Your Tree Needs Pruning
As some of you may know, or can figure out from my weekly Visions of Death posts, I take photos for Find A Grave.com (see the link above). I really love doing this as I've been obsessed with genealogy for the last decade and I love helping others do theirs. Taking pictures for Find A Grave gives me the opportunity to help others find their ancestors by giving them a little more information, or simply giving them a visual frame of reference (for older ancestors sometimes a picture of a grave marker is all you get). It provides a connection to your family that has gone on ahead of you.
Despite my great love for this and my respect for Find A Grave, I have found that there are a few people on there that I can't stand. These are they who seem to view Find A Grave as some sort of contest. They like to troll the obituaries and create memorials before anyone else can so they can inflate their numbers. It's like they're telling everyone else "I'm better than you, just look at how many memorials I've put up! You puny mortals just can't keep up!" Then they post "bios" that state that if you want a memorial transferred it's going to take an act of congress, or you'd better have written permission from the dead themselves because simply being a family member isn't good enough!
I hate that.
When did genealogy become a competition?! Genealogy isn't about who's better than whom or how many people you can hang from your family tree! It's about finding out who you are and where you came from. I firmly believe that everyone should do their genealogy for this very reason; there are a lot of people who would be very surprised to find out what they have hiding out in the woodpile; and if everyone did their genealogy there would be far less room for racism and bigotry.
If you can't, or don't have time, or don't want to do the work then find someone who can, has time, and wants to help you. You will be surprised at how connected you feel to these people you find and places you've never been to. It's fascinating. Try it.
Despite my great love for this and my respect for Find A Grave, I have found that there are a few people on there that I can't stand. These are they who seem to view Find A Grave as some sort of contest. They like to troll the obituaries and create memorials before anyone else can so they can inflate their numbers. It's like they're telling everyone else "I'm better than you, just look at how many memorials I've put up! You puny mortals just can't keep up!" Then they post "bios" that state that if you want a memorial transferred it's going to take an act of congress, or you'd better have written permission from the dead themselves because simply being a family member isn't good enough!
I hate that.
When did genealogy become a competition?! Genealogy isn't about who's better than whom or how many people you can hang from your family tree! It's about finding out who you are and where you came from. I firmly believe that everyone should do their genealogy for this very reason; there are a lot of people who would be very surprised to find out what they have hiding out in the woodpile; and if everyone did their genealogy there would be far less room for racism and bigotry.
If you can't, or don't have time, or don't want to do the work then find someone who can, has time, and wants to help you. You will be surprised at how connected you feel to these people you find and places you've never been to. It's fascinating. Try it.
An Evening At The Movies
I watched two horror movies today...I had high hopes for at least one of them, and was giving the other the benefit of the doubt. I was ultimately disappointed with the outcome of both.
A couple days ago I came across this picture on im not right in the head.com. After reading several of the responses to it I determined that it referred to the movie Human Centipede. I have come across this movie before and thought the plot seemed stupid so I had no desire to see it...until I saw the pictures here (WARNING: These images might be disturbing to some, viewer discretion is advised).
(Figure 1)
So, I was surfing Comcast On Demand today and lo and behold Human Centipede was listed. I decided that I would watch it because I had determined, based on the pictures, that there would be certain inherent flaws in the design. If you have seen it then perhaps you've picked up on what I'm going to address here, if you haven't then here's a brief synopsis:
Two American girls on vacation in Germany have a flat tire and wind up at the house of a phenomenally deranged retired surgeon who is famous for separating conjoined twins. He has this wacky idea to create a "human centipede" by joining three subjects via their alimentary canals (see figure 1).
Who the hell comes up with this stuff?! The writer is Tom Six, a Dutch writer/director/producer. According to the official plot Human Centipede is medically accurate...Really? While the movie was certainly disturbing, it can hardly be considered "medically accurate." So, yeah, I have a few issues with it. Here's why:
1. While it may be possible to physically connect three people via their digestive tracts, it's not practical. Depending on your metabolism, food can take up to 20 hours to go from mouth to anus. This means that subject B (moving from left to right in figure 1) will not receive any "food" for a good day. That means that subject C won't be "eating" for about two days. While it is true that humans can survive an impressive length of time without food, eating feces does not constitute "food." Eating nothing but feces will ultimately kill you, either from the lack of nutrients or from the bacteria present. So, if subjects B and C don't die from the surgery itself, or from starvation, they will, most assuredly, not last too long on a diet of nothing but human waste.
2. And what about gas? Flatulence can be expelled with some force. Certainly this could result in subject B or C being winded, at best, and...ass-phyxiated at worst? (Sorry, it had to be done)
3. While humans may be able to last a while without food, they cannot last very long without water. Since subjects B and C are connected to the anus they are not going to be getting any water (unless they were connected to the urethra, as well, though the images and explanation given in the movie make it pretty clear this is not the case). So, if they don't die from anything else, they will die from dehydration.
4. I don't know about all y'all, but if someone was trying to force me to eat a turd I'm pretty sure I would either a) gag to death on it, or b) puke it back up. Since they are attached with no opening to the outside, if either subject B or C gagged or puked, they would, most likely, end up choking on or aspirating it to death. Either way, they die.
5. As was shown in the movie, the raw tissues, shewn together to create this aberration, on at least one of the subjects (C) became infected. Raw tissue and feces don't mix...at least, not with any good consequences.
6. Speaking of tissue...the Herr Doktor just happened to randomly find two American girls (taveling together, no less) and a Japanse guy who are tissue matches?! Yeah, that's realistic.
7. Any good surgeon (and, while the guy may be certifiable, he was considered a renowned surgeon) would already know this stuff. Sure he's a nut job, but I can't imagine him not having taken all this stuff into consideration since it seems that he thinks this is the "vision for mankind's future existence." Having already lost his "beloved 3-dog" he should've worked out the kinks that resulted in the canines' death before implementing his centipede version 2.0.
So, yeah, the movie was disturbing, gross even, but because of the flaws mentioned above I thought it was poorly conceived and it left me feeling cranky. Horror movies just aren't what they used to be.
Movie two was one I came across in the On Demand directory. It's called Wicked Little Things. I had never heard of it before. This is the one I had high hopes for. The synopsis made it sound like a pretty straight forward ghost story, which is fine, as long as it's done well. Well, it's neither straight forward nor a ghost story.
A couple days ago I came across this picture on im not right in the head.com. After reading several of the responses to it I determined that it referred to the movie Human Centipede. I have come across this movie before and thought the plot seemed stupid so I had no desire to see it...until I saw the pictures here (WARNING: These images might be disturbing to some, viewer discretion is advised).
