A few thoughts and opinions about some lines, more specifically, those lines forming at the TSA checkpoints.
The most common reply to the furor over the new screening process I've read from anonymous TSA screeners is that they are just doing their jobs and complying with the regulations required by the TSA. I would like to ask them if there is a line they wouldn't cross in following orders. Seems that a whole lot of folks are thinking this new procedure is one the screeners should be refusing to follow. Since the screeners don't seem to think so...I'm wondering where the line is they wouldn't cross. Is there any regulation that TSA could implement that would cause the screener to refuse?
While randomness has its place in security...when you're looking for something (such as bombs) random isn't really effective. If you think random is the best way to go about finding something...try it the next time you lose your car keys. Most sane folks start looking for their keys in the last place they saw them. Seems the same principle could be helpful if you're looking for bombs...look in the last place you saw them. Here's a hint...it wasn't on a three year old or a nun.
One thing that might make this level of intrusiveness more acceptable..NO exceptions. Subject everyone, no exemptions for politicians or their families. I wonder if Mr. Obama would think this was such a grand idea if some stranger was pawing on his daughters. They are as likely to be carrying a bomb as I am...so why not?
One bit of sad irony. The TSA is regularly producing and viewing nude images of girls under the age of 18. If these same girls had taken similar images of themselves they could be charged with producing child pornography. Go Google "sexting" and you might be a bit shocked. This is not to be construed as me being for sexting...but a government agent should not be allowed to do to you what you can't do to yourself.
All of this might be minimally tolerable if it actually made us safer. I can find no evidence that it has made us safer. I can find no news items about a single incident of a TSA screener actually catching a terrorist with any type of device that could have been used to bring down an airliner. I looked on the TSA webpage and you would think that if one of their screeners had caught an actual terrorist (versus some overbusy soul who didn't completely inventory his carry-on prior to getting in line) they would have put out a press release. None that I could find. If anyone can provide a link to such a catch..please do so.
What will I personally do if confronted with the choice of the flash or the grope? I honestly can't say while sitting here in my house..it will depend on a lot of factors when actually confronted with that choice. The biggest being how important it is to get to wherever I'm going. I'm thinking the picture would be my choice...wonder if I could request a 5X7.
take care... t
Monday, November 22, 2010
Thursday, August 5, 2010
In Defense of Marriage...or maybe not...
Twenty eight years ago today Cyrilee and I stood before a very small gathering of folks and acknowledged our discovery of a bond and connection between the two of us. For those of you not quite through your first cup of coffee, that means we got married. Thank you Cyrilee, I love you.
It is with no small bit of interest that I note marriage is once again in much discussion. One of the fascinating parts of the discussion is the un-discussed fact that in English we sometimes use the same word to talk about two different concepts. Take the word ‘stole’ as an example. It can mean ‘a wrap, often of luxurious fur, for the shoulders’ or it can mean ‘to have wrongly taken something from someone’. Those are off the fingertip definitions not Webster’s words.
The first concept, and most important one, the word ‘marriage’ represents is a deeply personal bond between two people. That is what our marriage is..a deep personal bond and connection, born beyond this earthly plane, a merging of two into one, a combining of spirit, a unity. A funny thing about that concept of marriage… no one else gets to, or even can, define it or alter it.
It doesn’t matter what happens in the world..that bond doesn’t change. A twenty something stripper marries an eighty something billionaire for his money…doesn’t change a thing. Various TV networks want to create a series of game shows with the prize being wedlock…doesn’t change a thing. Hordes of people rushing to Las Vegas with $55 clutched in their hands to be married…doesn’t change a thing. All the legislatures in the world get together and redefine ‘marriage’.. doesn’t change a thing. It’s a bond that is beyond the abilities of other mortals to affect.
The other concept represented by the word marriage is the civil contract, the very thing the recurring fuss is all about. Some seem to want to make others believe the fuss is about that first concept of marriage..but it’s not. This fuss is about property rights and fiscal responsibilities and privileges. It’s about the civil enforcement of the disposition of goods. The proof of this separation of the two concepts fall in the fact you can change either and not affect the other.
