Steps to happiness

Hokie or real, you decide

Connect
Developing relationships with family, friends, colleagues and neighbours will enrich your life and bring you support

Be active
Sports, hobbies such as gardening or dancing, or just a daily stroll will make you feel good and maintain mobility and fitness

Be curious
Noting the beauty of everyday moments as well as the unusual and reflecting on them helps you to appreciate what matters to you

Learn
Fixing a bike, learning an instrument, cooking – the challenge and satisfaction brings fun and confidence

Give
Helping friends and strangers links your happiness to a wider community and is very rewarding

Political Analysis 08

It is time again to choose between evils again.

Every four years we get the honor of 'choosing' who our next president will be. We used to have a culture that pushed us to vote for the person we believed in. Now our culture dictates we vote for the person 'most likely to win'. We are taught that the only candidates likely to win come from the Democrat or Republican parties.

We (the people) do not choose the candidates for those parties. We could, but generally the party leadership decides beforehand the people they think would be acceptable. Then we just enjoy the illusion of deciding who gets to be the nominee for the party out of that preselected group. There have been exceptions to this trend in our history, but for the most part that is the way the system seems to work.

So who are we looking for this presidency?

The one on the way out...

Hillary Clinton

It appears that despite her late comeback she is on the way out. While she is close to Obama in citizen votes, she is losing to him in party leader ("superdelegate") votes. Perhaps the Democratic party does not want to be ruled by the Clinton's for the next four years.


Now to the very likely contenders...

In the Red Corner...

John McCain


The 'Maverick' Senator of Arizona.

Pros:
- Voted against the use of torture by the US military
- Was held in a concentration camp in Viet Nam and against sympathizes with war vets
- Knows the military and is familiar with wartime situations
- Experienced in politics, knows how to pass votes he needs to get through.
- Is not close to the fundamentalist religious right of the Republicans.

Cons:
- Will follow the Bush strategy of perpetual war in Iraq and preemptive war with Iran.
- Knows nothing about economics, will increase spending and further kill the economy. Our wars waste billions, spending money we dont have wastes billions, he would do both. He would tell you that three wars (Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan) and seven hundred military bases across the world are necessary to save us from the terrorists.
- Is a tool for lobbyists.
- Talks big talk on change, but really that change is not significant.
- He is really old!
- He makes bad choices in priestly allies. That is what he gets for trying to pander to an electorate he never cared about anyway.

If you do not like endless wars, he is not your guy. If you like sound fiscal policy he is not your guy. Personally I used to like him, but the more I have read about him the less I agree with just about everything he stands for.



In the Blue Corner...

Barak Obama


The Senator of 'Change'.

Pros:
- The slickest orator this side of Quintillian.
- Very likeable, smart and new to the political scene. Gives one the impression he has not bought into the system yet.
- Recognizes that some things need to change for the country to prosper.
- Has a decent understanding of the younger voters and their needs.
- Comes from a modest background.
- He sees that our foreign policy does not work and openly says he would try something new. Like... heaven forbid, talking to people and fostering alliances.
- He can pull off presidential very well.
- Foreign nations already love him. He could be our next JFK.

Cons:
- He may take longer to bring the troops home than he promises.
- Many of the people closest to him (wife and two pastors who were mentors) either revile the country or are pretty racist. While it is a persons right to have an opinion, it makes one wonder what influence they have on him. The thought is that he talks about seeing past divisions and unifying the country, but then surrounds himself with people who see only division. Bush promised to be a uniter as well.
- Will nearly quadruple government spending. This could very well break our economy. He has a history of being a runaway spender with taxpayer money.
- Despite his public statements to the contrary, he still tips his hat and makes nice with powerful lobby groups which have influenced our fiscal and foreign policy to the disasters they are today.
- He is an unknown quantity due to his lack of time in office. Will he be another Bush or the leader he presents himself to be? We do not know.

If you like sound money policy, he is not your guy. If you like small government, he is not your guy. Despite that I still like the promise he represents, which is a new direction in foreign policy.


Ultimately, both guys will bloat up the government even more. They will both cave to a point to special interests. The big difference I see is that one will spend all of our money on foreign wars and keep us hated worldwide. The other will spend all of our money at home and make us loved worldwide. Either way, we will become a much more bankrupt nation. So the way it looks to me at the moment, we can be broke and loved, or broke and hated.