(Figure 1)
So, I was surfing Comcast On Demand today and lo and behold Human Centipede was listed. I decided that I would watch it because I had determined, based on the pictures, that there would be certain inherent flaws in the design. If you have seen it then perhaps you've picked up on what I'm going to address here, if you haven't then here's a brief synopsis:Two American girls on vacation in Germany have a flat tire and wind up at the house of a phenomenally deranged retired surgeon who is famous for separating conjoined twins. He has this wacky idea to create a "human centipede" by joining three subjects via their alimentary canals (see figure 1).
Who the hell comes up with this stuff?! The writer is Tom Six, a Dutch writer/director/producer. According to the official plot Human Centipede is medically accurate...Really? While the movie was certainly disturbing, it can hardly be considered "medically accurate." So, yeah, I have a few issues with it. Here's why:
1. While it may be possible to physically connect three people via their digestive tracts, it's not practical. Depending on your metabolism, food can take up to 20 hours to go from mouth to anus. This means that subject B (moving from left to right in figure 1) will not receive any "food" for a good day. That means that subject C won't be "eating" for about two days. While it is true that humans can survive an impressive length of time without food, eating feces does not constitute "food." Eating nothing but feces will ultimately kill you, either from the lack of nutrients or from the bacteria present. So, if subjects B and C don't die from the surgery itself, or from starvation, they will, most assuredly, not last too long on a diet of nothing but human waste.
2. And what about gas? Flatulence can be expelled with some force. Certainly this could result in subject B or C being winded, at best, and...ass-phyxiated at worst? (Sorry, it had to be done)
3. While humans may be able to last a while without food, they cannot last very long without water. Since subjects B and C are connected to the anus they are not going to be getting any water (unless they were connected to the urethra, as well, though the images and explanation given in the movie make it pretty clear this is not the case). So, if they don't die from anything else, they will die from dehydration.
4. I don't know about all y'all, but if someone was trying to force me to eat a turd I'm pretty sure I would either a) gag to death on it, or b) puke it back up. Since they are attached with no opening to the outside, if either subject B or C gagged or puked, they would, most likely, end up choking on or aspirating it to death. Either way, they die.
5. As was shown in the movie, the raw tissues, shewn together to create this aberration, on at least one of the subjects (C) became infected. Raw tissue and feces don't mix...at least, not with any good consequences.
6. Speaking of tissue...the Herr Doktor just happened to randomly find two American girls (taveling together, no less) and a Japanse guy who are tissue matches?! Yeah, that's realistic.
7. Any good surgeon (and, while the guy may be certifiable, he was considered a renowned surgeon) would already know this stuff. Sure he's a nut job, but I can't imagine him not having taken all this stuff into consideration since it seems that he thinks this is the "vision for mankind's future existence." Having already lost his "beloved 3-dog" he should've worked out the kinks that resulted in the canines' death before implementing his centipede version 2.0.
So, yeah, the movie was disturbing, gross even, but because of the flaws mentioned above I thought it was poorly conceived and it left me feeling cranky. Horror movies just aren't what they used to be.
Movie two was one I came across in the On Demand directory. It's called Wicked Little Things. I had never heard of it before. This is the one I had high hopes for. The synopsis made it sound like a pretty straight forward ghost story, which is fine, as long as it's done well. Well, it's neither straight forward nor a ghost story.
The movie blurb reads thus:
A widow and her two daughters, Sarah and Emma, move to a remote mountain home--however, she is unaware that the haunted home is situated near an old mine, where an early 20th century tragedy took place.
Sounds like a ghost story, right?
The IMDb blurb gives a little more detail:
Karen, Sarah, and Emma Tunney are all moving to a small town in Pennsylvania where, unknown to them, in 1913, a horrid mine accident trapped dozens of children alive, underground. But there's a problem. They're still alive.
Imagine my surprise (and chagrin) when it turns out the children are zombies...I'm not a big zombie movie fan because, frankly, zombie movies are stupid. So, while this movie started out pretty good, it quickly turned to crap. It would've been sooooo much better if they had been ghost children. But zombies? Come on! Clearly, they made them zombies just for the gore. Because, apparently, somebody thinks that gore = scary. Actually, it doesn't, it just equals lame.
Let's Shut Something Down...
In but a few short hours the United States government could be shutting down over a budget issue that has been going on for quite some time. According to the Democrats the problem is this rider concerning the funding of Planned Parenthood. According to the Republicans the problem is the spendthrift Democrats who refuse to make extensive cuts to the budget. For once, I actually agree with the Dems; yes, it is about funding Planned Parenthood.
But that's where the Dems and I diverge. Harry Reid (D-Nevada), Senate Majority leader, Representative Louise Slaughter (D-New York), and others, have made much about the defunding of Planned Parenthood. They have tried to claim that defunding this organization is an attack on women; Slaughter even went so far as to say that the Republican party wants to kill women with this bill!
There are a few problems with this situation.
First, why is Planned Parenthood receiving federal money anyway? They are a member of the International Planned Parenthood Federation and, as such, are an NGO. According to NGO Watch, the governmental funding of NGO's is problematic because, "the lack of accountability and transparency in the use of government funds transferred to civil society groups...[raises] the questions of whether public resources should be used to fund NGOs and how effective NGOs are in supplement to the responsibilities of sovereign governments." The problem I see here is that by funding NGOs, and specifically Planned Parenthood, the federal government is giving an extra smack of legitimacy to such "contraceptive" methods as abortion.
Second, if there are so many people in this country that are enamored of Planned Parenthood then they should give their money to them themselves. I, personally, do not want my tax dollars going to fund some irresponsible persons abortion, and I'm sure I'm not alone in this.
Third, over the last couple of months Planned Parenthood has shown themselves to be a corrupt organization. Senator Reid has said that defunding this (dubious) organization would mean that women would not receive necessary health care services. Representative Slaughter (appropriate name or what?!) has gone so far as to say that it would effectively kill women! The thing is, Planned Parenthood doesn't provide the kind of womens' health services that a primary care physician does and it seems that their sole purpose for existence is to advocate and perform abortions (don't believe me? Check their website. The most they do is to discuss health issues with you, but you have to go to a primary care physician for the actually work).
Having viewed their website and scanned their annual report I am not comfortable with my money funding it. I believe this organization is simply a cover for zero populationists and radical feminists. If we really want to protect women then we should be focusing on teaching them to be more responsible with their bodies, instead of running out to get the cure for their mistakes. The continued refusal of organizations such as Planned Parenthood to emphasize abstinence shows that they are not genuinely concerned about the welfare of women or anyone else.