Two couples stand before some gathered folks, utter some words in front of an appropriate civil or religious authority and enter into a contract of marriage. Couple one has a mutual bond likely to survive beyond their current manifestation on this earthly plane. Couple two was bored on a Saturday afternoon and thought “Why not, it'll help with the taxes.” If those two couples reside in the same state, then both will sign the same civil contract of marriage and be subject to the same conditions of property rights and fiscal responsibilities/ privileges. Totally different in the first concept, equal in the second.
Two other couples stand before some gathered folks, utter some words in front of an appropriate civil or religious authority and enter into a contract of marriage. Both couples have discovered equally strong bonds and connections with their betrothed. Couple one registers their marriage with the state using the standard license for their particular location. Couple two has chosen to enrich a small whoredom of lawyers and create an instrument which outlines property rights and fiscal responsibilities/privileges quite different than that offered by the standard marriage license of their locality. Equal in the first concept, totally different in the second.
The real marriage part of a marriage happens in a place that cannot be touched by the tentacles of civil authority, the rest is just about property and money. Enforcement of rights to property and fiscal responsibilities are the proper arenas for government oversight..but don’t try to dress up those squabbles about the stuff as being about the real aspects of marriage.
If you really want to puzzle around about marriage though..consider this fact. Since September 29, 2001, I have been a duly ordained clergy with the Universal Life Church. Upon submitting the proper forms and fees (it always seems to be about the money, doesn’t it?) I would be duly authorized to preside over the acknowledgement of that special bond and connection between two people or the combining of fiscal affairs (whichever the case may be) and join two people in marriage.
I’ll leave you to your puzzlement now… The Right Reverend Migoi.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Just a couple of Friday things...
Just a couple of unrelated things, not of any real import, that have floated through my brain lately.
Sometimes people will say, "He has his mother's eyes." Turns out that was true. Just like my mother, and her father, my eyes apparently have a genetic predisposition for early onset cataracts. Apparently everyone eventually gets cataracts if you manage to stay within this mortal coil long enough. For a few lucky folks, long enough is pretty short, 45 to 50 years. I'm one of those lucky few.
Having completed the overhaul of my right eyeball, it's apparent that I had managed to cruise a lot further into Mr. Magoo-land than I thought. My vision in my right eye is now crystal clear from about arms length out to near infinity. Left eye not so much...but it will be fixed on the 28th. Binocular vision will be a good thing.
In trying to obtain an Arkansas teaching license through reciprocity, I found I needed to order transcripts from three different schools. Two of the schools are public institutions and one is a private, for profit institution. Vastly different experiences.
For the one public institution, I had to down load and print out a form from the internet. After filling it out, the quickest way I could get it moving toward me was to fax the form and pay 150% more than the normal fee so it would be rush processed and take less than a month to get to me (actual estimate from the website).
For the second public institution, I had to download and fax a similar form, but the transcript was free and has about a one week arrival estimate. No options for speeding up that process.
For the private, for profit institution, I called a toll free number, provided some verifying information to the pleasant woman on the phone, and had the transcript sitting in my email inbox before I hung up the phone about 3 minutes later. No cost but 3 minutes of my time. Just some food for thought as we transition from private entity health care payment systems to government controlled/mandated health care payment systems.
Take care..t
Sometimes people will say, "He has his mother's eyes." Turns out that was true. Just like my mother, and her father, my eyes apparently have a genetic predisposition for early onset cataracts. Apparently everyone eventually gets cataracts if you manage to stay within this mortal coil long enough. For a few lucky folks, long enough is pretty short, 45 to 50 years. I'm one of those lucky few.
Having completed the overhaul of my right eyeball, it's apparent that I had managed to cruise a lot further into Mr. Magoo-land than I thought. My vision in my right eye is now crystal clear from about arms length out to near infinity. Left eye not so much...but it will be fixed on the 28th. Binocular vision will be a good thing.
In trying to obtain an Arkansas teaching license through reciprocity, I found I needed to order transcripts from three different schools. Two of the schools are public institutions and one is a private, for profit institution. Vastly different experiences.