Not too bad for a 13 year old

Baby tiger don't be sad
Baby tiger they stole your dad

Your mommy was taken away from you
And your so young you do not no what to do

Your tiny roar fills the air
But still you no no one is there

Lost in the night your rage burns wild
It's hard to survive when you're only a child

The poachers will pay someday you promise
So when you stalk your prey remember this

The humans that hurt you and knocked you down
Shan't harm you anymore while I am around

Heather, age 13

Man eats his hands for fear they may be possessed!

No not really, though I thought of this due to a recent event in Vermont. Apparently the town of Brattleboro decided to issue a non-enforceable petition to repudiate Bush and Cheney for violating the Constitution (big C not little c). The great thing is that some lovely citizens wrote to the council about that local petition. Lets look at one of the comments....

"The petition prompted Brent Caflisch to go to his computer in Rosemount, Minn. "Maybe the terrorists will do us all a favor and attack your town next, our country would be much safer with several thousand dead wackjobs in Vermont," he wrote.

It went on to say terrorists could kidnap the three Select Board members who voted in favor, "cut their heads off, video tape it and put it on the internet.""

Woah... theres a lot of glare coming off of that dome! Apparently there were many more (Approx 60) sent along this line of thinking. What does this petition actually say?

It reads thusly: "Shall the Selectboard instruct the Town Attorney to draft indictments against President Bush and Vice President Cheney for crimes against our Constitution, and publish said indictments for consideration by other authorities and shall it be the law of the Town of Brattleboro that the Brattleboro Police, pursuant to the above-mentioned indictments, arrest and detain George Bush and Richard Cheney in Brattleboro if they are not duly impeached, and prosecute or extradite them to other authorities that may reasonably contend to prosecute them?"

What basis do these people have to indict Bush and Cheney for crimes against the Constitution? Well... let us have a history lesson...

The presidential oath of office is located in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 of the Constitution. Every president, and vice president must swear to it before the nation and god.

This part is pulled from the US National Archives, enjoy!
"The Presidential Oath of Office was set down in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The oath originally proposed was much shorter, requiring the President-elect to swear only to "faithfully execute the office of President of the United States." James Madison, a delegate to the Convention from Virginia, believed that the Chief Executive should be bound by oath to support the articles of the Union—the very document the Convention was struggling to create. Along with George Mason, another Virginia delegate, Madison proposed that the President also be made to swear to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.""

So what does this all mean? It means the President, and his Vice President swore an oath of office and are expected to abide by that oath. The oath says they will Preserve, Protect and Defend, not simply one of those actions, but all of those actions. Though if Bush did not swear that oath then I guess he did not do anything wrong... oh wait...



I guess he did swear that oath.

Now every president is going to make mistakes, but it can be argued that this one actively violated that oath. One can argue about the Executive position lately on Due Process, Eminent Domain, First Amendment Freedoms, Fourth Amendment Rights, Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel and so on. Why am I saying all this? Simply to illustrate that this town council has a reason to issue such a petition. Whether one agrees with it or not.

So what pisses me off about this whole issue?

What the fuck are people thinking when they suggest that terrorists should come in and kill thousands of Americans? They claim to support Constitution devouring laws that Bush issues 'for our own safety'. Yet they want to violate Bush's intent to keep terrorists from killing Americans? This makes no sense. Also, since when does wanting to protect the constitution make one a friend of terrorists? I thought it was a very American thing to want to protect our freedom and our founding document of law. They like to argue that to protect freedom we need to give away our freedom. I find that to be an illogical statement.

Regardless of whether you agree with that Vermont town or not, I say try to use reason and abstain from wishing terrorist death upon your fellow citizens. Where has the capacity for logical rebuttal or civil disagreement gone? Fear of terrorism, fear in general, erodes an individuals capacity for clear thinking. Perhaps this serves as a lesson that this kind of illogical fear, which can drive people like Mr. Caflish to wish such heinous things up on his people, is still alive and in need of remedy.

Doggie Translators

"The barks were tape recorded and then digitized on a computer, which used software to study their differences.

The computer correctly identified the different situations 43 per cent of the time. Although it was not a high success rate it was far better than human recognition, the researchers said.

The computer was most accurate in identifying the "fight" and "stranger" contexts, and was least effective at matching the "play" bark.

The results appear in the journal Animal Cognition, and suggest that dogs have acoustically different barks depending on their emotional state.