I have said it before and I'll continue to say it, you do have a choice. Your choice begins when you decide to have sex. Once you have made that choice then you must face the consequences. Abstinence is the only fool-proof method of contraception and STD prevention. When you make your choice and are presented with an undesired consequence you no longer have the right to say, "oops! My bad..." It's like driving drunk and killing another person on the street. You made your choice to drive drunk, you had the "accident" that killed the other person[s], now you must deal with the consequences, you can't say, "I take that back!" It doesn't work that way.
Yes, Congress, defund Planned Parenthood and let them find their own money to continue their fight for zero population growth and irresponsibility.
But that's where the Dems and I diverge. Harry Reid (D-Nevada), Senate Majority leader, Representative Louise Slaughter (D-New York), and others, have made much about the defunding of Planned Parenthood. They have tried to claim that defunding this organization is an attack on women; Slaughter even went so far as to say that the Republican party wants to kill women with this bill!
There are a few problems with this situation.
First, why is Planned Parenthood receiving federal money anyway? They are a member of the International Planned Parenthood Federation and, as such, are an NGO. According to NGO Watch, the governmental funding of NGO's is problematic because, "the lack of accountability and transparency in the use of government funds transferred to civil society groups...[raises] the questions of whether public resources should be used to fund NGOs and how effective NGOs are in supplement to the responsibilities of sovereign governments." The problem I see here is that by funding NGOs, and specifically Planned Parenthood, the federal government is giving an extra smack of legitimacy to such "contraceptive" methods as abortion.
Second, if there are so many people in this country that are enamored of Planned Parenthood then they should give their money to them themselves. I, personally, do not want my tax dollars going to fund some irresponsible persons abortion, and I'm sure I'm not alone in this.
Third, over the last couple of months Planned Parenthood has shown themselves to be a corrupt organization. Senator Reid has said that defunding this (dubious) organization would mean that women would not receive necessary health care services. Representative Slaughter (appropriate name or what?!) has gone so far as to say that it would effectively kill women! The thing is, Planned Parenthood doesn't provide the kind of womens' health services that a primary care physician does and it seems that their sole purpose for existence is to advocate and perform abortions (don't believe me? Check their website. The most they do is to discuss health issues with you, but you have to go to a primary care physician for the actually work).
Having viewed their website and scanned their annual report I am not comfortable with my money funding it. I believe this organization is simply a cover for zero populationists and radical feminists. If we really want to protect women then we should be focusing on teaching them to be more responsible with their bodies, instead of running out to get the cure for their mistakes. The continued refusal of organizations such as Planned Parenthood to emphasize abstinence shows that they are not genuinely concerned about the welfare of women or anyone else.
I have said it before and I'll continue to say it, you do have a choice. Your choice begins when you decide to have sex. Once you have made that choice then you must face the consequences. Abstinence is the only fool-proof method of contraception and STD prevention. When you make your choice and are presented with an undesired consequence you no longer have the right to say, "oops! My bad..." It's like driving drunk and killing another person on the street. You made your choice to drive drunk, you had the "accident" that killed the other person[s], now you must deal with the consequences, you can't say, "I take that back!" It doesn't work that way.
Yes, Congress, defund Planned Parenthood and let them find their own money to continue their fight for zero population growth and irresponsibility.
And I Still Believe In "Nothing"...
So, it's the last day of March 2011. March has been very cruel to me (maybe you've noticed I haven't posted anything over here in...I don't even know how long). Every time I thought about posting over here I thought, "why bother? Who's going to care?" I have to remind myself that I'm not doing this blog for all y'all, I'm doing it for me.
And for me, right now, I'm just going to post a song here that, while it has pretty much unlimited ability to make me cry (even when I'm "happy" it can make me bawl), by making me cry it makes me feel better. I won't bother asking what makes you cry your way to happiness because you won't bother to answer (or if you do, it'll be on facebook so very few others can see your answer). So, without further ado...
And for me, right now, I'm just going to post a song here that, while it has pretty much unlimited ability to make me cry (even when I'm "happy" it can make me bawl), by making me cry it makes me feel better. I won't bother asking what makes you cry your way to happiness because you won't bother to answer (or if you do, it'll be on facebook so very few others can see your answer). So, without further ado...
Intelligence Prevails...Maybe
Well, it's about time someone got a clue. Since the early 20th Century legislation has been enacted to protect the rights of all sorts of people. Now, finally, the rights of people who believe in and/or wish to do research into creation are finally going to be protected...at least in Texas...maybe.
On March 8th of this year Bill Zedler, (R) Representative of the Texas State House, filed House Bill 2454, a measure that would "[prohibit] discrimination based on research related to intelligent design." The full bill can be viewed on the Texas Legislature website.
As a Creationist I think it's about time that something like this is finally passed (let's hope that the Texas Higher Ed folks agree with me). The staunch evolutionists have managed to keep all such legislation off the books up to now, and for what? What are they afraid of?!
Just because I'm a Creationist does not mean that I don't believe in evolution. I just don't believe that evolution is the only way. Why people can't believe in creation and evolution is beyond me. Isn't that what people do when they create babies? Why then is it impossible that there is a God who created us first?
Evolution does exist - evidence is everywhere. Things change due to environmental factors, genetic factors and the simple randomness of events. But there is absolutely no evidence of high level taxonomic evolution, and yet, we are all related, are we not? All organisms share some level of genetics, because, "for dust [we] are, and unto dust shall [we] return" (KJV Gen 3:19). If all things are made from "dust" then of course there will be similarities between organisms. Those similarities don't negate the existence of a Creator.
I find it fascinating that humans have reached the height of egoism by suggesting that there is nothing and no one of superior intelligence. For a group of people so bent on demystifying existence evolutionists/anti-creationists have certainly managed to accept a great deal of mystery. There is still no consensus on how the earth and our solar system were actually formed and far greater mysteries still remain, despite scientific efforts. We still can't even figure out how to predict earthquakes! The great stumbling block of evolution is its inability to prove the relationship between humans and our nearest "relatives." There is still no "missing link," why? Because there isn't one!
There must needs be an opposition in all things. Newton's 3rd law: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So, if there is a God there must be something else, right? Satan's greatest accomplishments are convincing humans that he doesn't exist and that there is no greater authority than the human mind. Well, some of us know better.