For the one public institution, I had to down load and print out a form from the internet. After filling it out, the quickest way I could get it moving toward me was to fax the form and pay 150% more than the normal fee so it would be rush processed and take less than a month to get to me (actual estimate from the website).
For the second public institution, I had to download and fax a similar form, but the transcript was free and has about a one week arrival estimate. No options for speeding up that process.
For the private, for profit institution, I called a toll free number, provided some verifying information to the pleasant woman on the phone, and had the transcript sitting in my email inbox before I hung up the phone about 3 minutes later. No cost but 3 minutes of my time. Just some food for thought as we transition from private entity health care payment systems to government controlled/mandated health care payment systems.
Take care..t
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Violence
I've been watching the news stream the last few days and it cranked the two functioning brain cells into action.
Several Democratic Party Politicians (hereafter DPPs) have reported receiving threats of violence after the passing of a bill that rearranges the health care payment system and expands control by the federal government to liberty killing dimensions. I have a difficult time calling it health care reform...it was anything but.
It's quite possible that they are actually receiving these threats..I don't know but have full faith in the various federal law enforcement agencies will figure that out. There are a couple of things I do know though....
The threat makers are just as likely to be on the same side of various issues as the DPPs that are receiving the threats. Past history bears this out.
The DPPs are claiming that the TEA Party crowds, Republicans, libertarians, and various right wing/conservative groups/folks (hereafter called Patriots) are very dangerous and responsible for the threats. I know that the DPPs don't really believe the Patriots are near as dangerous as the DPPs claim to believe they are. I know this by simple observation.
If the Patriots were really as dangerous or unhinged as the DPPs claim them to be...the DPPs would not talk to/about the Patriots the way they do. Ever been to a large city and seen the homeless person standing by the street sign, holding a very loud, excited conversation with the street sign? (Hereafter referred to as SSD - Steet Sign Debater.) Ever watch the ordinary citizens pass by the SSD? They don't talk to the SSD at all. They avoid eye contact with the SSD. They certainly don't never, ever go up to the SSD and call the SSD vulgar names or antagonize the SSD. Why? Because the SSD really is potentially dangerous and unhinged...probably not but people don't take chances when the possibility is there.
If the Patriots are so unhinged and dangerous, why in the would did Pelosi and various DPPs parade right through the middle of them on Sunday? As the House was gathering to decimate the U.S. economy and liberty, a sizable crowd of Patriots had gathered. Pelosi chose to parade right through the middle of these ever so dangerous Patriots... yep real scary folks gathered out there.
Which is why I know the DPPs and their citizen supporters don't really think there is any possibility of the Patriots being unhinged...if there was, no one would be antagonizing them.
Being a supporter of the original TEA Party movement (though not actually thrilled about any efforts to form an actual TEA Party political party) I don't really mind it when a DPP supporter calls me a "teabagger" (a very vulgar, derogatory term much in favor by DPP's up to and including our dear ole BHO).
Use of that term tells me a couple of things. One is that I've already won the debate before it ever starts. Only someone completely devoid of any factual argument would resort to vulgar name calling. The other thing it tells me is that my side of the debate is correct. The vulgar name calling is due to the other person being frustrated at not having any factual information to present. The only downside is that is difficult to keep from laughing when grown adult have to resort to that type of thing.
Since I consider myself lumped in with the Patriots mentioned above, I guess I'll issue my obligatory threat to the DPP's... Come November, I'm gonna whack you with that ole ballot box so hard your mama will be voting you out of office.
..take care.. t
Several Democratic Party Politicians (hereafter DPPs) have reported receiving threats of violence after the passing of a bill that rearranges the health care payment system and expands control by the federal government to liberty killing dimensions. I have a difficult time calling it health care reform...it was anything but.
It's quite possible that they are actually receiving these threats..I don't know but have full faith in the various federal law enforcement agencies will figure that out. There are a couple of things I do know though....
The threat makers are just as likely to be on the same side of various issues as the DPPs that are receiving the threats. Past history bears this out.
