Some light-hearted stuff to kick off the weekend. Talking animals:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JAYKw-x6qE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCYaw5tGYAs
and Star Wars meets The Muppets shennanigans:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMKfMIHxevk
Friday, April 27, 2007
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Good Thing She was "Just Kidding"...
about reducing the use of "the important papers". It looks like she could use some right about now.
Kudos to Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis, MO for standing up for what's right. Undoubtedly, there are going to be quite a few critics who will screech about how he would have turned down thousands of dollars in donations "to help the children", all so he could make a point. It is precisely because of his passion for helping children, born and unborn, that Archbishop Burke has resigned his chairmanship in protest of Sheryl Crow's appearance in a benefit concert for the Cardinal Glennon Children's Foundation.
Please note, that the Reuters story points out that Ms. Crow is a "proponent of stem cell research". A more accurate description would have been to say she's a proponent of embryonic stem cell research. In the wake of the Michael J. Fox campaign ads, however, liberals have figured out that one has to drop the "E-word" when talking about stem cells. Incidentally, embryonic stem cell research has yielded nothing in terms of curing diseases; research on using adult stem cells (such as bone marrow transplants to treat leukemia) has been the only research to show benefits. May be it's supposed to work that way? Just a thought.
Links to this post: Confessions of a Crazy Schoolmarm
Kudos to Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis, MO for standing up for what's right. Undoubtedly, there are going to be quite a few critics who will screech about how he would have turned down thousands of dollars in donations "to help the children", all so he could make a point. It is precisely because of his passion for helping children, born and unborn, that Archbishop Burke has resigned his chairmanship in protest of Sheryl Crow's appearance in a benefit concert for the Cardinal Glennon Children's Foundation.
Please note, that the Reuters story points out that Ms. Crow is a "proponent of stem cell research". A more accurate description would have been to say she's a proponent of embryonic stem cell research. In the wake of the Michael J. Fox campaign ads, however, liberals have figured out that one has to drop the "E-word" when talking about stem cells. Incidentally, embryonic stem cell research has yielded nothing in terms of curing diseases; research on using adult stem cells (such as bone marrow transplants to treat leukemia) has been the only research to show benefits. May be it's supposed to work that way? Just a thought.
Links to this post: Confessions of a Crazy Schoolmarm
More Idiocy out of the Bay Area
It's things like this that make my blood boil...and increase my yearning to leave this state.
About this time last year, there were protests all over the Southwest. Students walked out of class to stand in solidarity with the protesters in the streets. Where they protesting abortion? No. How about supporting our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq? Nope. What were they protesting? Our nation defending its sovereignty and actually enforcing it's immigration laws. People who are in favor of enforcement of the laws that are already in place have been portrayed as anti-immigration racists. I would argue that the opposite is true.
We are told that illegal aliens are brought to this country as a source of cheap labor. Why does it cost so much less to employ an illegal alien than a U.S. citizen? Is it really less expensive? Well, for starters, the illegal alien is not in the system; no Social Security number, no Green Card, and therefore, no obligation for the employer to pay into Social Security, worker's compensation, or health insurance. I would say that this is real exploitation. Since they are here illegally, and are being exploited thus, illegal aliens seek welfare benefits to supplement their under-the-table, cash income. In order to obtain these benefits, one must have a...you guessed it, government-issued ID. Illegal aliens are directed to people who are, in essence, identity thieves. They are given a SSN, or a driver's license number that may be real, but it's under someone else's name. Not only are illegals being exploited by their employers, they are being exploited by criminals!
"Well, that's why we need to grant amnesty to these people!" So, when we grant amnesty to all of these millions of illegals, are they going to stay in their current jobs? Why would anyone want to remain in a job that pays less than minimum wage? Are they going to still be hanging out in the Home Depot parking lot? I doubt it. It would be easier for them to find higher-paying jobs as citizens; good for them, bad for their former employers. This would leave people that typically employ illegal aliens with the task of getting more cheap labor. The vicious cycle would continue, and a perpetually impoverished class of people would be allowed to exist.