On March 8th of this year Bill Zedler, (R) Representative of the Texas State House, filed House Bill 2454, a measure that would "[prohibit] discrimination based on research related to intelligent design." The full bill can be viewed on the Texas Legislature website.
As a Creationist I think it's about time that something like this is finally passed (let's hope that the Texas Higher Ed folks agree with me). The staunch evolutionists have managed to keep all such legislation off the books up to now, and for what? What are they afraid of?!
Just because I'm a Creationist does not mean that I don't believe in evolution. I just don't believe that evolution is the only way. Why people can't believe in creation and evolution is beyond me. Isn't that what people do when they create babies? Why then is it impossible that there is a God who created us first?
Evolution does exist - evidence is everywhere. Things change due to environmental factors, genetic factors and the simple randomness of events. But there is absolutely no evidence of high level taxonomic evolution, and yet, we are all related, are we not? All organisms share some level of genetics, because, "for dust [we] are, and unto dust shall [we] return" (KJV Gen 3:19). If all things are made from "dust" then of course there will be similarities between organisms. Those similarities don't negate the existence of a Creator.
I find it fascinating that humans have reached the height of egoism by suggesting that there is nothing and no one of superior intelligence. For a group of people so bent on demystifying existence evolutionists/anti-creationists have certainly managed to accept a great deal of mystery. There is still no consensus on how the earth and our solar system were actually formed and far greater mysteries still remain, despite scientific efforts. We still can't even figure out how to predict earthquakes! The great stumbling block of evolution is its inability to prove the relationship between humans and our nearest "relatives." There is still no "missing link," why? Because there isn't one!
There must needs be an opposition in all things. Newton's 3rd law: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So, if there is a God there must be something else, right? Satan's greatest accomplishments are convincing humans that he doesn't exist and that there is no greater authority than the human mind. Well, some of us know better.
Obamanation
The other day I was watching Bret Baier (don't hate, I'm still confused as to how Fox is any worse than any other news organization...oh, wait, they're conservative...*eye roll*) and during the panel portion of his show he asked whether Obama's current behavior, in light of present worldwide calamity, colors his image in other nations. The NPR woman, Mara Liasson, said that it doesn't; Obama is allowed to go golfing if he wants to! The other two panelists disagreed; Obama's actions are sending a clear message and that message is bad. Today there is news that Obama has picked his Final Four for March Madness! Whew! And here I thought he'd actually manage to get some real work done!
Seriously, I have to disagree with Ms. Liasson, as well. While I understand that Obama has a right to go golfing and pick his Final Four, the point is that his present actions (the Woman's Month radio broadcast on Friday, the golfing on Saturday and now this!) send a very clear message to the rest of the world...and to all of us here at home who are paying any attention! And that message is that his lack of experience and personal agenda are getting firmly in the way of handling his presidential responsibilities, either that or he just doesn't care.
Obama talked a good game while he was running for president but he has managed to renege on every major campaign promise since he's been in the White House. The only real bit of legislation that he has managed to pass is Obamacare, and that he rammed down the collective American throat. He is the victim of his own ego and aspirations and he campaigned without truly understanding what being president would entail; his campaign promises should have made that abundantly clear! To think that he actually thought (and people actually believed) that he could end the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan within one year show just how naïve he is. Same goes for Guantanamo Bay. His inciter rhetoric concerning unions is another example. Did he genuinely believe he could march with unionists as the president?!
What about the blame he keeps laying at the door of the Republicans (specifically George W. Bush) when anything goes wrong? Sorry, but you only get a free ride for the first 9 months of your term. If you can't get it right after that then it's all on you. Especially after 2 years! If, after 2 years you're still blaming your predecessor for everything that goes wrong then you are a wholly ineffective leader.
Don't get me wrong, I don't hate the guy and I certainly don't wish him harm. But I do think that he is an inappropriate choice to lead this nation (and if he gets reelected I will have lost all faith in my fellow Americans). This has nothing to do with race [(although I do believe that that's why he was elected) as anyone who knows me knows that I am the anti-racist], it has everything to do with effective leadership and willingness to do what needs to be done.
That's why I applaud the governors of Wisconsin, Ohio, and now Maryland (see, not just Republicans!) for their willingness to push through unpopular legislation. Do I agree with the legislation they are pushing? Well, while I believe that unions can be beneficial, I think they have far too much power and they force people to participate, often against their will. Unions should be working for the good of the people they serve, but that's not always what happens.
It would be nice if Obama would start being the president instead of merely a figurehead. He was elected to perform a particular duty; lead the country. So start doing it already!
Seriously, I have to disagree with Ms. Liasson, as well. While I understand that Obama has a right to go golfing and pick his Final Four, the point is that his present actions (the Woman's Month radio broadcast on Friday, the golfing on Saturday and now this!) send a very clear message to the rest of the world...and to all of us here at home who are paying any attention! And that message is that his lack of experience and personal agenda are getting firmly in the way of handling his presidential responsibilities, either that or he just doesn't care.
Obama talked a good game while he was running for president but he has managed to renege on every major campaign promise since he's been in the White House. The only real bit of legislation that he has managed to pass is Obamacare, and that he rammed down the collective American throat. He is the victim of his own ego and aspirations and he campaigned without truly understanding what being president would entail; his campaign promises should have made that abundantly clear! To think that he actually thought (and people actually believed) that he could end the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan within one year show just how naïve he is. Same goes for Guantanamo Bay. His inciter rhetoric concerning unions is another example. Did he genuinely believe he could march with unionists as the president?!
What about the blame he keeps laying at the door of the Republicans (specifically George W. Bush) when anything goes wrong? Sorry, but you only get a free ride for the first 9 months of your term. If you can't get it right after that then it's all on you. Especially after 2 years! If, after 2 years you're still blaming your predecessor for everything that goes wrong then you are a wholly ineffective leader.
Don't get me wrong, I don't hate the guy and I certainly don't wish him harm. But I do think that he is an inappropriate choice to lead this nation (and if he gets reelected I will have lost all faith in my fellow Americans). This has nothing to do with race [(although I do believe that that's why he was elected) as anyone who knows me knows that I am the anti-racist], it has everything to do with effective leadership and willingness to do what needs to be done.
That's why I applaud the governors of Wisconsin, Ohio, and now Maryland (see, not just Republicans!) for their willingness to push through unpopular legislation. Do I agree with the legislation they are pushing? Well, while I believe that unions can be beneficial, I think they have far too much power and they force people to participate, often against their will. Unions should be working for the good of the people they serve, but that's not always what happens.
