In case you haven't picked up a newspaper lately, or watched any non-fiction TV that doesn't have the word "Jersey" in it, let me sum up a few of the most popular news stories for you:
For those of you who advocate the second amendment (that's the right to bear arms if you're not up to date on the U.S. constitution), worry not. Sarah Palin is fighting your battles for you at the Safari Club convention. That's right, she's rallying a bunch of people in ankle-length fur coats and necklaces made of exotic teeth to take up their semi-automatic weapons, fly to a foreign country, hop in a humvee, and shoot a bunch of animals, not for the purpose of feeding their families, but for creating a zoo of death in their basements. What, Grandma didn't have a recipe for leopard stew?
Good luck convincing Capitol Hill to loosen gun laws with this crack team representing you.
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/30/sarah-palin-s-gun-control-warnings-at-safari-club-international.html
Hate gay people? Eat at Chick Fil-A!
Or at least that's how some people have been interpreting this chicken chain's business practices. Apparently they run a foundation called WinShape that helps married couples maintain healthy marriages. They claimed that the curriculum taught on the retreats is aimed at heterosexual couples, which caused people to infer that Chick Fil-A bans gay couples from the counseling. But, according to the following article, that's untrue. Still, they play Christian music in some of their stores. That's enough to make any non-Christian uncomfortable. You know what they say, don't pray where you eat. Wait, "pray" is not the word I'm looking for...
http://www.ajc.com/business/chick-fil-a-counters-821566.html
Here's some breaking news: Someone bought the first-ever map of the US for $1.8 million. Great investment, buddy. A map that shows Virginia stretching from the Chesapeake to the Ohio River. Don't give away your GPS just yet.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/30/AR2011013003337.html
Apparently if you want to sell drugs legally, all you have to do is disguise them as bath salts. Great job, DEA. Nothing gets past you. Fifty dollars for a tiny packet of aromatherapy. That's not suspicious at all.
-Gee, honey, little Petey sure has been taking a lot of baths lately.
-Oh, well, he's getting to that age where hygiene matters.
Actually, he's addicted to meth.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/30/us-drugs-bathsalts-idINTRE70T3PR20110130
Next thing you know, they'll be selling medical marijuana under the guise of a soft drink. Oh wait...
http://gizmodo.com/5746723/canna-cola-a-soda-spiked-with-marijuana
No Christians or big-game hunters were harmed in the making of this blog.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Take off your tie, or you're fired.
This is what John Stone, a car salesman at a dealership in Chicago was told by his boss last week. He wore a Greenbay Packers tie to work, and because his manager was a Bears fan, the manager asked Stone to remove his tie. Twice.
Now, I don't really care about football, but I know that people can get pretty emotional about their team loyalties. But to ask someone to remove a tie that supports the competing team? That seems unreasonable.
To fire that person because they refused to remove their neckwear seems even more unreasonable. And yet, it happened.
Is this what the world is coming to? People are so stubborn and sensitive about a sport that they are willing to seriously threaten the livelihood of someone merely because they support a different team?
Well that manager is really kicking himself now. Not only does he look like a complete idiot and a sore loser for firing someone because their necktie reminded him that their team beat his team, but now Stone is getting calls from Packers fans all over the country who want to buy a car from him and only him!
And he's been offered a job at another dealership by a guy who felt sympathy for him when he read about his story in the news. So I guess it's a happy ending. But still, it makes you wonder about that manager: was there really nothing more important for him to get upset about?
http://www.suntimes.com/3488244-417/stone-packers-wearing-bears-fired.html
Now, I don't really care about football, but I know that people can get pretty emotional about their team loyalties. But to ask someone to remove a tie that supports the competing team? That seems unreasonable.
To fire that person because they refused to remove their neckwear seems even more unreasonable. And yet, it happened.
Is this what the world is coming to? People are so stubborn and sensitive about a sport that they are willing to seriously threaten the livelihood of someone merely because they support a different team?
Well that manager is really kicking himself now. Not only does he look like a complete idiot and a sore loser for firing someone because their necktie reminded him that their team beat his team, but now Stone is getting calls from Packers fans all over the country who want to buy a car from him and only him!
