you have spent a whopping $82,660!!! By comparison, the 12-credit-semester tuition at Utah State University (for a resident) is only $2,414.22. The USU Bachelor of Business Administration also has a 120 total-credit requirement. At 12 credits a semester you will complete in 10 semesters, or 5 years (if you're not taking summer courses), but you will only pay $24,142.20 for the whole thing! The Columbia College tuition for 1 year is over 1 1/2 times higher than the USU tuition for an entire degree!! Oh, yeah, they're affordable all right...


Another example of these bank-account-raping colleges, Stevens-Henager College, doesn't even list their tuition on their website because, "of the varying costs of tuition for each degree program." Whatever. They just want to get you in the door and then seduce you with a new laptop. I admit, I fell for it. And now I'm $35,000 in student debt Hell because of it! I took their Graphic Arts Associate program, and that was 2 years of my life I will never get back. To be honest, when I first began I was quite excited, and for the first 3 modules or so I was still happy about it. Then they changed their format...after the change they had poor instructors who seemed to feel it a chore to teach. We were essentially given the course book and told to learn it ourselves. All the instructors did was critique and grade. Look, if I'd wanted to teach myself then I would've bought the $34 book myself and skipped the years of student loan interest!

At Stevens-Henager the courses are 4 weeks long and you can pass the class with a D. That means you can turn in the work for just 1 week and still pass the class! Are you kidding me? Because I didn't feel that I was getting my money's worth I got into an email war with the Ass. Dean (pun totally intended) of Online Graphic Arts. I told him of my concerns and how I didn't feel that I was getting the instruction I was paying for with their new format, and he not only didn't actually address my issues, but he also told me that if I felt like I wasn't getting what I'd paid for then he would teach me himself!! I was blown away by the lack of genuine concern. I talked to my local Dean of Students about it and he told me that they would look into it. I kept him abreast of the situation with the Ass. Dean and he kept me abreast of the changes the local school was soon to enact. Too late for me, but luckily for the the students who came after me, my local faculty was concerned enough about their students that they had hired an on-site teacher in order to bring the GA program back on campus and, hopefully, make it worth the money.

"You get what you pay for." Yeah, right.


The University of Phoenix also offers a Bachelor in Business Admin. They don't list the total credit load for the the course but if you count up all the courses listed under the degree and assume that they mean it when they say most of their courses are 3 credits, then you are taking 255 credits(!) for this degree. Their per-credit cost is $550. At 255 credits you will ultimately pay $140,250 for this degree (bear in mind that I'm talking strictly tuition costs here, not figuring in books/supplies and any other requisite fees, and this is also assuming tuition rates do not appreciably rise during the course of your studies). Even if it were only a 120-credit degree you sould still pay $66,000.

As further proof that these colleges are not in it for the education, the University of Utah tuition for a full-time student (12 credits) is $2,256.01. Even the additional $84.46 per credit for business students still doesn't push the cost of a UofU education anywhere near that of the for-profit colleges! At 122 credits for completion you will only pay $33,240.22 for the entire degree. Let's change things up a little and add books to this. Let's say you have to pay around $800 per semester for your books. You will then be paying $4,069.53 per semester (still far below Columbia Colleges' per-semester rate).

Have I convinced you yet? No, what about private universities? Okay, let's look at BYU.

In order to attend BYU as a full-time student (again, 12 credits per semester) you will pay $2,210 per semester. At 120 credits for completion you will pay $22,100 in total tuition.

Seriously? Think about it. If you ever, and I mean ever, get the wild idea to go to one of these super-commercial, for-huge-profit, stick-you-where-it's-seriously-gonna-hurt schools, think again. And again, and again, until you realize that it ain't worth it!

If you are considering going back to school in the state of Utah then be sure to do the math. You can find all the information you need to make an informed decision (as opposed to jumping in head first, like me) on the education page of the Utah.gov website. For those of you outside of Utah, I'm sure your state has something similar.

Metalsucks has a new post entitled, "Metalheads Are Honest; Also, Cops Like Donuts." The post concerns an ad about honesty. I would have posted the ad here so you can see for yourselves what it's about but it's not embedable so you'll have to watch in on YouTube if you want to see it. Having never seen it before I'm actually glad that Metalsucks posted the link. So, I really don't have a problem with the post itself (Vince makes a good point), what I deplore is some of the comments made by people on the site. The whole concept of the ad is ignored  in favor of stupid, juvenile comments that suggest that it's somehow wrong for people (at least people in the Metal community) to be honest. I don't care if they were being sarcastic, their sarcasm fails to mask the underlying negative attitude, and only one person bothered to say something good about it.