It would be nice if Obama would start being the president instead of merely a figurehead. He was elected to perform a particular duty; lead the country. So start doing it already!
Ghost Defectives
I believe in ghosts (or specters, spirits, apparitions, or whatever else you choose to call them). I believe in ghosts because I have had personal experience with ghosts and I am personally acquainted with others who have also. So you'd think that with my personal experience I would be all over these ghost shows clogging up the airwaves, wouldn't you? Well, you'd be wrong. As a matter of fact, most of the ghost shows on TV are a complete waste of time.
I'm specifically talking about the ghost hunting shows; Ghost Adventures, Ghost Hunters /International, Paranormal State, etc. These shows drive me crazy because, well frankly, they're doing it wrong! That and, seriously, could they possibly be more obnoxious?
If you're going to go ghost hunting here's how you should do it:
I'm specifically talking about the ghost hunting shows; Ghost Adventures, Ghost Hunters /International, Paranormal State, etc. These shows drive me crazy because, well frankly, they're doing it wrong! That and, seriously, could they possibly be more obnoxious?
If you're going to go ghost hunting here's how you should do it:
- Find a group of people who are calm, intelligent, and not likely to freak out thinking it's a ghost if someone farts (Most Haunted I'm looking at you).
- Be prepared to investigate over an extended period of time; I'm talking 6 months or more, not just 1 or 2 nights. Anything can happen once, if you only investigate 1 night then you cannot claim that the phenomenon is due to something unexplainable!
- For 1/3 of the length of the investigation you should keep people strictly out of the investigation area; only measuring and recording equipment should be present (this will allow you to determine if the phenomena are human-presence related or truly "unexplainable"). For the 2nd third, people may enter the area but not "interact" with anything they might come across (this allows for the possibility that spirits prefer to act when there is an audience). For the final third, the investigators may interact; this means calling out or responding to a "presence" (just try not to be a dork about it, à la Ghost Adventures and Most Haunted - I mean, seriously...). By doing the investigation this way you decrease the chance of your data being seen as total trash because you didn't bother to cancel out confounding factors in your experiment.
- For each third of the experiment the time should be split between day-time and night-time investigation. In other words, don't just research night-time activity, examine day-time activity, too. You might be surprised.
- When analyzing data it should be independently reviewed by a third party. This removes the inherent experimenter bias. More than 1 person should review and each reviewer should be segregated during the review, writing down their findings. Only after all reviewers have performed separate analyses should the results be collated. This ensures that no observer bias creeps into the study clouding the conclusion.
- And finally: As with all good experiments it should be repeatable by others. Therefore, your process should be well documented so that others may repeat the procedure, as exactly as possible, if needed.
I Have To Give That Up?!
Lent began on Wednesday. For those who don't understand what Lent is, let me explain. According to the Catholic Education Resource Center , "Lent is a special time of prayer, penance, sacrifice and good works in preparation [for] the celebration of Easter." It is roughly 40 days in length, begins with Ash Wednesday, and ends on Easter Sunday. The idea is that you do something to bring you closer to God, or at the very least, further away from something you find abhorrent. Many people erroneously believe Lent is specifically a time to "give something up." That's a pretty simplistic view of Lent. Really, you don't have to necessarily "give something up," instead, Lent is a time to make a positive change in your life. If that means giving something up, then you give something up. If it means taking something on (such as service to others), then you do that.
Recently, there was an article in the local newsrag about a group of local Mountain Crest high school students who wanted to start a no-swearing club. There was some discussion about this and what a stupid waste of time their endeavor is. In fact, there are probably some of you right now wondering what's wrong with using "real" words. The problem is, foul and filthy language actually does a serious number on your vocabulary. Trust me, I'm living proof. I used to have a stellar vocabulary and I was very proud of the fact that I could string more than a few big words together and actually manage to use them correctly. I remember once in high school I gave myself a mental pat on the back and was super excited when I used a word I had never used before and actually used it properly! I puffed up. I was verklempt! Ah, but how times change, don't they?
A while back, I found some old university term papers I had written. I found one I had written in Spring of '05 and one I had written in Spring of '06. I was shocked at the difference. I almost couldn't recognize the paper I had written in '05. It was full of lofty, academic-sounding words and had a flow that was scie ntific-abstractesque. I almost couldn't even read it! According to the computer, it was college level English. By comparison, the '06 paper was much easier to read. I recognized it immediately; it felt...comfortable. The issue is that it was barely 12th grade level English. In the space of just one year my vocabulary had dwindled to virtual nothingness. I had been using garbage language in my daily life and it had massacred my intelligence.
I applaud the kids at Mountain Crest for their desire to strive to be something more than what society deems is okay. And that's really the point here. Society no longer values education the way it used to. There was a time when most people weren't educated and they lived from hand-to-mouth (that time was known as the "Dark Ages" for a reason). Then, education became important and more and more people were educated. Life began to lighten (as in "Enlightenment" - this is a no-pun-tax zone, by the way) and the lives of many were improved. But then, for some reason (and you can see throughout history that all great empires that stopped putting emphasis on education crumbled...good lesson to learn here), education started to become a bad word...a four-letter word, even.
And look at it now! The government is cutting education funds left, right, and center. The average person now believes that teachers don't actually do anything ("what about those 3 month summer vacations, eh!"), and the get-through-school-quick mentality is wearing on the next generation. As the daughter of a retired university professor, I am very well aware that teachers work their butts off and generally get a lot of grief for their efforts. In fact, that's one of the reasons that my dad loves teaching in non-American institutions; because the students actually appreciate what he does. That's a criticism of parents too, by the way. Because children learn much of their bad behavior from their parents, if the parents are antagonistic toward education then why shouldn't their children be equally antagonistic?
A few years ago I decided to actively participate in Lent because I wanted to change some things about myself. I decided Lent would be the perfect time to do it. Two years in a row I chose to give up foul and abusive language. I had come to realize that my speech was disgusting and needed a complete overhaul. The first year it didn't go so well ("old habits..." and all that). Within the first day I'd already messed up. The problem was that I had, over the years, developed what one person called a "trucker mouth." Yeah, on a normal day I was pretty bad. If I got angry it was far worse; had I been on a TV show my dialog would have been punctuated by one long {bleeeep}.
But I persevered and by the end of Lent I had noticed a significant improvement.