And he's been offered a job at another dealership by a guy who felt sympathy for him when he read about his story in the news. So I guess it's a happy ending. But still, it makes you wonder about that manager: was there really nothing more important for him to get upset about?
http://www.suntimes.com/3488244-417/stone-packers-wearing-bears-fired.html
Sunday, January 16, 2011
If I had a million dollars...
I would save it, because apparently there is nothing worth buying these days. Let's take a look at some of the popular items for sale right now:
The Shakeweight: Seriously? One, it makes you look like a complete idiot. And two, just go lift a real weight.
"Weights are expensive, though!"
Lift a jug of water.
The Snuggie: It's a bathrobe on backwards. Don't have a bathrobe? Cut two holes in a blanket. Boom. Sleeves.
Pajama Jeans: If your pants are so uncomfortable that you feel like you have to line them with fleece just to leave the house in the morning, you have bigger problems. Not to mention, they only come in one color. If these hybrid pants actually become popular, every woman will be wearing the same exact jeans. How will we tell people apart?
Here's a little gadget I found on asseenontv.com (that's As Seen, not Ass Een), called the Watch Phone. Confused by the overwhelmingly creative name, you ask, "What is this thing?" Well, it's a watch in which you can insert your SIM card (sorry, Verizon), and it becomes, well, a phone. Now, people who are really attracted to this idea will conjure up images of James Bond and think, "Oh yes! I can buy this and be like a really cool spy." Except for the fact that you will stick out like a sore thumb when people see you having a conversation with your watch. Mission abort.
There is a good side to this, though. If you were thinking about inventing something but figured no one would ever buy anything as weird as what you created in your bizarre little mind, think again! Because apparently people will buy just about anything.
The Shakeweight: Seriously? One, it makes you look like a complete idiot. And two, just go lift a real weight.
"Weights are expensive, though!"
Lift a jug of water.
The Snuggie: It's a bathrobe on backwards. Don't have a bathrobe? Cut two holes in a blanket. Boom. Sleeves.
Pajama Jeans: If your pants are so uncomfortable that you feel like you have to line them with fleece just to leave the house in the morning, you have bigger problems. Not to mention, they only come in one color. If these hybrid pants actually become popular, every woman will be wearing the same exact jeans. How will we tell people apart?
Here's a little gadget I found on asseenontv.com (that's As Seen, not Ass Een), called the Watch Phone. Confused by the overwhelmingly creative name, you ask, "What is this thing?" Well, it's a watch in which you can insert your SIM card (sorry, Verizon), and it becomes, well, a phone. Now, people who are really attracted to this idea will conjure up images of James Bond and think, "Oh yes! I can buy this and be like a really cool spy." Except for the fact that you will stick out like a sore thumb when people see you having a conversation with your watch. Mission abort.
There is a good side to this, though. If you were thinking about inventing something but figured no one would ever buy anything as weird as what you created in your bizarre little mind, think again! Because apparently people will buy just about anything.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Poles are Crazy: A Blog about the Changing Magnetic Field
So I'm in South Bend, Indiana last week "on business", as they say, and I'm chatting with my co-workers at breakfast about the weird weather patterns that have been occurring lately. Apparently, on Thursday, every state in the U.S. (including Hawaii) had experienced some snowfall, with the exception of Florida. Lucky bastards.
Anyway, our breakfast remarks reminded me of a similar conversation I had been having with a high school friend a few months before regarding some weird things that have been happening over the past few years. We talked about the tsunami in Indonesia, the earthquake that we had had in Maryland, the record-breaking snowfall last winter, etc. So naturally we start talking about the idea of some outside force or event instigating these bizarre occurrences. Now I'm not talking about extra-terrestrials or gods or anything, but something more along the lines of drastic geological changes. The reversal of the earth's magnetic field for example.
Now, when I bring this up at breakfast, everyone thinks I've gone batty. They assume I'm talking about something that is about as rooted in evidential support as the idea of the world ending in December 2012. They think I'm predicting some kind of bizarre astrological change brought on by the union of Aries and Gemini on the third moon of Jupiter in the 2nd quadrant of the galactic region of--I can't bring myself to go on. The point is, they thought it was completely ridiculous.