The researchers also performed a second test, in which the computer identified individual dogs by their bark.

The software correctly identified the dogs 52 per cent of the time, again much better than the human result, suggesting there are individual differences in barks even though humans are not able to recognize them.

The team also plans to compare the barks of different breeds to discover what they have in common. "

It does not apply to me

Who wrote the following statement on February 12, 1779: “A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader”?

Samuel Adams wrote that.

What I find interesting is that the founding fathers all speak about liberties. The Constitution was designed to be interpreted via the intent of its makers. The founding fathers seemed to think that the greatest threat to America would not come from an external army or force, but from the peoples willingness to surrender their liberties. What is fascinating is that as a body, the nation does not feel that such ideas apply to them today.

"Thats a Wrap!"

Burrito
Main Entry:
bur·ri·to Listen to the pronunciation of burrito
Pronunciation:
\bə-ˈrē-(ˌ)tō\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural bur·ri·tos
Etymology:
American Spanish, from Spanish, little donkey, diminutive of burro
Date:
1934

: a flour tortilla rolled or folded around a filling (as of meat, beans, and cheese)


Take a look at these burritos...




Did you say to yourself at any point, "thats not a burrito, thats a wrap!". You know why you did not say that, BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH FUCKING THING AS A WRAP! It is an artificial marketing term used to describe a burrito! A BURRITO! It is like the wrap is supposed to be some chic new menu item that no one ever thought of before. I am so special because I do not eat sandwiches, how vulgar. I eat wraps, like a civilized person. No you tard, you eat burritos.

Interestingly, the top one is supposed to be a wrap, and the bottom a burrito. But wait... whats this? They are both flour tortillas rolled or folded around some kind of filling... I wonder what they could be?

Come Again?

I wonder how many people have had a conversation like this one.

Person: America is the greatest country ever. All other countries are number two or lower. That is why it is ok that we do whatever we want in the world, because we are the best country there is and thus we are always justified in our actions.

Me: Ok, point taken. Just our of curiosity, what makes the ole USofA so great? Do not get me wrong, I love this country too, but I want to understand where you are coming from in this opinion.

Person: The fact that we are more free than any other country in the world. Also, we are more prosperous than any other nation.

Me: Excellent! What makes us more free than say Canada?

Person: Our Constitution and the way this country was founded. Look at what we have done in the last 200 years that all these other nations have not. It is because we are more free.

Me: Cool, so you are against the Patriot Act, revocation of Habeas Corpus, torture and laws or actions by the government that violate the constitution.

Person: Well... no. All those things are ok because they are for our own protection against the terrorists.

Me: But... you just said that what sets us apart from everyone else was our freedom. Do you think taking away our individual liberties and violating the document they are based upon is diminishing what makes us great by your estimation?

Person: Well of course not, we have to win against the terrorists right? Sometimes you have to change the rules to win. Plus, the constitution is a little outdated anyhow.

Me: Wait... I thought you said that our freedom is what makes us great. How does being less free establish your position?

Person: Why do you hate this country so much? If you do not like it why not just move somewhere else?

Me: I think you are diverging from the topic. I never said I did not like America. I do not see how supporting the constitution and every Americans right to personal liberty translates to hating this land.

Person: If you do not want these laws in place you want the terrorists to win, therefore you must not love America. Or you are a coward who just wants to surrender to them.

Me: Say wha...?

Is it just me or does basic reasoning go out the window anytime islam or terrorists are mentioned? Sometimes I feel like im on crazy pills.

Ignus Fatuus

There was in every hollow
A hundred wrymouthed wisps.
—Dafydd ap Gwilym (trans. Wirt Sikes), 1340




Yes kiddies, its that time of year again. Break out your cloaks (those of you who dont wear them year round) and dust off your wooden brooms, its time to prep for all Hallow's Eve. It is one of your eridute writer's favored past times to steep in the rich water's of holiday lore before the main event. I wanted to talk about Jack-O-Lantern's, yes again. Dont roll your eyes at me sis. After ruminating upon the topic I realized that there was a very important and related legend that we need to touch upon, that of Ignus Fatuus.

Other names you have heard Ignus Fatuus referred to as:
The Lambent Flame
Will o' Wisp
The Hobby Lantern
Jack the Lantern
Corpse Fire
Irrlicht
Foxfire
Friar Lantern

and thats just to name a few...