Rather than exploiting people that come here because their countries of origin have gone to hell in a handbasket, why not take a hint from The Netherlands? They contract out convicts for farm labor. We already have convicts picking up trash on the highways and clearing brush in state parks. Perhaps this may actually help deter would-be criminals; prision would be a punishment. Of course the ACLU may jump all over this idea, saying that the rights of the convicts are being violated.
About this time last year, there were protests all over the Southwest. Students walked out of class to stand in solidarity with the protesters in the streets. Where they protesting abortion? No. How about supporting our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq? Nope. What were they protesting? Our nation defending its sovereignty and actually enforcing it's immigration laws. People who are in favor of enforcement of the laws that are already in place have been portrayed as anti-immigration racists. I would argue that the opposite is true.
We are told that illegal aliens are brought to this country as a source of cheap labor. Why does it cost so much less to employ an illegal alien than a U.S. citizen? Is it really less expensive? Well, for starters, the illegal alien is not in the system; no Social Security number, no Green Card, and therefore, no obligation for the employer to pay into Social Security, worker's compensation, or health insurance. I would say that this is real exploitation. Since they are here illegally, and are being exploited thus, illegal aliens seek welfare benefits to supplement their under-the-table, cash income. In order to obtain these benefits, one must have a...you guessed it, government-issued ID. Illegal aliens are directed to people who are, in essence, identity thieves. They are given a SSN, or a driver's license number that may be real, but it's under someone else's name. Not only are illegals being exploited by their employers, they are being exploited by criminals!
"Well, that's why we need to grant amnesty to these people!" So, when we grant amnesty to all of these millions of illegals, are they going to stay in their current jobs? Why would anyone want to remain in a job that pays less than minimum wage? Are they going to still be hanging out in the Home Depot parking lot? I doubt it. It would be easier for them to find higher-paying jobs as citizens; good for them, bad for their former employers. This would leave people that typically employ illegal aliens with the task of getting more cheap labor. The vicious cycle would continue, and a perpetually impoverished class of people would be allowed to exist.
Rather than exploiting people that come here because their countries of origin have gone to hell in a handbasket, why not take a hint from The Netherlands? They contract out convicts for farm labor. We already have convicts picking up trash on the highways and clearing brush in state parks. Perhaps this may actually help deter would-be criminals; prision would be a punishment. Of course the ACLU may jump all over this idea, saying that the rights of the convicts are being violated.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
You Might be a Redneck If...
you cheer and get teary-eyed when you read this. Jeff Foxworthy has always been one of my favorite comedians. One of the many reasons is because anyone from a nine year old kid to a 90 year old grandma can appreciate his humor. He's not vulgar, like Al Franken or Rosie O'Donnell. This hit the nail square on the head:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1821089/posts
I hope that this makes headlines everywhere and that people are listening. Unfortunately, I know more than a few that will tune him out because he's not some slicked-up dude from the city. Oh well, their loss.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1821089/posts
I hope that this makes headlines everywhere and that people are listening. Unfortunately, I know more than a few that will tune him out because he's not some slicked-up dude from the city. Oh well, their loss.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Sorry, I Can't Help Myself!
In the wake of Sheryl Crow's announcement that we can all do our part to save the earth if we only use one square of toilet paper per potty break, I have decided to let my inner nerd run amuck. For those of you that don't know me, I am an engineer. So, I have decided to see if it would be actually possible from an engineering perspective, for one to actually get away with using only one 4.5" x 4.5" square of toilet paper. No, I am not enough of an empiricalist to rush home to try it out. I have chosen (for the sake of sanitation) to crunch the numbers.