Well I am here to tell you that the reversal of the earth's magnetic field is not only possible, but it has happened before! According to NASA, and other scientists at various universities (like Ronald Merrill, professor emeritus in the Department of Earth and Space Sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle, who is featured in the NPR transcript I've created a link for below), the north magnetic pole is constantly changing. In fact, an airport in Tampa had to change the signs on its runways because the runway numbers correspond to the runway's relationship to Earth's magnetic north. Runway 18 (they add a 0 to the end of the number to determine the degree in which the runway is pointing. Runway 0 would be pointing due north, so Runway 18 is pointing 180 degrees in the other direction, aka due south). Scientists spend many days rooting around the North Pole (geographically speaking) looking for the place to which due north has shifted.
I'm not going to go into a lot of the science surrounding the shift in magnetic fields, but the point is, it has happened before (about every 300,000 years), and it will likely happen again. According to magnetic stripes left in the mid-ocean ridges, we haven't had a shift in 780,000 years, so some say that we are overdue. Now I think a lot of the flack that I received for introducing this theory at such an early hour, and in the dining room of the Mishawaka Courtyard by Marriott, was due to the fact that there are a lot of, well, theories out there that claim the world will end because we will no longer be protected from solar winds and magnetic storms from the sun. In reality, while it is possible that we won't be as protected, the worst thing that could happen would be an adverse effect on our power grids. Which, by the way, happened in Quebec in March 1989 as a result of a massive solar flare and --surprise!--they survived. It's actually more likely that the reversal will happen over time, and so we won't lose very much of the protection that we daily take for granted. In fact, maybe if we do experience a massive power failure, it will be like that scene at the end of WALL-E where the power goes out and all of the fat humans on the space shuttle who were previously glued to their computer screens finally realize they are surrounded by other people and begin to interact face-to-face again.
And then of course, there will be the people who don't even notice. I mean, I just realized yesterday that my watch had been set to the wrong time zone for two days.
Sigh.
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/14/132934010/following-a-wandering-north-pole
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/29dec_magneticfield/
Anyway, our breakfast remarks reminded me of a similar conversation I had been having with a high school friend a few months before regarding some weird things that have been happening over the past few years. We talked about the tsunami in Indonesia, the earthquake that we had had in Maryland, the record-breaking snowfall last winter, etc. So naturally we start talking about the idea of some outside force or event instigating these bizarre occurrences. Now I'm not talking about extra-terrestrials or gods or anything, but something more along the lines of drastic geological changes. The reversal of the earth's magnetic field for example.
Now, when I bring this up at breakfast, everyone thinks I've gone batty. They assume I'm talking about something that is about as rooted in evidential support as the idea of the world ending in December 2012. They think I'm predicting some kind of bizarre astrological change brought on by the union of Aries and Gemini on the third moon of Jupiter in the 2nd quadrant of the galactic region of--I can't bring myself to go on. The point is, they thought it was completely ridiculous.
Well I am here to tell you that the reversal of the earth's magnetic field is not only possible, but it has happened before! According to NASA, and other scientists at various universities (like Ronald Merrill, professor emeritus in the Department of Earth and Space Sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle, who is featured in the NPR transcript I've created a link for below), the north magnetic pole is constantly changing. In fact, an airport in Tampa had to change the signs on its runways because the runway numbers correspond to the runway's relationship to Earth's magnetic north. Runway 18 (they add a 0 to the end of the number to determine the degree in which the runway is pointing. Runway 0 would be pointing due north, so Runway 18 is pointing 180 degrees in the other direction, aka due south). Scientists spend many days rooting around the North Pole (geographically speaking) looking for the place to which due north has shifted.
I'm not going to go into a lot of the science surrounding the shift in magnetic fields, but the point is, it has happened before (about every 300,000 years), and it will likely happen again. According to magnetic stripes left in the mid-ocean ridges, we haven't had a shift in 780,000 years, so some say that we are overdue. Now I think a lot of the flack that I received for introducing this theory at such an early hour, and in the dining room of the Mishawaka Courtyard by Marriott, was due to the fact that there are a lot of, well, theories out there that claim the world will end because we will no longer be protected from solar winds and magnetic storms from the sun. In reality, while it is possible that we won't be as protected, the worst thing that could happen would be an adverse effect on our power grids. Which, by the way, happened in Quebec in March 1989 as a result of a massive solar flare and --surprise!--they survived. It's actually more likely that the reversal will happen over time, and so we won't lose very much of the protection that we daily take for granted. In fact, maybe if we do experience a massive power failure, it will be like that scene at the end of WALL-E where the power goes out and all of the fat humans on the space shuttle who were previously glued to their computer screens finally realize they are surrounded by other people and begin to interact face-to-face again.