So what is this mega-awesome Ignus Fatuus all about? Well let me tell you. They are gaseous eminations from flatulant Scottish men. No no, not really. They are floating and drifting lights, usually found in swamps and bogs. With no apparent source of energy, they drift about as they please.

Gaelic and Slavic legend tell that they are mischevious/malevolent spirits. They are manifestations of a non-human, possibly dead intelligence. Legend also has it that they like to lead travellers to dangerous situations, or treasure if the person is brave (or foolish) enough to follow. Sometimes they even use illusion to appear in the form of luminescent mortal creature if one peers deeply enough into the light.

Another claim is that these wisps are doomed souls. Human souls who are trapped between heaven and hell, forever locked out of the world of the living. They trudge restlessly about the earth. Only able to manifest for short times at night. Why would they lead travellers astray then? Perhaps doing so might help them on their mission for final rest. Or maybe they just like fucking with people since they are screwed anyway. Whatever the motivation is, they dont seem to kill mortals. So if you encounter one, and follow it, you could end up being in a messed up situation. You will probably live though, unless you do something dumb to get yourself dead.

Now, another claim is that they are methane gas created by rotting vegitation, which does make a reasonable kind of sense. That or that they are phosphoretted hydrogen. There seems to be no documentable scientific evidence to conclude what they are. It is rare that these things occur in the modern age, nor can their effects be produced in a lab. You may want to draw your own conclusions. If you do end up following one, and live to tell the tale, do let me know.



To better arm you for any possible encounters you may have with these nasty little lights, I will list two charts below with corresponding data and reference documents for your perusal. Happy Hunting!

Note: Click on the picture to get a better view of it!

Bicyclers = HULK SMASH!

Not every bicycler in the world mind you. If someone is riding on a bike trail, or a sidewalk, or even designated bicycling areas, then that's fine. When they are riding down a narrow street, that happens to always have heavy traffic then it is not ok. Especially when they travel at something like 10 mph and drivers have to swerve/brake like mad just to avoid killing them. You would think that these people might get a clue and use different streets or something.

Instead, the driver has to follow their slow ass for miles until traffic allows them to swerve into the other lane to pass them. Which is just maddening by the way, God forbid they try to be conscientious of the people in 1-2 ton vehicles who could flatten them at any minute. What is worse is when the rider is so physically wide that you cant even pass them on the off chance you might clip their backfat or something. Which would send them careening to their death.

I don't buy this "they have a right to be on the road too" malarky. They should know better.

Disturbing things...

Congressional resolutions that have no binding enforcement on the war in Iraq.

The dollar dropping in value so fast that gravity has to catch up to it (and what that represents).

Pictures of Bea Arthur naked.

People who mistreat good gin.

Little bits of cartilage that sometimes ends up in ground meat.

Pictures of Bea Arthur naked.

Amerikan cinema pisses me off sometimes

Everytime I see a movie talk about "Freedom" I want to wince. For some reason this term is so popular that people want to put it in movies as some generic rallying cry. They don't explain what "Freedom" actually means to the ones who proclaim how much they love it though. It's just some fucking random ass flag that is supposed to make people feel good and have the sympathize with the 'good guys'. I am so tired of hearing about "Freedom". I'd rather hear about how they want better lives, better jobs, more food for their kids... but fucking "Freedom"? I'm sorry, I just don't buy it. It's too generic, too market researched. They and their "Freedom" can kiss my ass until they explain what that means in their minds.

Oh, and another thing... what's with these assholes in medieval movies drawing swords with a 'shclliing!' noise? That means that their scabbard would have a metal rim that they draw the sword through. Dragging a sharp blade through a flat metal rim would dull a weapon to the point that any hero would die a quick death because his blade is too dull to punch through armor. Yes it is more dramatic, but c'mon, they can't think of anything better than that? Oi! Where has realism gone in cinema? I just want a little. BY ODIN'S RAVENS HUGIN AND MUNIN! GIVE ME SOME REALISM PEOPLE!

Citizenship is not only a benefit but it’s also an identity

I was reading this article and I thought hey, finally they are getting something right. Well perhaps not right but definately better. Yes better is entirely subjective, and since this is my blog I can be as subjective as I fucking want to be. :)

That being said they decided to strike these questions...
Can you name one of the country’s longest rivers?
A Native American tribe?
What makes Benjamin Franklin famous?