Enough of an improvement that the next year I determined to do it again (backsliding, you know...it was terrible), only, this tim
e I had a companion who had decided to join me in my fight against the sewer that was running from my mouth. I did significantly better this time around, and I think it was because I had someone there working on it with me. To be sure, all Sami and I need to do is look at each other and we both know what the other is thinking (there was much pained expression exchanged between the two of us, but nothing ever escaped the confines of our thoughts). I think we had both realized that if we ever expected others to change their behavior we had to do it too - none of this, "do as I say, not as I do" business.
But I persevered and by the end of Lent I had noticed a significant improvement.
Enough of an improvement that the next year I determined to do it again (backsliding, you know...it was terrible), only, this tim
e I had a companion who had decided to join me in my fight against the sewer that was running from my mouth. I did significantly better this time around, and I think it was because I had someone there working on it with me. To be sure, all Sami and I need to do is look at each other and we both know what the other is thinking (there was much pained expression exchanged between the two of us, but nothing ever escaped the confines of our thoughts). I think we had both realized that if we ever expected others to change their behavior we had to do it too - none of this, "do as I say, not as I do" business.
Recently, there was an article in the local newsrag about a group of local Mountain Crest high school students who wanted to start a no-swearing club. There was some discussion about this and what a stupid waste of time their endeavor is. In fact, there are probably some of you right now wondering what's wrong with using "real" words. The problem is, foul and filthy language actually does a serious number on your vocabulary. Trust me, I'm living proof. I used to have a stellar vocabulary and I was very proud of the fact that I could string more than a few big words together and actually manage to use them correctly. I remember once in high school I gave myself a mental pat on the back and was super excited when I used a word I had never used before and actually used it properly! I puffed up. I was verklempt! Ah, but how times change, don't they?
A while back, I found some old university term papers I had written. I found one I had written in Spring of '05 and one I had written in Spring of '06. I was shocked at the difference. I almost couldn't recognize the paper I had written in '05. It was full of lofty, academic-sounding words and had a flow that was scie ntific-abstractesque. I almost couldn't even read it! According to the computer, it was college level English. By comparison, the '06 paper was much easier to read. I recognized it immediately; it felt...comfortable. The issue is that it was barely 12th grade level English. In the space of just one year my vocabulary had dwindled to virtual nothingness. I had been using garbage language in my daily life and it had massacred my intelligence.
It's been a few years since my little experiment and a long row to hoe, but I finally feel like my brains are regenerating from the severe atrophy they had sustained due to my willingness, nay desire, to use nasty verbiage. I'm not back to "normal" yet, but I'm getting a little closer every day. It's no longer quite such a challenge to produce intelligent sentences; I can come up with more than one way to say things. I still use those words every now and then (I'm not completely cured) but they are not the sum total of my speech anymore.
I applaud the kids at Mountain Crest for their desire to strive to be something more than what society deems is okay. And that's really the point here. Society no longer values education the way it used to. There was a time when most people weren't educated and they lived from hand-to-mouth (that time was known as the "Dark Ages" for a reason). Then, education became important and more and more people were educated. Life began to lighten (as in "Enlightenment" - this is a no-pun-tax zone, by the way) and the lives of many were improved. But then, for some reason (and you can see throughout history that all great empires that stopped putting emphasis on education crumbled...good lesson to learn here), education started to become a bad word...a four-letter word, even.
And look at it now! The government is cutting education funds left, right, and center. The average person now believes that teachers don't actually do anything ("what about those 3 month summer vacations, eh!"), and the get-through-school-quick mentality is wearing on the next generation. As the daughter of a retired university professor, I am very well aware that teachers work their butts off and generally get a lot of grief for their efforts. In fact, that's one of the reasons that my dad loves teaching in non-American institutions; because the students actually appreciate what he does. That's a criticism of parents too, by the way. Because children learn much of their bad behavior from their parents, if the parents are antagonistic toward education then why shouldn't their children be equally antagonistic?
Let's start changing the world by changing the way we speak to each other. Until Easter Sunday I challenge you all to refrain from using foul and/or abusive language. Try it out and see if you don't feel smarter.
The Scourge Of Education
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.
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.
What's Wrong With Honesty?
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.
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.
Research: Not A Cause Of Death
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:
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.
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!
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:
- 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.
- It does not cling to the skin. This allows air circulation next to your skin and is part of the insulation property.
- 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.
- It is naturally fire resistant.
- It is strong and durable because of its natural elasticity.
- Natural antibacterial and antifungal properties.
- Protection from UV rays.
- Anti-allergenic characteristics.
- Anti-static characteristics.
- Will not attract or trap dust particles.
- Good sound insulation and acoustic properties.
- Absorbs up to 20% of it's own dry weight in water and moisture.
- Quick drying.
- One of the fibers that holds the most heat resistance.
- Thermal/cooling regulation which allows skin to breathe which keeps you cool in the summer and warm in the winter.
- Woolen shirt and long cloth trousers.
- Sleeved jerkin or three-quarter coat.
- Socks and leather shoes or long leather boots.
- Long linen dress.
- Long woolen tunic.
- Shawl.
- Woolen socks and leather shoes.
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!
Everyone's Entitled To Their Own Stupid Opinion...
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.
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.
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.
Toddlers Don't Need Tiaras
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.
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.
For Now We See Through A Glass, Darkly...
Recently, the Guardian World News published an article about an abundance of stone tools that were found in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and which have prompted a rethink about when humans left Africa. According to Michael Petraglia, an archaeologist at Oxford University, who was not involved in the work, "This is really quite spectacular. It breaks the back of the current consensus view" (Guardian World News).
And thus begins my rant. As a student of history and anthropology I have a few quibbles with the "current consensus view" held by the establishment. For some unfathomable reason historians and anthropologists/archeologists (hereafter referred to as HAA) seem to be laboring under two very erroneous beliefs:
Evidence dispelling these long-held, baseless claims can be found everywhere, and yet the establishment has seen fit to completely ignore this evidence. HAA's tend to base all of their hypotheses on these two beliefs while not even considering the obvious. A perfect example was aired on PBS in February of 2006. The Nova special titled, The Perfect Corpse, details the discovery, and subsequent investigation into, two bog bodies found in Ireland, Old Croghan Man and Clonycavan Man. Throughout the course of the program two scenarios were advanced in an attempt to explain the purpose of these interments:
After analyzing both sets of remains, certain commonalities became evident and were subsequently used by supporters of the premises to prove their point. That evidence is as follows:
1. Both bodies were dismembered.
a. Old Croghan is a torso with full arms.
b. Clonycavan is a torso with head and upper arms.