And then of course, there will be the people who don't even notice. I mean, I just realized yesterday that my watch had been set to the wrong time zone for two days.
Sigh.
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/14/132934010/following-a-wandering-north-pole
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/29dec_magneticfield/
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Mama, put my guns in the ground; I can't shoot them anymore
Well, Mr. Dylan, you may be right. Or at least some government officials think you should be. After 20 people were shot in Arizona last week, including a state senator, some government officials are trying to crack down on gun laws and make them more restrictive. On the one hand, this seems like a good idea. In Arizona, anyone who can pass an instant background check and who is 21 years of age or over can carry a concealed weapon almost anywhere in the state--without a permit. As someone who grew up shooting guns recreationally and learning about gun safety, I am in support of the 2nd amendment. But if people are going to carry concealed weapons, I believe that they should have a permit so that they're at least on record as a gun-carrying citizen. And I think that they should have to pass a psychological test.
Just because I'm not on record as committing any crimes doesn't mean I should be able to walk into a gun show and purchase a semi-automatic Glock that holds 30 rounds. Not only that, but I shouldn't be able to carry said gun, a) because it fires more than 20 rounds, and b) without a permit that puts me on record as being a gun-carrying citizen. I fully support the idea of being able to carry weapons. I mean, think about it: if you walk into a convenience store in Maryland with a .45 in your jacket and a plan to rob the place, you know that the odds that someone else in that store also has a gun in their jacket are slim because it's illegal in that state. But, if you walk into a convenience store with a similar plan in many southern states, you know that not only the shopkeeper but also some of the patrons are most likely carrying as well, and you're much less likely to pull out your gun and try to steal anything or hurt anyone. Because you know that someone will gladly shoot you to protect him or herself.
So yes, when it comes to laws that require psychological testing, more intensive background checks, and enrollment in gun safety classes in order to purchase a gun, I agree. And when it comes to restricting the amount of rounds one clip can fire, I also agree. But when people like Congressman Peter King of New York try to pass a law not allowing any citizen to carry a gun within 1,000 feet of a federal official, I think to myself: how are you going to enforce this? Because here's the sad truth: gun laws only affect people who obey the law. And obviously law-abiding citizens are not the people we need to worry about. Banning guns only puts the rightful gun-owners in danger. It makes it possible for criminals who buy guns on the black market to commit crimes against people who--as a result of such a ban--no longer have a way to protect themselves. Criminals will always have access to firearms--law-abiding citizens who meet the proper mental, psychological, and educational criteria should have access to them as well.
But back to Congressman King's proposed law--are you going to pat down every single person within 1,000 feet of a federal official? Anyone can conceal a weapon! And federal officials don't walk around inside a bubble--they're constantly surrounded by people! Sure, maybe law-abiding citizens would leave their guns at home, but anyone with bad intentions could easily carry a gun wherever and whenever they wanted without any repercussions, until it's too late and they've already shot and/or killed someone. Again, laws only apply to people who obey the law.
And yes, I'm quoting a bumper sticker here, but guns don't kill people; people kill people. It's true. People will always find ways to kill each other. But maybe if someone else had been carrying a gun at that political event last week, someone could have shot Loughner before he took the lives of six innocent people. It's morbid to think about, but as long as criminals have access to firearms (and they always will), gun crimes will occur. It makes sense that properly educated and evaluated citizens should have access to firearms as well, so that we can prevent or at least deter crimes like the one that occurred in Arizona.
We need to be able to protect ourselves and each other, even if it means fighting back with the very actions we are trying to prevent. Until a completely inpenetrable and portable bulletproof vest is invented, there is no other way. I don't disagree with the concept of creating gun laws, but I do think that they need to be reasonable. We have to remember that in the majority of cases, the people toward which these laws are directed are the people who are living outside of the law. The truth is that the opportunity for a gun-carrying citizen to actually use their weapon to prevent another gun crime is rare. But it would be nice to know that I would be able to do so if I was one day confronted with a situation where my only choice was to shoot back.