The DPPs are claiming that the TEA Party crowds, Republicans, libertarians, and various right wing/conservative groups/folks (hereafter called Patriots) are very dangerous and responsible for the threats. I know that the DPPs don't really believe the Patriots are near as dangerous as the DPPs claim to believe they are. I know this by simple observation.
If the Patriots were really as dangerous or unhinged as the DPPs claim them to be...the DPPs would not talk to/about the Patriots the way they do. Ever been to a large city and seen the homeless person standing by the street sign, holding a very loud, excited conversation with the street sign? (Hereafter referred to as SSD - Steet Sign Debater.) Ever watch the ordinary citizens pass by the SSD? They don't talk to the SSD at all. They avoid eye contact with the SSD. They certainly don't never, ever go up to the SSD and call the SSD vulgar names or antagonize the SSD. Why? Because the SSD really is potentially dangerous and unhinged...probably not but people don't take chances when the possibility is there.
If the Patriots are so unhinged and dangerous, why in the would did Pelosi and various DPPs parade right through the middle of them on Sunday? As the House was gathering to decimate the U.S. economy and liberty, a sizable crowd of Patriots had gathered. Pelosi chose to parade right through the middle of these ever so dangerous Patriots... yep real scary folks gathered out there.
Which is why I know the DPPs and their citizen supporters don't really think there is any possibility of the Patriots being unhinged...if there was, no one would be antagonizing them.
Being a supporter of the original TEA Party movement (though not actually thrilled about any efforts to form an actual TEA Party political party) I don't really mind it when a DPP supporter calls me a "teabagger" (a very vulgar, derogatory term much in favor by DPP's up to and including our dear ole BHO).
Use of that term tells me a couple of things. One is that I've already won the debate before it ever starts. Only someone completely devoid of any factual argument would resort to vulgar name calling. The other thing it tells me is that my side of the debate is correct. The vulgar name calling is due to the other person being frustrated at not having any factual information to present. The only downside is that is difficult to keep from laughing when grown adult have to resort to that type of thing.
Since I consider myself lumped in with the Patriots mentioned above, I guess I'll issue my obligatory threat to the DPP's... Come November, I'm gonna whack you with that ole ballot box so hard your mama will be voting you out of office.
..take care.. t
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Book 'em Dano
A poll for those stumbling across my mumblings... do you prefer paper based books, electronic books, or a combination of the two?
I land pretty firmly in the electronic book area, though I can see some negative aspects of an all electronic information transfer system.
My older, cloudy eyeballs really like the whole changeable font thing you find with electronic books. When I look at most paper based books it seems like there is some type of publishers conspiracy to hide stuff from me. The Kindle or viewing on my computer solves that problem.
The ability to readily look up words and beam over to end notes and foot notes is also great for those like me with limited vocabularies.
My sleep when I was on various submarines might have been better if Kindles had been around then. I usually took lots of books with me. With limited personal storage space, I had to stow those books under my mattress (a mattress that was none too thick). This created a fairly lumpy sleeping environment. Lumpiness that would migrate as others borrowed and returned books.
The other positive aspect is the search-ability. With a brain that has been bounced, prodded and regularly marinated, my ability to firmly remember details is sometimes a pretty iffy proposition. Electronic formats allow me to readily search for previously read items to refresh the details while I'm reading something connected to it.
The biggest negative I can think of (I'm sure you all will provide more) is that electronic formats make the revising history subplot of '1984' much more feasible. Rounding up and destroying all the paper copies of any widely distributed bit of information can be quite a chore. Altering or disappearing electronic records is becoming more possible with each advance in interconnectedness.
The other negative (with most electronic books anyway) is the inability to loan out the book. If I buy a paper book I can read it, loan it to my friends to infect their brains and then we can gather around a table laden with nosh type foods, add liberal amounts of libations and argue about the ideas in that book until the wee hours of the morning. You can't really do that with the electronic versions.