Why is being honest wrong? Even for a Metalhead?

Something else this week has been making me crazy, too; some recent criticism of people who've been convicted of crimes. It never ceases to amaze me how perfectly close-minded people can be. It would only take one simple mistake to make anyone on this planet a "convict" and yet so many people go out of their way to villify others for their mistakes. Let me point out to you: you are not perfect. You make mistakes. You'd better hope that when you make a serious one that there are more open-minded people than you around or your life is going to be Hell.

And yes, if it was an intentional thing then that's a bit different. But maybe you should stop and ask why someone would do whatever it was in the first place. There are underlying issue that prompt people to do things that we might consider wrong. But maybe society would be better served by getting these people the help they need rather than throwing invective at them.

Someone I was in a class with years ago made a comment that shows just how little most people understand about how the world works. She said that her best friend had been raped and murdered and that everyone who is now, has ever been, or ever will be in prison is personally responsible for her friends' death. What?! Are you kidding me? People with that attitude are part of what's wrong with society. To believe that "law-abiding citizens" bear no fault in the ills of society is beyond ridiculous. There are not words to describe how stupid that is.

No man is an island. We are all in this together. Everything you do, from the time you choose to get up in the morning, to what you choose to have for lunch, to what you watch on TV affects someone, somewhere, at some time, in some way. Yes, it does. Yeah, you're scratching your head trying to think what getting up in the morning has to do with anybody else. Well let me tell you.

If you get up late for work and you can't have breakfast or your morning coffee are you cranky? What happens if you're late for work because you slept through the alarm? How many people have you just affected? What did you have for lunch? Did you buy it from a store? How many people are you affecting by your choice of food?

Seriously, I could go on. But the point is, we really need to stop thinking that we're living in a vacuum. If you want consideration then you need to give it. When you are prejudice against some group then you move closer to becoming what you think they are; it's not them that has the problem, it's you.

Last week I was catching up on some Find A Grave work and I came across a headstone that made me think I should start a new, weekly post. This spot will feature interesting or unique headstone/grave markers that I come across in my volunteer work with Find A Grave. But, since I can't guarantee that I will personally find enough to fulfill my challenge, I may present memorials photographed by other people (obviously they will receive credit).

The impetus for this was found last Monday when I was in the Richmond, Utah cemetery, taking pictures of Hill's (there are Hill's on my maternal side and I was going to check if they are related - turns out they aren't; the Richmond Hill's are from England and my Hill's are from Scotland) buried in the northeast corner of the cemetery. As I moved toward the last few markers I spotted an upright stone that, from the back, looked like dragon scales! The side of it looked like a tail and I had high hopes for the front...unfortunately, it was not meant to be. But it was still a very fascinating marker and so I took pictures of it.

A couple of things have been bugging me lately (okay, lots of things have been bugging me, but I haven't got all day) and they have much to do with doing research. People who don't bother to do research before spouting off really drive me crazy. Seriously, it's not that hard to check your facts before you open your mouth (or type on the computer), and a little research is not going to kill you! But not doing research is certain to make you look like a fool. A couple of recent examples follow.

The other day I'm Not Right In The Head posted a photo of a school in North Carolina. The photo gave enough information to Google it and find out if it's real. But how many people do you think bothered to check it out? Apparently just two: me and one other person. Instead of checking on it, or even following the links the two of us provided, many people jumped to the conclusion that it's Photoshopped. Hello! Not everything is Photoshopped!

Okay, so that was a fairly minor situation...although it happens all too often. The next example is a bit bigger and, unfortunately, shows just how entrenched certain fallacious beliefs are. The following responses are to specific beliefs about the Norse that have recently been expressed. Belief 1: Scandinavia was far colder than it is today. Belief 2: The Norse didn't have proper clothing. Belief 3: The Norse were more badass than everyone else.

Let's begin.