Before we start plugging in numbers, we must first acknowledge the premise that we want to avoid having our hands come into direct contact with...well, you know. For the purposes of applying Newtonian physics, the "body in motion" is a square of toilet paper. The forces at work are the "wiping force" (Fwipe), a force perpendicular to one's posterior (Nbottom), and the force required to overcome the friction between one's backside and the toilet paper (f). In order to use the toilet paper without the paper breaking, the sum of the forces must be less than or equal to the tensile strength of the paper. Since forces are vector quantities (i.e. they have direction and magnitude), one can't just add up the numbers; one must also consider the direction of the force. A Google search revealed that the tensile strength of wet 2-ply toilet paper is 0.8 lb/inch and that 0.033 is the coefficient of friction (the Greek letter mu) of a toilet paper manufactured by Proctor & Gamble. However, the provided mu is only between skin and the toilet paper, not "substances" and toilet paper. Assuming a significant degree of adhesion, we can say that our assumed mu is actually 0.33.
For the average person, let's say that Fwipe is 0.5 lb along the surface and Nbottom is 2 lb against the surface. I realize that this varies with situation and individual, but an analysis of technique would be far too exhaustive for this particular entry. The friction force "f" is mu times Nbottom. This means that f is 0.825 lb in the same direction as Fwipe. The sum of the forces is 1.325 lb. The tensile strength of the toilet paper would not be 0.8 lb/inch*4.5 inches because the full 4.5 inches is not in contact with the surface. The "contact" length would be 1.5 inches, which gives a tensile strength of 1.2 lb. Because the tensile strength is less than the sum of the forces, the toilet paper will tear and you'll have a horrible mess on your hands (yes, the pun was intended). Said mess will then cause you to use even more toilet paper, as well the additional water and soap you will no doubt use to clean up after yourself.
There are a few things that I find interesting in the "nature Nazis" targeting of toilet paper. The first being that quite a few granolas that I know personally are germaphobic. Despite this, they are targeting one of the major sanitary developments of the 20th century. Materials previously used for this function are too bulky to fit through the plumbing of today's bathroom. The other interesting observation is that the enviro-wackos had previously targeted "inefficient" toilets, making it impossible to purchase a toilet that can actually take care of business in one flush. One must now use two flushes to adequately remove refuse, and in the process use more water than before the 1.7 gallon flush.
We have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting to preserve our way of life and share that way of life with others. There are complete nutcases running North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela. Nutcases who have the wealth (and weaponry) of entire nations at their disposal if they so wish to attack us. It is entirely possible that terrorist organizations are able to enter our country through woefully inadequate border security. All of this, and with what are we supposed to be concerned? According to Sheryl, we are supposed to be worried about conserving our most precious resource: toilet paper. Maybe it's so we can clean up all the crap we are going to be in if we as a nation don't start paying attention to more important matters.
Links to this Post: Confessions of a Crazy Schoolmarm
Before we start plugging in numbers, we must first acknowledge the premise that we want to avoid having our hands come into direct contact with...well, you know. For the purposes of applying Newtonian physics, the "body in motion" is a square of toilet paper. The forces at work are the "wiping force" (Fwipe), a force perpendicular to one's posterior (Nbottom), and the force required to overcome the friction between one's backside and the toilet paper (f). In order to use the toilet paper without the paper breaking, the sum of the forces must be less than or equal to the tensile strength of the paper. Since forces are vector quantities (i.e. they have direction and magnitude), one can't just add up the numbers; one must also consider the direction of the force. A Google search revealed that the tensile strength of wet 2-ply toilet paper is 0.8 lb/inch and that 0.033 is the coefficient of friction (the Greek letter mu) of a toilet paper manufactured by Proctor & Gamble. However, the provided mu is only between skin and the toilet paper, not "substances" and toilet paper. Assuming a significant degree of adhesion, we can say that our assumed mu is actually 0.33.