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110111-714059.html
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/10/132801364/arizona-gun-laws-among-most-lenient-in-u-s?ps=cprs
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/01/11/132844807/gop-congressman-ban-guns-near-federal-officials
Just because I'm not on record as committing any crimes doesn't mean I should be able to walk into a gun show and purchase a semi-automatic Glock that holds 30 rounds. Not only that, but I shouldn't be able to carry said gun, a) because it fires more than 20 rounds, and b) without a permit that puts me on record as being a gun-carrying citizen. I fully support the idea of being able to carry weapons. I mean, think about it: if you walk into a convenience store in Maryland with a .45 in your jacket and a plan to rob the place, you know that the odds that someone else in that store also has a gun in their jacket are slim because it's illegal in that state. But, if you walk into a convenience store with a similar plan in many southern states, you know that not only the shopkeeper but also some of the patrons are most likely carrying as well, and you're much less likely to pull out your gun and try to steal anything or hurt anyone. Because you know that someone will gladly shoot you to protect him or herself.
So yes, when it comes to laws that require psychological testing, more intensive background checks, and enrollment in gun safety classes in order to purchase a gun, I agree. And when it comes to restricting the amount of rounds one clip can fire, I also agree. But when people like Congressman Peter King of New York try to pass a law not allowing any citizen to carry a gun within 1,000 feet of a federal official, I think to myself: how are you going to enforce this? Because here's the sad truth: gun laws only affect people who obey the law. And obviously law-abiding citizens are not the people we need to worry about. Banning guns only puts the rightful gun-owners in danger. It makes it possible for criminals who buy guns on the black market to commit crimes against people who--as a result of such a ban--no longer have a way to protect themselves. Criminals will always have access to firearms--law-abiding citizens who meet the proper mental, psychological, and educational criteria should have access to them as well.
But back to Congressman King's proposed law--are you going to pat down every single person within 1,000 feet of a federal official? Anyone can conceal a weapon! And federal officials don't walk around inside a bubble--they're constantly surrounded by people! Sure, maybe law-abiding citizens would leave their guns at home, but anyone with bad intentions could easily carry a gun wherever and whenever they wanted without any repercussions, until it's too late and they've already shot and/or killed someone. Again, laws only apply to people who obey the law.
And yes, I'm quoting a bumper sticker here, but guns don't kill people; people kill people. It's true. People will always find ways to kill each other. But maybe if someone else had been carrying a gun at that political event last week, someone could have shot Loughner before he took the lives of six innocent people. It's morbid to think about, but as long as criminals have access to firearms (and they always will), gun crimes will occur. It makes sense that properly educated and evaluated citizens should have access to firearms as well, so that we can prevent or at least deter crimes like the one that occurred in Arizona.
We need to be able to protect ourselves and each other, even if it means fighting back with the very actions we are trying to prevent. Until a completely inpenetrable and portable bulletproof vest is invented, there is no other way. I don't disagree with the concept of creating gun laws, but I do think that they need to be reasonable. We have to remember that in the majority of cases, the people toward which these laws are directed are the people who are living outside of the law. The truth is that the opportunity for a gun-carrying citizen to actually use their weapon to prevent another gun crime is rare. But it would be nice to know that I would be able to do so if I was one day confronted with a situation where my only choice was to shoot back.
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110111-714059.html
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/10/132801364/arizona-gun-laws-among-most-lenient-in-u-s?ps=cprs
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/01/11/132844807/gop-congressman-ban-guns-near-federal-officials
Friday, January 7, 2011
Free at last, free at last
So a couple of days ago I'm listening to the radio on the way to work, and I hear this news story about a man in Dallas who was released from prison after it was discovered through investigation of DNA evidence that he was actually innocent. He had been arrested for a 1979 robbery and rape that he did not commit and had then served 30 years in prison for that crime.
On Tuesday, after spending most of his life behind bars, Cornelius Dupree, Jr. was finally set free. But I think the best part about this story is that in 2004, Dupree had a chance to be released from jail, but declined. In order to be set free, he would have to register as a sex offender and undergo additional therapy designed to rehabilitate those who have committed sex crimes. He refused, knowing that under these conditions, he would have to lie and say that he was guilty of this crime.