1. The so-called "Viking Age" ranged from about 793-1066 AD. This overlaps what is known as the "Medieval Warm Period" (9th-13th centuries). According to the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), "Norse seafaring and colonization around the North Atlantic...indicated that regional North Atlantic climate was warmer during medieval times than during the..."Little Ice Age" of the 15th-19th centuries...[a]s paleoclimatic records have become more numerous, it has become apparent that "Medieval Warm Period"...temperatures were warmer over the Northern Hemisphere than during the..."Little Ice Age", and also comparable to temperatures during the early 20th century...In summary, it appears that the late 20th and early 21st centuries are likely the warmest period the Earth has seen in at least 1200 years."
Scandinavian weather in the 21st century is generally comparable to that of North America. According to Sweden's official internet gateway, Sweden isn't nearly as cold as most people believe, thanks to the Gulf Stream, which "delivers [Sweden] from freezing." According to About.com the weather in most parts of Scandinavia is generally mild and pleasant, though the climate varies from north to south and east to west.

Erroneous belief 1: strike one.

2. Norse clothing was made primarily of wool and linen. Both wool and linen possess certain qualities that make them perfect fabrics for any weather or climate.
Wool, from the fleece of sheep, has the following qualities that make it a perfect material:

1. It does not trap heat. It has the capacity to keep the body at an even temperature and insulates, as opposed to trapping heat. This means that in hot weather it keeps you cool and in cold weather it keeps you warm.
2. It does not cling to the skin. This allows air circulation next to your skin and is part of the insulation property.
3. It absorbs 30% of its weight in water but it also releases it. This prevents moisture from being held at the skin and producing a cold, clammy feeling. If the lanolin is left in the wool it is also waterproof.
4. It is naturally fire resistant.
5. It is strong and durable because of its natural elasticity.

Linen, made from the flax plant, has the following properties:

1. Natural antibacterial and antifungal properties.
2. Protection from UV rays.
3. Anti-allergenic characteristics.
4. Anti-static characteristics.
5. Will not attract or trap dust particles.
6. Good sound insulation and acoustic properties.
7. Absorbs up to 20% of it's own dry weight in water and moisture.
8. Quick drying.
9. One of the fibers that holds the most heat resistance.
10. Thermal/cooling regulation which allows skin to breathe which keeps you cool in the summer and warm in the winter.

The types of clothing men wore:

• Woolen shirt and long cloth trousers.
• Sleeved jerkin or three-quarter coat.
• Socks and leather shoes or long leather boots.

Women wore:

• Long linen dress.
• Long woolen tunic.
• Shawl.
• Woolen socks and leather shoes.

Both wore fur or woolen hats and cloaks in cold weather.

Erroneous belief 2: strike two.

3. Although much has been made of the viking raids through Europe, the Norse were not the first group of people to raid, nor were they necessarily the worst. Compared to such groups as the Romans, Huns, and Mongols, the Norse actually acquired very little territory from their endeavors.
The following maps show the land area acquired by each of these groups. As you can see, they were quite adept at subjugating large areas.

(left to right: Roman Empire, Hun Empire, Mongol Empire)

(Click on maps to enlarge)

 

The map to the left shows the "Norse Empire." As you can see, the area "conquered" by the Norse is significantly smaller than those areas conquered by others, both before and after. New research is also suggesting that the Norse were not as bloodthirsty and fearless as the (non-Nordic) legends claim, and that the Norse were actually wary of their non-Nordic neighbors. According to Orkney Island historian Tom Muir, the raiders tended to prey on easy targets such as monasteries, and "the Norse had every reason to fear Celtic neighbors." According to advice handed down to Norse travelers in the 13th century, those making the journey to Scotland did so at their own risk. Analysis of the Icelandic Sagas (Islendingasagur) revealed the following counsel: "Icelanders who want to practice robbery are advised to go [to Scotland]...but it may cost them their life."

When taking the sagas into consideration it must be noted that they were written sometimes hundreds of years after the events they profess to illustrate. Another point to consider is that many of the qualities exhibited by the Norse, are still exhibited by cultures today. One of the principle attributes mentioned by Magnus Magnusson in the introduction to his translation of Njal's Saga, is that of honor. The story of Njal is one of revenge. The Icelanders at that time believed that if honor was slighted revenge must be taken. Interestingly enough, the indigenous people of Papua New Guinea still practice this type of revenge. It is known as "payback." The concept is, if someone wrongs you then you have the right to exact revenge (usually in the form of homicide).