For the average person, let's say that Fwipe is 0.5 lb along the surface and Nbottom is 2 lb against the surface. I realize that this varies with situation and individual, but an analysis of technique would be far too exhaustive for this particular entry. The friction force "f" is mu times Nbottom. This means that f is 0.825 lb in the same direction as Fwipe. The sum of the forces is 1.325 lb. The tensile strength of the toilet paper would not be 0.8 lb/inch*4.5 inches because the full 4.5 inches is not in contact with the surface. The "contact" length would be 1.5 inches, which gives a tensile strength of 1.2 lb. Because the tensile strength is less than the sum of the forces, the toilet paper will tear and you'll have a horrible mess on your hands (yes, the pun was intended). Said mess will then cause you to use even more toilet paper, as well the additional water and soap you will no doubt use to clean up after yourself.
There are a few things that I find interesting in the "nature Nazis" targeting of toilet paper. The first being that quite a few granolas that I know personally are germaphobic. Despite this, they are targeting one of the major sanitary developments of the 20th century. Materials previously used for this function are too bulky to fit through the plumbing of today's bathroom. The other interesting observation is that the enviro-wackos had previously targeted "inefficient" toilets, making it impossible to purchase a toilet that can actually take care of business in one flush. One must now use two flushes to adequately remove refuse, and in the process use more water than before the 1.7 gallon flush.
We have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting to preserve our way of life and share that way of life with others. There are complete nutcases running North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela. Nutcases who have the wealth (and weaponry) of entire nations at their disposal if they so wish to attack us. It is entirely possible that terrorist organizations are able to enter our country through woefully inadequate border security. All of this, and with what are we supposed to be concerned? According to Sheryl, we are supposed to be worried about conserving our most precious resource: toilet paper. Maybe it's so we can clean up all the crap we are going to be in if we as a nation don't start paying attention to more important matters.
Links to this Post: Confessions of a Crazy Schoolmarm
Monday, April 2, 2007
"Freedom of..." vs. "Freedom from..."
If asked about the friends that I made in my college years, I would have to say that they cover the whole political spectrum, from Marin County hippies to guys that make me look like an editor for Mother Jones. My more left-leaning acquaintances would often ask me how someone with my intelligence could possibly be a "knee-jerk, Bible-thumping, gun-toting, SUV-driving, meat-eating, capitalistic, war-mongering, sexist, bigoted, homophobe". I would tell them that it came down to the differences between "freedoms of..." and "freedoms from...".
Let's start with the "freedoms from...". In Communism, that is to say authoritarian socialism, the few rule for the good of the many. Plato wrote about a "communism of the elite" in The Republic; the best and brightest of society would own property and be in charge of the education and well-being of all the people. This included the "elite" raising all the children born in the society, to ensure that they would become functioning members of society. In such a society (like the one attempted in the U.S.S.R.), the following "freedoms" are guaranteed:
1. Freedom from Homelessness
2. Freedom from Unemployment
3. Freedom from Hunger
4. Freedom from Covetousness
5. Freedom from Decisiveness
The first three are basic tenants that have been recognized by dictatorships since the time of Ceasar. If you feed and care for your masses, you will prevent them from rocking the boat. When the people are hungry, jobless, and without a roof over their heads, they tend to get cranky. The fourth and fifth freedoms involve maintaining the overall "happiness" of the common man. If your neighbor has all of the same things that you have, you cannot covet. In order to covet, one must desire something they do not already have and be willing to do whatever it takes to get it. If the few are making the decisions for the benefit of the many, the burden of choice as been removed from the commoner. Just think: all that you, the common man or woman has to do is wake up in your government-owned apartment, go to your government job, and spend what money you have at government-owned stores on government-produced goods. You don't have any responsibilities because the government (run by people who are supposed to be smarter than you) makes all the important decisions for you. You are guaranteed equality of outcome, regardless of how much or how little you do.
However, because governments are human institutions, there is no escaping the reality of power corrupting even the most well-intentioned. They who hold the reins of power will not see any reason for them to live like the commoners. Using the "freedoms" that they give the people, the ruling class are permitted to do as they please, even if it means departing from what they preach to those they steward.
