I don't really understand how this works (shocker), but I think these physicists may have discovered the key to Desmond's uniqueness. Either way, it sounds super cool. Also super cool is the fact that they've created an invisibility cloak.
Physicists have created a "hole in time" using the temporal equivalent of an invisibility cloak.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Read This
No, seriously. Read this article to better understand the raping and pillaging of our nation at the hands of those who purport to serve us.
They're all bums and they should all be shown the door. For that to happen, we all need to take more responsibility for ourselves and for each other. The oligarchy in Washington has only been able to reach these obscene levels of corruption because we citizens could not be bothered to truly govern ourselves and to be ever vigilant in protecting ourselves against the tyranny of the privileged few. Apparently, we had better things to do than to pay attention to those who seek to control us and profit from our hard work and their plum positions. Let's all agree to not let that happen again, shall we?
They're all bums and they should all be shown the door. For that to happen, we all need to take more responsibility for ourselves and for each other. The oligarchy in Washington has only been able to reach these obscene levels of corruption because we citizens could not be bothered to truly govern ourselves and to be ever vigilant in protecting ourselves against the tyranny of the privileged few. Apparently, we had better things to do than to pay attention to those who seek to control us and profit from our hard work and their plum positions. Let's all agree to not let that happen again, shall we?
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Small Thoughts
I don't get this, but then again -- I don't have children.
Moms Stage a 'Nurse-In' at Target Stores
Apparently, a Houston mother was asked by several Target employees to retreat to a fitting room to breast-feed her kid and she took offense and staged a national protest, even after the corporate Target office sided with her. This is not a big deal and I know that breast-feeding can be done in public in a modest way, so I don't really have a dog in this fight. But here's part of the Target response that seems somewhat counter-intuitive:
Moms Stage a 'Nurse-In' at Target Stores
Apparently, a Houston mother was asked by several Target employees to retreat to a fitting room to breast-feed her kid and she took offense and staged a national protest, even after the corporate Target office sided with her. This is not a big deal and I know that breast-feeding can be done in public in a modest way, so I don't really have a dog in this fight. But here's part of the Target response that seems somewhat counter-intuitive:
"We kind of just refreshed our team members on our policy to make sure that any guests that come into the store aren't uncomfortable at all," said Chicago Target spokeswoman Ashley Krehoff.What about guests who are uncomfortable being confronted by breast-feeders in the Home & Garden section? It's all rather ridiculous. The moms say they were staging the event to "raise awareness". Awareness of what? That a new mother's breasts produce milk from which to feed their baby? I'm aware.
What Are They Thinking?
Hello and Happy Christmas. I've been stuffing my face since Thanksgiving, ergo blogging has been non-existent. It's hard to type with a turkey leg in one hand. Anyway ...
I've been thinking about some things. Some big, some small.
Among the bigger thoughts is this: what the hell is going on with the Republican Party? I no longer consider myself a member, although I will likely vote Republican (at least in national elections) for the rest of my life. We have a presidential election next year where the stakes are as high as they've ever been (and yes, I know we say that every four years): Supreme Court nominations, Obamacare, sustained unemployment, class warfare, global economic instability, domestic economic instability -- we're 12 years into the 21st century and so far it looks like the dawn of a very scary new world.
The Republicans are up against a guy who -- despite breaking many promises to his followers (not closing Gitmo, engaging in another war in Libya, extending the Patriot Act, cozying up to Wall Street, etc.) -- remains personally popular. Personally, I think he's as charismatic as a lamp post, but many others disagree.
Who do the Republicans have to oppose the sitting President? A motley crew of has-beens, never-will-bes, and not-ready-for-primetime players. The alleged shoe-in and inevitable nominee (because somebody somewhere said he's the only one who can win, so that's why we have to vote for him), Mitt Romney, is the original architect of that most odious of this President's "accomplishments" -- The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare. That is one hell of a liability. Not because Mitt Romney made a mistake and overextended the purview of the government of Massachusetts in constructing his own "Romneycare" version, but because to this day, he continues to defend it and think it's a good idea! It is my opinion that he is a mannequin seeking the presidency for his own personal fulfillment, not because he seeks to right a ship that has long been teetering in the wrong direction.
Ron Paul. Unfortunately, Libertarian's most famous face. A man so isolationist he would not have lifted finger to stop the Holocaust. Anti-Israel. If the newsletters with his name on them are to be believed, anti-non-white people in general. He says much that makes sense and I admire the consistency of his ideology over the years. But he is a kook who is not fit for the presidency.
Michele Bachmann. A congresswoman who has not held an executive position in government. She's also an attractive Christian Republican woman and she will be destroyed by the media if she gets anywhere near the nomination (the Sarah Palin rule).
Herman Cain. A successful businessman and someone I found to be charismatic. However, it seemed as if you could ask him a question one day and get one answer and the same question again the next day and get a completely different answer (still not sure what his position on abortion is, but I liked one of his answers -- the other responses not so much). He was not ready to be a candidate for president. I have no idea what happened or didn't happen concerning the allegations of those women, but let me say this: I am personally okay with our next president have wild orgies (except in the West Wing/Oval Office) in the White House as long as he cuts spending (big time), rolls back government intrusion into my life and the lives of my fellow citizens, repeals Obamacare, and fosters an environment of true freedom in this country again.