Amazon, if you're listening out there... create a process/ability for an electronic book purchaser to loan a copy with it being erased from the loanee's computer/Kindle after a certain period of time designated by the loaner. Libraries might want to get wrapped around this idea also. This idea is feasible. Amazon already had the ability to remove items from your Kindle. Ironically, they did this with an unauthorized version of '1984', destroying some people's added notes in the process. Since they can also limit the number of devices a bought book appears on it would seem to be just a minor shift in process... instead of 5 authorized permanent devices, have 4 plus a loaner copy.
So, did you print this out on paper to read it or just absorb it directly from your computer screen?
..take care..t
I land pretty firmly in the electronic book area, though I can see some negative aspects of an all electronic information transfer system.
My older, cloudy eyeballs really like the whole changeable font thing you find with electronic books. When I look at most paper based books it seems like there is some type of publishers conspiracy to hide stuff from me. The Kindle or viewing on my computer solves that problem.
The ability to readily look up words and beam over to end notes and foot notes is also great for those like me with limited vocabularies.
My sleep when I was on various submarines might have been better if Kindles had been around then. I usually took lots of books with me. With limited personal storage space, I had to stow those books under my mattress (a mattress that was none too thick). This created a fairly lumpy sleeping environment. Lumpiness that would migrate as others borrowed and returned books.
The other positive aspect is the search-ability. With a brain that has been bounced, prodded and regularly marinated, my ability to firmly remember details is sometimes a pretty iffy proposition. Electronic formats allow me to readily search for previously read items to refresh the details while I'm reading something connected to it.
The biggest negative I can think of (I'm sure you all will provide more) is that electronic formats make the revising history subplot of '1984' much more feasible. Rounding up and destroying all the paper copies of any widely distributed bit of information can be quite a chore. Altering or disappearing electronic records is becoming more possible with each advance in interconnectedness.
The other negative (with most electronic books anyway) is the inability to loan out the book. If I buy a paper book I can read it, loan it to my friends to infect their brains and then we can gather around a table laden with nosh type foods, add liberal amounts of libations and argue about the ideas in that book until the wee hours of the morning. You can't really do that with the electronic versions.
Amazon, if you're listening out there... create a process/ability for an electronic book purchaser to loan a copy with it being erased from the loanee's computer/Kindle after a certain period of time designated by the loaner. Libraries might want to get wrapped around this idea also. This idea is feasible. Amazon already had the ability to remove items from your Kindle. Ironically, they did this with an unauthorized version of '1984', destroying some people's added notes in the process. Since they can also limit the number of devices a bought book appears on it would seem to be just a minor shift in process... instead of 5 authorized permanent devices, have 4 plus a loaner copy.
So, did you print this out on paper to read it or just absorb it directly from your computer screen?
..take care..t
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Weathering...
While standing in the field watching the plumber backhoe down to the broken water pipe, I discovered I had a problem. As I breathed out, it was cold enough that the moisture of my breath was accumulating on my beard and mustache as small chunks of ice. This was a problem, but not the most disconcerting problem. The real problem was that some of those chunks of ice spanned from the hair of my mustache to the hair of my beard. My mouth was kinda frozen shut. I took off a glove and managed to melt those chunks of ice enough that I could open my mouth. Didn't really have anything that needed to be said at that point but I have grown rather fond of being able to open my mouth any time I want.
Standing out in a field with temperatures that low started me to thinking. I really had no choice. I was concerned if I didn't keep my two remaining brain cells moving they would freeze together and crash to the bottom of my skull. The most obvious subject to think about when you are this cold is, of course, global warming.
I was much tempted to think that the current temperatures, possibly record breaking temperatures, are stone cold proof that global warming is a bunch of frozen dinosaur doo. I would have been wrong. Just about as wrong as I was when I was watching record breaking high temperatures melt rocks and I was tempted to think, "I guess this pretty much makes the global warming thing settled science." I'm wrong about the weather a lot...just like everyone else.
The things that concern me most about the current proposal that humans are creating a trend of global warming are.. the monkeying, the disappearing, and the solutioning.
It seems pretty obvious now that there has been some monkeying around with the data being used to prove that there is human caused global warming. Possibly it was appropriate monkeying around, possibly it was inappropriate monkeying around. We can't really be sure because of my second concern..the disappearing.