Another consideration with regard to the sagas is the fact that they were designed as entertainment. According to Magnusson, "[w]here strict historical accuracy could be vouchsafed, by reference to contemporary witnesses, it was valued: but artistic values were no less warmly appreciated where historicity could not be claimed." About the author of Njal's Saga, Magnusson states, "...it can be shown that he used his sources with considerable freedom and occasional mistakes, which can be accounted for by both garbled oral traditions and the natural tendency of an author to manipulate material for aesthetic purposes...The chronology of events in the saga is at times wildly inconsistent and cannot bear too close a scrutiny...There are...some striking similarities to certain events of the thirteenth century." This shows, clearly, that the sagas were not necessarily meant to be accurate historical narratives and to take them as such would be a huge mistake.

The Heimskringla by Snorre Sturlason, is a chronicle of the kings of Norway. The stories in it are no more violent than anything you can read in the newspaper or see on TV, and they are far less violent than many horror movies. They also don't show the Norse to be any more welcoming of harsh conditions than anyone today.

Erroneous belief 3: strike three. You lose.

Clearly, the Norse did not have some sort of corner on the violence market. They were simply doing the exact same thing that people have done ad infinitum. Countless examples of "viking" style behavior can be cited from the beginning of time (re: Cain and Abel) to present day. To suggest they were somehow more violent than any other group or that they lived through colder, harsher climatic conditions, or didn't have appropriate clothing for their climate is to ignore the blatantly obvious. The reason these fallacies have continued into the present is because of a misguided devotion to an ideal that never existed! Isn't it about time we stopped perpetuating these myths?

Oh, and do some freaking research!

My dad has always said that everyone is entitled to their own stupid opinion. It's true. I'm entitled to my own stupid opinion, you're entitled to your own stupid opinion, and the people across the street are entitled to their own stupid opinion. I wholeheartedly believe this, but apparently there is a segment of the population that disagrees with me.

From time to time I come across someone questioning the musical taste of someone else, or outright attacking someone or some band because of the music they play/listen to. This seems to happen alot in the Metal community. I can't even begin to quantify the number of times I've heard or read someone lambasting someone else for the music they listen to. The funny thing is Metalheads tend to be staunch supporters of individual freedom. But for a group of people who vehemently support individual freedom - freedom to listen to what they want or do what they want - there are an awful lot of Metalheads who hypocritically like to try to curb or control that freedom in others.

What usually happens is either someone questions why anyone would like a certain band; then that individual, and all like-minded souls, proceed to censure that band and anyone who likes it; or some website posts a news story about a band, with the same result.

One recent incident, that illustrates this quite well, comes from the site Anus.com. This type of garbage is exactly what I'm talking about. But, instead of just voicing their own (stupid) opinion on their website, this site goes one step further: they encourage their readers to go to the band website and actually attack the band there!

Normally I choose not to get involved in this kind of discussion, for the simple reason that it’s completely pointless.  Someone usually gets their nose out of joint and tries to argue that I'm being hypocritical because they think I'm doing what I'm telling them to stop doing: specifically, being judgmental. But after the last couple of incidents I've had enough.

In case the obvious was missed, we are all individuals and, as such, we will all have different interests and, therefore, different opinions on what is good and what is not; and that's okay! But if someone wants to tell me that I shouldn't like what I like or listen to what I listen to, then they have crossed the line. Nobody has the right to try to force their opinions on others or make them feel badly because of what they like. Seriously, I will listen to whatever the hell I want to listen to, be it Black Metal, Death Metal, Swedish Pop or Disco and I don't give a rodents rectum what other people think of what I listen to. And that's how it should be! Anyone who listens to a certain genre of music because "it's cool" or because that's what their parents hate is an imbecile and not being true to themselves, let alone the "movement" they are professing to idolize. No-one should ever listen to a type of music because they are rebelling or because they are toeing the line. To do so can only result in misery. So, let's stop attacking people because they are different!

If your reaction to this was to get upset and want to argue with me...is it maybe because you do this? Do you attack people because you don't like what they play/listen to? Well, before you try to tell me that I'm being a hypocrite by saying you're not entitled to your opinion, why don't you try re-reading the post. My point here is that you are entitled to your stupid opinion but so is everyone else. Quit worrying about what other people are listening to because, no, it doesn't adversely affect you. Attacking someone for their musical tastes just makes you look stupid, and if you don't want to be attacked for your tastes then don't do it to someone else.