Which brings us to Newt Gingrich. I go back and forth on him. I have no one else to vote for. But he's an insider and a technocrat who sees government as the solution to a whole host of problems. He is not humble. I do think we need a humble president because, truly, the issues of our world and our lives cannot be solved by the government. Please remember that. A humble man would know that.
Oh, and Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum. Who? (Now watch, Rick Santorum will be the nominee.)
Everyone has baggage. There is no perfect human being and there is no perfect presidential candidate. I will never agree with any candidate on every issue. That is not the goal. My goal is trust. Do you say what you believe and believe what you say? I think that's why Ron Paul has been successful -- you know where you stand. I really don't know who I'll vote for in the primary. I keep returning to Newt because I think it would be a very entertaining campaign. I'm not sure that any of them could beat Obama in an election where the incumbent is extremely vulnerable. And yet, the Republican Party has nominated these jokers. It's disheartening.
Oh my, I almost forgot about Rick Perry. At one point, I thought he was going to be my guy. Not looking that way anymore. He's ... not ready. I'm not actually as worried about him in office, but I think I'd cringe too much during the campaign.
I've been thinking about some things. Some big, some small.
Among the bigger thoughts is this: what the hell is going on with the Republican Party? I no longer consider myself a member, although I will likely vote Republican (at least in national elections) for the rest of my life. We have a presidential election next year where the stakes are as high as they've ever been (and yes, I know we say that every four years): Supreme Court nominations, Obamacare, sustained unemployment, class warfare, global economic instability, domestic economic instability -- we're 12 years into the 21st century and so far it looks like the dawn of a very scary new world.
The Republicans are up against a guy who -- despite breaking many promises to his followers (not closing Gitmo, engaging in another war in Libya, extending the Patriot Act, cozying up to Wall Street, etc.) -- remains personally popular. Personally, I think he's as charismatic as a lamp post, but many others disagree.
Who do the Republicans have to oppose the sitting President? A motley crew of has-beens, never-will-bes, and not-ready-for-primetime players. The alleged shoe-in and inevitable nominee (because somebody somewhere said he's the only one who can win, so that's why we have to vote for him), Mitt Romney, is the original architect of that most odious of this President's "accomplishments" -- The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare. That is one hell of a liability. Not because Mitt Romney made a mistake and overextended the purview of the government of Massachusetts in constructing his own "Romneycare" version, but because to this day, he continues to defend it and think it's a good idea! It is my opinion that he is a mannequin seeking the presidency for his own personal fulfillment, not because he seeks to right a ship that has long been teetering in the wrong direction.
Ron Paul. Unfortunately, Libertarian's most famous face. A man so isolationist he would not have lifted finger to stop the Holocaust. Anti-Israel. If the newsletters with his name on them are to be believed, anti-non-white people in general. He says much that makes sense and I admire the consistency of his ideology over the years. But he is a kook who is not fit for the presidency.
Michele Bachmann. A congresswoman who has not held an executive position in government. She's also an attractive Christian Republican woman and she will be destroyed by the media if she gets anywhere near the nomination (the Sarah Palin rule).
Herman Cain. A successful businessman and someone I found to be charismatic. However, it seemed as if you could ask him a question one day and get one answer and the same question again the next day and get a completely different answer (still not sure what his position on abortion is, but I liked one of his answers -- the other responses not so much). He was not ready to be a candidate for president. I have no idea what happened or didn't happen concerning the allegations of those women, but let me say this: I am personally okay with our next president have wild orgies (except in the West Wing/Oval Office) in the White House as long as he cuts spending (big time), rolls back government intrusion into my life and the lives of my fellow citizens, repeals Obamacare, and fosters an environment of true freedom in this country again.
Which brings us to Newt Gingrich. I go back and forth on him. I have no one else to vote for. But he's an insider and a technocrat who sees government as the solution to a whole host of problems. He is not humble. I do think we need a humble president because, truly, the issues of our world and our lives cannot be solved by the government. Please remember that. A humble man would know that.
Oh, and Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum. Who? (Now watch, Rick Santorum will be the nominee.)
Everyone has baggage. There is no perfect human being and there is no perfect presidential candidate. I will never agree with any candidate on every issue. That is not the goal. My goal is trust. Do you say what you believe and believe what you say? I think that's why Ron Paul has been successful -- you know where you stand. I really don't know who I'll vote for in the primary. I keep returning to Newt because I think it would be a very entertaining campaign. I'm not sure that any of them could beat Obama in an election where the incumbent is extremely vulnerable. And yet, the Republican Party has nominated these jokers. It's disheartening.
Oh my, I almost forgot about Rick Perry. At one point, I thought he was going to be my guy. Not looking that way anymore. He's ... not ready. I'm not actually as worried about him in office, but I think I'd cringe too much during the campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)