2. Both bodies showed evidence of being brutalized prior to death.
a. Old Croghan had numerous stab wounds, cut marks and one of his nipples was nearly severed.
b. Clonycavan had been battered at least 3 times in the head with what appeared to be a heavy,
sharp-edged weapon.
3. Both showed signs of wealth.
a. Old Croghan had manicured fingernails and few signs of physical labor.
b. Clonycavan had a "gel" in his hair, whose primary ingredient, pine sap, came from tress found only in the
south of France/north of Spain (a possible indication that he was wealthy enough to import).
4. Both were well nourished prior to death.
a. Old Croghan's stomach contents were indicative of a winter diet, containing wheat and milk products.
b. Clonycavan's hair showed a summer diet rich with vegetables.
5. Both were buried in bogs spanning tribal boundaries.
At first glance this all seems to suggest that the "experts" are correct in their assumptions; if both men were the victims of ritual sacrifice or criminal execution, one would expect them to be very similar. The problem is, this supposition ignores some very obvious points: if they're executed criminals then why are all the criminals apparently wealthy, and, if Clonycavan's hair gel comes from France, why can't he (there being no evidence to suggest he isn't)?
Both of these questions (and, to be sure, I have other issues with this whole thing that we just won't go into right now) lead us back to my original rant. When HAA's succumb to the above mentioned beliefs, they miss the most obvious, in-your-face conclusions, and wind up looking like fools. Thankfully, there are a few HAAs that don't go in for sensationalism and jumping to conclusions based on slim, or no, evidence. Archaeologist Moten Ravn of Denmark's Viking Ship Museum in Roskilde, is one of the few. As far as bog bodies go, he has recommended (what to me is totally obvious) that all bog bodies (that includes the completely skeletonized ones as well as the fleshy ones) should be examined and taken in context. Only then can we begin to unravel the mysteries of these people.
All too often we view the past through the lens of our modern prejudice. What needs to be taken heavily into account is that we genuinely don't know what life was like during periods in which we, ourselves, didn't live. We cannot judge people based on what we don't know, and to the victor goes the privilege of writing the history books. That means that we can't really trust the scribes, either, as the vast majority were writing about events that took place sometimes centuries before they were even born, writing down stories that had come down, through generations, by word of mouth. And, as anyone who has ever played Chinese Whispers knows, an oral story can change quite dramatically with each retelling.
So, what does all this mean? It means that we need to stop making stuff up and start with the evidence. Examining it with an objective eye, looking at it from every angle and not just the one we prefer. Though I've focused on the bog bodies my rant extends to all corners of the histo-anthro-archaeo realm.
And thus begins my rant. As a student of history and anthropology I have a few quibbles with the "current consensus view" held by the establishment. For some unfathomable reason historians and anthropologists/archeologists (hereafter referred to as HAA) seem to be laboring under two very erroneous beliefs:
- That people didn't ever move around, and if they did, it wasn't further than the village down the road.
- That we "modern" humans possess far superior intelligence.
Evidence dispelling these long-held, baseless claims can be found everywhere, and yet the establishment has seen fit to completely ignore this evidence. HAA's tend to base all of their hypotheses on these two beliefs while not even considering the obvious. A perfect example was aired on PBS in February of 2006. The Nova special titled, The Perfect Corpse, details the discovery, and subsequent investigation into, two bog bodies found in Ireland, Old Croghan Man and Clonycavan Man. Throughout the course of the program two scenarios were advanced in an attempt to explain the purpose of these interments:
- These people were the victims of ritual sacrifice; OR
- They were executed criminals.
(above from left: Clonycavan Man, Old Croghan Man)
After analyzing both sets of remains, certain commonalities became evident and were subsequently used by supporters of the premises to prove their point. That evidence is as follows:
1. Both bodies were dismembered.
a. Old Croghan is a torso with full arms.
b. Clonycavan is a torso with head and upper arms.
2. Both bodies showed evidence of being brutalized prior to death.
a. Old Croghan had numerous stab wounds, cut marks and one of his nipples was nearly severed.
b. Clonycavan had been battered at least 3 times in the head with what appeared to be a heavy,
sharp-edged weapon.
3. Both showed signs of wealth.
a. Old Croghan had manicured fingernails and few signs of physical labor.
b. Clonycavan had a "gel" in his hair, whose primary ingredient, pine sap, came from tress found only in the
south of France/north of Spain (a possible indication that he was wealthy enough to import).
4. Both were well nourished prior to death.
a. Old Croghan's stomach contents were indicative of a winter diet, containing wheat and milk products.
b. Clonycavan's hair showed a summer diet rich with vegetables.
5. Both were buried in bogs spanning tribal boundaries.
At first glance this all seems to suggest that the "experts" are correct in their assumptions; if both men were the victims of ritual sacrifice or criminal execution, one would expect them to be very similar. The problem is, this supposition ignores some very obvious points: if they're executed criminals then why are all the criminals apparently wealthy, and, if Clonycavan's hair gel comes from France, why can't he (there being no evidence to suggest he isn't)?
Both of these questions (and, to be sure, I have other issues with this whole thing that we just won't go into right now) lead us back to my original rant. When HAA's succumb to the above mentioned beliefs, they miss the most obvious, in-your-face conclusions, and wind up looking like fools. Thankfully, there are a few HAAs that don't go in for sensationalism and jumping to conclusions based on slim, or no, evidence. Archaeologist Moten Ravn of Denmark's Viking Ship Museum in Roskilde, is one of the few. As far as bog bodies go, he has recommended (what to me is totally obvious) that all bog bodies (that includes the completely skeletonized ones as well as the fleshy ones) should be examined and taken in context. Only then can we begin to unravel the mysteries of these people.
All too often we view the past through the lens of our modern prejudice. What needs to be taken heavily into account is that we genuinely don't know what life was like during periods in which we, ourselves, didn't live. We cannot judge people based on what we don't know, and to the victor goes the privilege of writing the history books. That means that we can't really trust the scribes, either, as the vast majority were writing about events that took place sometimes centuries before they were even born, writing down stories that had come down, through generations, by word of mouth. And, as anyone who has ever played Chinese Whispers knows, an oral story can change quite dramatically with each retelling.
So, what does all this mean? It means that we need to stop making stuff up and start with the evidence. Examining it with an objective eye, looking at it from every angle and not just the one we prefer. Though I've focused on the bog bodies my rant extends to all corners of the histo-anthro-archaeo realm.
Wake Up People!