It appears that a lot of the original data that was monkeyed around has disappeared. In the whole scientific process this creates a problem. Generally accepted scientific practice deems that when you monkey around with data you need to be able to let other monkeyers duplicate your monkeying to verify it was appropriate monkeying.
My biggest concern of all is the solutioning. There are a bunch of folks proposing solutions before we can really determine if there in fact is a problem that requires a solution. If the current temperature trend is in a warming direction then it's possible that the causes are the same as when this happened back in the medieval time period. This would mean that we would need to reverse and hold our living conditions to mirror those prior to the start in temperature increase at that time. I'm not thinking I'm gonna wanna to do that. Just a reminder...this was before the invention of indoor plumbing... I'm thinking that if the folks then started noticing the warming trend there was much rejoicing during those 2 a.m. kidney calls in mid-January.
My biggest concern with the solutioning is that those that seem to be the loudest and most strident about having the solutions to fix global warming don't seem to be altering their lifestyles to follow the solutions they want to impose on others. Flying all over the world to preach that people flying all over the world will doom us all to crispy critterdom seems a bit odd to me. Kind of like those politicians that want to "spread that wealth around a little" but don't seem to be spreading their own personal wealth around all that much. The change you seek in others must be first made within oneself... seems someone wise once said something along those lines.
Nope, I don't have any solutions...my life's path doesn't lie in the studying of temperature trends. However, I'm not really willing to alter a whole lot about my life as it relates to temperature trends until those who have devoted their lives to studying them clear up their monkeying, disappearing, and solutioning mess.
Standing out in a field with temperatures that low started me to thinking. I really had no choice. I was concerned if I didn't keep my two remaining brain cells moving they would freeze together and crash to the bottom of my skull. The most obvious subject to think about when you are this cold is, of course, global warming.
I was much tempted to think that the current temperatures, possibly record breaking temperatures, are stone cold proof that global warming is a bunch of frozen dinosaur doo. I would have been wrong. Just about as wrong as I was when I was watching record breaking high temperatures melt rocks and I was tempted to think, "I guess this pretty much makes the global warming thing settled science." I'm wrong about the weather a lot...just like everyone else.
The things that concern me most about the current proposal that humans are creating a trend of global warming are.. the monkeying, the disappearing, and the solutioning.
It seems pretty obvious now that there has been some monkeying around with the data being used to prove that there is human caused global warming. Possibly it was appropriate monkeying around, possibly it was inappropriate monkeying around. We can't really be sure because of my second concern..the disappearing.
It appears that a lot of the original data that was monkeyed around has disappeared. In the whole scientific process this creates a problem. Generally accepted scientific practice deems that when you monkey around with data you need to be able to let other monkeyers duplicate your monkeying to verify it was appropriate monkeying.
My biggest concern of all is the solutioning. There are a bunch of folks proposing solutions before we can really determine if there in fact is a problem that requires a solution. If the current temperature trend is in a warming direction then it's possible that the causes are the same as when this happened back in the medieval time period. This would mean that we would need to reverse and hold our living conditions to mirror those prior to the start in temperature increase at that time. I'm not thinking I'm gonna wanna to do that. Just a reminder...this was before the invention of indoor plumbing... I'm thinking that if the folks then started noticing the warming trend there was much rejoicing during those 2 a.m. kidney calls in mid-January.
My biggest concern with the solutioning is that those that seem to be the loudest and most strident about having the solutions to fix global warming don't seem to be altering their lifestyles to follow the solutions they want to impose on others. Flying all over the world to preach that people flying all over the world will doom us all to crispy critterdom seems a bit odd to me. Kind of like those politicians that want to "spread that wealth around a little" but don't seem to be spreading their own personal wealth around all that much. The change you seek in others must be first made within oneself... seems someone wise once said something along those lines.
Nope, I don't have any solutions...my life's path doesn't lie in the studying of temperature trends. However, I'm not really willing to alter a whole lot about my life as it relates to temperature trends until those who have devoted their lives to studying them clear up their monkeying, disappearing, and solutioning mess.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