I think there's a lesson in this man's story--that sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same. Sometimes we have to make sacrifices to maintain our integrity. Even if it isn't on such a large scale, it's still important to stay true to yourself. Don't pretend to be someone else just because you're afraid of what other people might think or because you think that lying about who you are will produce a better short-term result. Think about how much easier life would be if we could wake up every day knowing that we had always stayed true to ourselves.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/06/AR2011010606056.html
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-exoneration_05met.ART.State.Edition1.148a91b.html
p.s. Check out my other blog, especially if you think these blogs are too wordy (Andy): cecinestpasunephoto.tumblr.com
On Tuesday, after spending most of his life behind bars, Cornelius Dupree, Jr. was finally set free. But I think the best part about this story is that in 2004, Dupree had a chance to be released from jail, but declined. In order to be set free, he would have to register as a sex offender and undergo additional therapy designed to rehabilitate those who have committed sex crimes. He refused, knowing that under these conditions, he would have to lie and say that he was guilty of this crime.
I think there's a lesson in this man's story--that sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same. Sometimes we have to make sacrifices to maintain our integrity. Even if it isn't on such a large scale, it's still important to stay true to yourself. Don't pretend to be someone else just because you're afraid of what other people might think or because you think that lying about who you are will produce a better short-term result. Think about how much easier life would be if we could wake up every day knowing that we had always stayed true to ourselves.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/06/AR2011010606056.html
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-exoneration_05met.ART.State.Edition1.148a91b.html
p.s. Check out my other blog, especially if you think these blogs are too wordy (Andy): cecinestpasunephoto.tumblr.com
Monday, January 3, 2011
Saved by the...trash?
The Wall Street Journal published a story today about a young man whose attempt to take his own life was luckily halted...by a heap of trash bags. Apparently trash pickup in New York City was delayed due to recent snowfall, and so when this young man decided to jump out of the window of his 9th-story apartment, he landed on a pile of trash instead of on the sidewalk.
Unfortunately, there were about 4000 deaths in Arkansas that could not be prevented by waiting piles of stinking garbage: the deaths of the mysterious falling blackbirds on New Year's Eve. Except, their deaths are not as mysterious as they seem. Apparently, the immense clouds of blackbirds that periodically fill the skies of good ol' Beebe, AK, were disturbed either by recent thunderstorms or --more likely--by a bunch of Beebers (Beebens? Beebes? Beebites.) setting off fireworks to celebrate the last day of 2010. Scientists claim that birds who were trying to fly low and avoid the explosions probably ended up either crashing into houses or into each other.
I know birds have bad vision, but I mean, come on.
Anyway, next time you're taking out the trash, just think(!), you could be saving a life. Also, watch out for falling dead birds.
Oh, and apparently fish?
http://online.wsj.com/article/APd78a8fd3d2ac4845a51c38fc93eeab11.html - saved by trash
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/04/us/04beebe.html?src=twrhp - birds, fish
Unfortunately, there were about 4000 deaths in Arkansas that could not be prevented by waiting piles of stinking garbage: the deaths of the mysterious falling blackbirds on New Year's Eve. Except, their deaths are not as mysterious as they seem. Apparently, the immense clouds of blackbirds that periodically fill the skies of good ol' Beebe, AK, were disturbed either by recent thunderstorms or --more likely--by a bunch of Beebers (Beebens? Beebes? Beebites.) setting off fireworks to celebrate the last day of 2010. Scientists claim that birds who were trying to fly low and avoid the explosions probably ended up either crashing into houses or into each other.
I know birds have bad vision, but I mean, come on.
Anyway, next time you're taking out the trash, just think(!), you could be saving a life. Also, watch out for falling dead birds.
Oh, and apparently fish?
http://online.wsj.com/article/APd78a8fd3d2ac4845a51c38fc93eeab11.html - saved by trash
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/04/us/04beebe.html?src=twrhp - birds, fish
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Wake-up call
If you scan the daily news headlines every day like I do, I'm sure you've seen the little story about the iPhone alarm glitch. Apparently, Apple software encountered some kind of programming error and alarms set for January 1st and 2nd of the new year failed to go off.
Of course there was an uproar. People are posting and blogging and tweeting and fleeting and meeting and greeting and schmeety-tee-feeting about how their alarms didn't go off and they overslept and ohhhh my gosh their lives are ruined.
But as I peruse this little news story, I cannot help but think to myself: iPhone owners, get a clock.