Now I know the über liberals are completely out of their minds. In a news story posted earlier today (by several sources) the über liberal agenda was again spewed forth. Washington University in St. Louis is holding a Sexual Responsibility Week and were looking for Bristol Palin, the Candie's Foundation Teen Abstinence Ambassador, to give her speech about abstinence. When Kate Walsh, of "Private Practice" and a member of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, heard the news she posted the following tweet: “Welcome to the Idiocracy! RT @elliekirsh: @katewalsh please join students at Wash.U. to boycott Bristol Palin's speech on abstinence. What does she know about college or abstaining?”
Some points I must make about this:
1. Why does someone have to "know about college" in order to speak at a college function? There are actors and self-help gurus and all sorts of people who regularly speak at college functions who have never gone to college a day in their lives. In fact, there are people who've never been to college who have received honorary doctorate degrees! So suggesting that someone shouldn't speak at a college function just because they don't "know [anything] about college," is asinine.
2. Yes, it's true that Bristol didn't abstain from sex, and yes she got pregnant, but it seems to me that someone who has made a mistake and learned from it would be the perfect advocate for not doing it in the first place! Parents are constantly trying to tell their children not the make the same mistakes that they made, so why is it inappropriate for Bristol Palin to do the same thing? Wouldn't it make more sense for someone who has gone through the experience, and therefore knows a thing or two about the consequences of those actions, to speak about NOT doing the same thing? Hello, duh!
3. In a followup story it was reported that Palin will not be attending, due to the controversy. The list of attendees reported didn't directly indicate that a replacement abstinence speaker would attend, though it did mention the Catholic Student Center, which I imagine would be heavily pro-abstinence. If this "Sexual Responsibility Week" event does not have someone discussing abstinence then the whole thing is a complete farce. Kate Walsh's comments (and her affiliation with Planned Parenthood) suggest that she is anti-abstinence. Her comments make it sound as if abstinence is some sort of egregious violation of the natural order. Despite Planned Parenthood's contention that they do teach abstinence they say they want abstinence to be taught "properly" without the "misinformation" that is "generally" given out by pro-abstinence advocates (a specifically cited example is, "condoms don't work"). Walsh's attitude, and the attitude of many, particularly liberals, is not only irresponsible, it's dangerous.
Plenty of evidence shows that abstinence is truly the only way in which to prevent pregnancy and the transmission or development of disease (e.g. AIDS, and cervical or penile cancer, respectively). But that's not even the end of it. Society has degenerated to such a degree that sex has become completely meaningless. For many it has almost become a rite of passage. A recent letter to Dear Annie showed this perfectly. A mother was writing in to complain about her daughter's boyfriend and how he was "withholding" himself from her daughter. She couldn't understand why her daughter was putting up with this attitude and desperately wanted help to know what she should do. Thankfully, Dear Annie is far more intelligent than this mother, and told her that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the situation and, far from that, the mother should back off and understand that they are perfectly within their rights to not have sex! The idea that someone would have to be told that NOT having sex is perfectly alright, is mind-boggling!
Another recent news report noted that more and more people don't understand why they are even getting married. The present rate of divorce bears this out. The lack of understanding of what marriage truly is and is for, is a the root of the problem. Because people no longer understand the concept of marriage, they have no respect for it. The ease with which a divorce can be obtained helps to fuel the problem. The only solution is education. Marriage isn't meant to be a hostile take-over, nor is it meant to be an excuse for receipt of benefits (of any kind). Marriage is also not easy, nor was it ever meant to be easy. Marriage is a lot of work - work that too many people just don't want to put forth. But until people understand this, accept this, and actually start working...then society is going to continue to spiral into the pit of Hell.
Some points I must make about this:
1. Why does someone have to "know about college" in order to speak at a college function? There are actors and self-help gurus and all sorts of people who regularly speak at college functions who have never gone to college a day in their lives. In fact, there are people who've never been to college who have received honorary doctorate degrees! So suggesting that someone shouldn't speak at a college function just because they don't "know [anything] about college," is asinine.
2. Yes, it's true that Bristol didn't abstain from sex, and yes she got pregnant, but it seems to me that someone who has made a mistake and learned from it would be the perfect advocate for not doing it in the first place! Parents are constantly trying to tell their children not the make the same mistakes that they made, so why is it inappropriate for Bristol Palin to do the same thing? Wouldn't it make more sense for someone who has gone through the experience, and therefore knows a thing or two about the consequences of those actions, to speak about NOT doing the same thing? Hello, duh!
3. In a followup story it was reported that Palin will not be attending, due to the controversy. The list of attendees reported didn't directly indicate that a replacement abstinence speaker would attend, though it did mention the Catholic Student Center, which I imagine would be heavily pro-abstinence. If this "Sexual Responsibility Week" event does not have someone discussing abstinence then the whole thing is a complete farce. Kate Walsh's comments (and her affiliation with Planned Parenthood) suggest that she is anti-abstinence. Her comments make it sound as if abstinence is some sort of egregious violation of the natural order. Despite Planned Parenthood's contention that they do teach abstinence they say they want abstinence to be taught "properly" without the "misinformation" that is "generally" given out by pro-abstinence advocates (a specifically cited example is, "condoms don't work"). Walsh's attitude, and the attitude of many, particularly liberals, is not only irresponsible, it's dangerous.
Plenty of evidence shows that abstinence is truly the only way in which to prevent pregnancy and the transmission or development of disease (e.g. AIDS, and cervical or penile cancer, respectively). But that's not even the end of it. Society has degenerated to such a degree that sex has become completely meaningless. For many it has almost become a rite of passage. A recent letter to Dear Annie showed this perfectly. A mother was writing in to complain about her daughter's boyfriend and how he was "withholding" himself from her daughter. She couldn't understand why her daughter was putting up with this attitude and desperately wanted help to know what she should do. Thankfully, Dear Annie is far more intelligent than this mother, and told her that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the situation and, far from that, the mother should back off and understand that they are perfectly within their rights to not have sex! The idea that someone would have to be told that NOT having sex is perfectly alright, is mind-boggling!
Another recent news report noted that more and more people don't understand why they are even getting married. The present rate of divorce bears this out. The lack of understanding of what marriage truly is and is for, is a the root of the problem. Because people no longer understand the concept of marriage, they have no respect for it. The ease with which a divorce can be obtained helps to fuel the problem. The only solution is education. Marriage isn't meant to be a hostile take-over, nor is it meant to be an excuse for receipt of benefits (of any kind). Marriage is also not easy, nor was it ever meant to be easy. Marriage is a lot of work - work that too many people just don't want to put forth. But until people understand this, accept this, and actually start working...then society is going to continue to spiral into the pit of Hell.