The "freedoms of...", unlike their collectivist counterparts, require the individual to take the initiative. The Founding Fathers, men familiar with the philosophy of the Age of Englightenment, based the Constitution of the United States on belief that our rights are God-given, not imparted to us by a ruling class. To compare with the previously mentioned "freedoms from" here are the "freedoms of":
1. Freedom of Having a Home
2. Freedom of Being Employed
3. Freedom of Having Food
4. Freedom of Fulfilling Desires
5. Freedom of Choice
Rather than freedoms 4 and 5 being dependent upon freedoms 1 through 3, the freedom to fulfill one's desires and the freedom to choose allow one to improve on the ability to exercise freedoms 1 through 3. By placing the power in the hands of the individual, the common good is served because each person will strive to better himself. As far as uplifting the downtrodden, it's difficult to uplift anything when you are not able to lift up yourself. The perceived downside to living in a society based on the "freedoms of" is that the individual is responsible for choices and, therefore, any failure that may occur as a result of poor choices. Some people choose to not make choices. By letting life happen to them, they believe that they can claim victim status and are entitled to sympathy. In a society that promises equality of opportunity, the possibilities of success are only as limited as one's imagination. It only requires that one be brave enough to seize the opportunity and take a risk.
Let's start with the "freedoms from...". In Communism, that is to say authoritarian socialism, the few rule for the good of the many. Plato wrote about a "communism of the elite" in The Republic; the best and brightest of society would own property and be in charge of the education and well-being of all the people. This included the "elite" raising all the children born in the society, to ensure that they would become functioning members of society. In such a society (like the one attempted in the U.S.S.R.), the following "freedoms" are guaranteed:
1. Freedom from Homelessness
2. Freedom from Unemployment
3. Freedom from Hunger
4. Freedom from Covetousness
5. Freedom from Decisiveness
The first three are basic tenants that have been recognized by dictatorships since the time of Ceasar. If you feed and care for your masses, you will prevent them from rocking the boat. When the people are hungry, jobless, and without a roof over their heads, they tend to get cranky. The fourth and fifth freedoms involve maintaining the overall "happiness" of the common man. If your neighbor has all of the same things that you have, you cannot covet. In order to covet, one must desire something they do not already have and be willing to do whatever it takes to get it. If the few are making the decisions for the benefit of the many, the burden of choice as been removed from the commoner. Just think: all that you, the common man or woman has to do is wake up in your government-owned apartment, go to your government job, and spend what money you have at government-owned stores on government-produced goods. You don't have any responsibilities because the government (run by people who are supposed to be smarter than you) makes all the important decisions for you. You are guaranteed equality of outcome, regardless of how much or how little you do.
However, because governments are human institutions, there is no escaping the reality of power corrupting even the most well-intentioned. They who hold the reins of power will not see any reason for them to live like the commoners. Using the "freedoms" that they give the people, the ruling class are permitted to do as they please, even if it means departing from what they preach to those they steward.
The "freedoms of...", unlike their collectivist counterparts, require the individual to take the initiative. The Founding Fathers, men familiar with the philosophy of the Age of Englightenment, based the Constitution of the United States on belief that our rights are God-given, not imparted to us by a ruling class. To compare with the previously mentioned "freedoms from" here are the "freedoms of":
1. Freedom of Having a Home
2. Freedom of Being Employed
3. Freedom of Having Food
4. Freedom of Fulfilling Desires
5. Freedom of Choice
Rather than freedoms 4 and 5 being dependent upon freedoms 1 through 3, the freedom to fulfill one's desires and the freedom to choose allow one to improve on the ability to exercise freedoms 1 through 3. By placing the power in the hands of the individual, the common good is served because each person will strive to better himself. As far as uplifting the downtrodden, it's difficult to uplift anything when you are not able to lift up yourself. The perceived downside to living in a society based on the "freedoms of" is that the individual is responsible for choices and, therefore, any failure that may occur as a result of poor choices. Some people choose to not make choices. By letting life happen to them, they believe that they can claim victim status and are entitled to sympathy. In a society that promises equality of opportunity, the possibilities of success are only as limited as one's imagination. It only requires that one be brave enough to seize the opportunity and take a risk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)