This little "fiasco" just goes to show that the dependency of humankind on technological devices is growing at a rapidly alarming (sorry) rate. I mean, I, too use my cellular phone as an alarm clock. But you know what else I use? An alarm clock. One that plugs into the wall. And works no matter what day of what year it is. I mean, I'm not talking one of those archaic things with hands that actually ticks; it has little blue numbers that digitally display themselves and--ooooh get this--it's atomic. Yeah, remember when that was cool? You didn't even have to set the clock--it did everything itself!
Now people get anxious when they leave the house without their cell phone and then get miffed when its alarm fails to go off. Well, yes, the odds of a programming error occurring are much greater when your entire life is centered around a computerized device.
Don't get me wrong--I'm not trying to criticize people who use smart phones. But don't get upset when some error occurs and your life is thrown off a little bit. I remember when I broke my cell phone in college and had to wait a week for a replacement. At first I was terrified about having to go without a method of constant digital communication, but then after a few hours without my cell phone, I realized that the feeling I was experiencing wasn't anxiety--it was freedom. No more pressure to immediately respond to text messages, to always answer my ringing phone, to always make sure the ring tone is silent during class, to always know exactly what time it is.
The point is, if one day we experience some kind of strange solar flare and all of our cell phones are rendered useless...
we'll still be okay. And I don't think people realize that.
Maybe it's just me. I mean after all, I listen to vinyl records and read paper books and write notes with ink on paper. Up until a month ago, I still had dial-up Internet for crying out loud (yes, it still exists). But I see people who are obsessed with checking their social networking sites every few minutes from their phone, who spend hours looking at profiles on facebook, who play soccer in front of a television, and I think to myself, Just go talk to that person--even if it's on the phone--, or just go outside and play a real sport in the real outdoors!
I just feel as though people are becoming increasingly dependent on technology. It's true, in many cases, that it makes our lives easier and more efficient. But maybe once in a while, we should take a break from technology, even if it's just to reassure ourselves that we can survive without it.
Of course there was an uproar. People are posting and blogging and tweeting and fleeting and meeting and greeting and schmeety-tee-feeting about how their alarms didn't go off and they overslept and ohhhh my gosh their lives are ruined.
But as I peruse this little news story, I cannot help but think to myself: iPhone owners, get a clock.
This little "fiasco" just goes to show that the dependency of humankind on technological devices is growing at a rapidly alarming (sorry) rate. I mean, I, too use my cellular phone as an alarm clock. But you know what else I use? An alarm clock. One that plugs into the wall. And works no matter what day of what year it is. I mean, I'm not talking one of those archaic things with hands that actually ticks; it has little blue numbers that digitally display themselves and--ooooh get this--it's atomic. Yeah, remember when that was cool? You didn't even have to set the clock--it did everything itself!
Now people get anxious when they leave the house without their cell phone and then get miffed when its alarm fails to go off. Well, yes, the odds of a programming error occurring are much greater when your entire life is centered around a computerized device.
Don't get me wrong--I'm not trying to criticize people who use smart phones. But don't get upset when some error occurs and your life is thrown off a little bit. I remember when I broke my cell phone in college and had to wait a week for a replacement. At first I was terrified about having to go without a method of constant digital communication, but then after a few hours without my cell phone, I realized that the feeling I was experiencing wasn't anxiety--it was freedom. No more pressure to immediately respond to text messages, to always answer my ringing phone, to always make sure the ring tone is silent during class, to always know exactly what time it is.
The point is, if one day we experience some kind of strange solar flare and all of our cell phones are rendered useless...
we'll still be okay. And I don't think people realize that.
Maybe it's just me. I mean after all, I listen to vinyl records and read paper books and write notes with ink on paper. Up until a month ago, I still had dial-up Internet for crying out loud (yes, it still exists). But I see people who are obsessed with checking their social networking sites every few minutes from their phone, who spend hours looking at profiles on facebook, who play soccer in front of a television, and I think to myself, Just go talk to that person--even if it's on the phone--, or just go outside and play a real sport in the real outdoors!
I just feel as though people are becoming increasingly dependent on technology. It's true, in many cases, that it makes our lives easier and more efficient. But maybe once in a while, we should take a break from technology, even if it's just to reassure ourselves that we can survive without it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)