Well, the Super Bowl is over for another year. I actually watched it this year...the whole thing. Partly because I wanted to see the Packers win because so many people I know were convinced that the Steelers were going to win, but also because, over the last couple of years I've come to like the Packers. That's thanks to the fact that they're my dad's favorite team so he watches them all the time.

So the game was great; the Packers did an awesome job of stealing the ball from the Steelers; but the "entertainment" fell a little flat. First off was the Christina Aguilera version of the national anthem. How embarrassing for her...seriously, if you know you're going to sing the national anthem don't you think you might want to practice a few times to make sure you hit the right notes and, even more important, you should probably make sure you're singing the correct lyrics. The second let down was the half-time show...um, yuck. Fergie was seriously off and so was the mix. The show was not worth the hype. Maybe next year they can get it right.

So, I thought Super Bowl commercials were supposed to be better than normal, every-day commercials. If that's the case then somebody seriously dropped the ball yesterday. I did far more brow-furrowing than laughing or oohing. Seriously, it was a huge disappointment. But, that being said, there were at least three that were worth watching, for various reasons. And I shall end my post with the only ones I thought worth the watch (honorable mention goes to the two e*trade commercials).

The first is the Volkswagen: Darth Vader Kid; how cute is this?! But you have to watch the extended version, not just the one they aired during the Super Bowl.

The Coca-Cola Dragon; Not that funny, but surely fantastic for it's sheer epic-ness.

 

Snickers: Roseanne Barr...because, who doesn't want to see Roseanne get laid flat with half a tree?

 

Something that has been bugging me for a while is this show on TLC called, Toddlers & Tiaras. According to TLC the show, "Toddlers and Tiaras follows families on their quest for sparkly crowns, big titles, and lots of cash." If you've never seen the show (or it's commercials) then let me fill you in. This show chronicles the "adventures" of little children in the beauty pageant arena. They are dressed up and made to perform, à la JonBenét Ramsey.

Why anyone would think it's okay, or even desirable, to dress little children up as Vegas showgirls and have them perform suggestive routines, is far beyond me to understand. Far from being "cute," it's disgusting. Children, some of them very young, are being paraded around like objects whose sole purpose is to perform like trained circus animals. The parents of these children should be ashamed of themselves for putting their children through this, for treating them as objects and for, very possibly, bringing them to the attention of pedophiles.

Surely, everyone remembers little JonBenét and her ignominious death. The possibility that her death could be a direct result of her involvement in child pageants cannot be ignored. Her case, unfortunately, still remains unsolved, though one suspect in her case confessed to the murder while being held on child pornography charges (no charges were filed on him for the murder because his DNA didn't match that found on JonBenét).

This raises the questions of whether the parents of these children and the organizers of these events are actually exploiting them, and whether allowing children to perform in these pageants constitutes a form of child abuse. At the very least it should be recognized that children are not dolls to be dressed up and played with. The psychological scars of child pageants have even been documented. In her Note And Comment: Protecting Pageant Princesses: A Call For Statutory Regulation Of Child Beauty Pageants, in the Journal of Law and Policy, author Lindsay Lieberman outlined some of the trauma that child pageant contestants have reported. Brooke Breedwell, a former child pageant contestant, reported suffering from, "stress and anxiety while striving for an unrealistic standard of perfection. She explain[ed] that her mother's ambition, coupled with her own obsessive drive to win, resulted in severe social and psychological consequences."


According to Lieberman's article, "family therapists report that pageants interfere with healthy child development...[and] as a result, little girls who participate are prone to persistent lifetime challenges, including body shame, perfectionism, depression and eating disorders." Lieberman goes on to describe the psychological and physical effects on pageant contestants and outlines the government's duties to protect these children.

The best way to protect these children is to make these pageants illegal. They serve no good purpose and they, clearly, serve to harm the children involved. That TLC is airing this show is a travesty. They are helping to make this sort of thing seem acceptable to those who may not have even thought about it in the past, while being an accessory to the trauma these children are facing. Since these children know nothing other than what their parents are making them do it's not the "family" that is on a quest, it's the parents.

I was going to post some more rantings today (I have a couple really great topics) but I spent most of the day in Logan City Cemetery looking for headstones to post to Find A Grave, and freezing my ears and fingers off in the process. So, instead of posting some madness I'll just post a couple of the pictures I took today.