Given that most Americans couldnt answer all of these questions, I dont see how asking these of immigrants is somehow creating ties between them and the idea of what it is to be an American.

The new exam asks why the flag has 13 stripes and what the Constitution does. I think it might have been better to also ask, "What does the Constitution mean to you?", or something along those lines. It is a start though. Being able to name a river or indian tribe means nothing if you dont understand the context of why those questions are being asked. Im glad they are finally getting that fixed. Now we just need a requirement to speak fluent english...

If you want to see how well you would do on a citizenship test that immigrants would take click here.

Yay! I got 95% right! I just missed number 8. Im ok with that, I think that was the only one I wasnt really sure of anyhow. They should have added the question: What is the most important amendment in the Constitution? The obvious answer of course, is the 21rst amendment! Which, by the way is an excellent bar in the downtown area.

An excellent watering hole

This is exactly what I need...

get your mind out of the gutter sicko, I'm talking about the bar. I recently went to the city (San Francisco) and visited my sister's local bar. This place is a pit that is full of salty scum the likes that you would only find in an inner city libation nexus. It is the kind of place where you would need to consider getting a tetanus shot just from putting your arms on the bar. It is the kind of place where packs of dogs (literally) run amok through throngs of inebriated cutthroats. It is the kind of place that parents would not take their kids. Where guys with names like 'spider' or 'gentle brandon' or 'mad-dog mary' would be found slaking their unending thirst. In other words, it is a great place to be.

Cheers to superior watering holes!

Sensationalism

In this modern age we have public figures who behave in extreme fashions simply for the sake of gathering attention. Ann Coulter, Al Sharpton ect.. They take these crazy ass extreme positions, simply to promote their own celebrity. To what purpose? So that they can continue their jobs as public figures? The sad part is that our society promotes and rewards this behavior. The extremist gets rewarded with ratings regardless of whether they are liked or disliked, or how many lives they destroy.

Media outlets are encouraged by this sort of thing. Yet what does this say about our society and the kind of decay we are suffering? These people should be exposed for the hatemongers they are and ostracized from the general list of acceptable public figures. Yet here they are in full ink, slandering other people with no fear of consequence. Seeking out controversy to get their names yet one more time in the news. The truly sickening thought is that we are all to blame for allowing this to continue.

Sewage on your trans-atlantic flight

Sewage flows down aisles of trans-Atlantic flight...
Video...
When I first read the intro headline I was thinking how much that whole situation must have sucked. Seven hours on a plane with raw sewage flowing down the isles. Despite myself, the article had a video and I just had to see the travesty with my own eyes. Oh and before you go on, make sure you watch the video in the upper right corner of the page, dont even bother with the article.

Article and video here

Ok, you watched it I hope, because my opinion wont be quite as understandable if you didnt.

So this flowing of raw sewage was just one still image. Not a video, the video was of a stupid newscast. Ive been had! Not only that, it was this tiny trickle which was all dry. Then they show this whiny bitch who is 'offended' because he was asked not to drink too much when the bathrooms were busted. Oh... im sorry, did the whiny bitch skin his knee? They should have just thrown him off of the plan at 34,000 feet if he couldnt handle a situation that was out of their control.

Im guessing Continental didnt plan to have the sewage system break. Im also guessing that the flight attendants and pilot felt pretty bad about the situation. What has happened to people these days? Couldnt this guy just tough it out and get his fucking voucher? Maybe bitch about it to his friends later. No, instead our media seems to embrace this culture of offended wimps trend. I bet there were old ladies on the plane who toughed it out better than this loser. Eh.. it just makes me sick.

When Squirrels go bad...

An aggressive squirrel attacked and injured three people in a German town before a 72-year-old pensioner dispatched the rampaging animal with his crutch.

Squirrel Article

Now how is that for copy? You hear about rampaging bulls or vice presidents on duck hunts, but not squirrels. I didnt know they were capable of going on a town rampage. What I wonder is, would people watch it if it was a reality tv epsiode?

Even nature is against our leader

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c28_1180051991

What are you supposed to think when the beasts of the field send you this clear message about your leadership?

Sisters, cousins and proms

Sisters and girl cousins, all of which are younger, are not supposed to grow up. They are supposed to stay little sisters forever. But then I hear stuff like they are going to proms with their boyfriends. THEN I recieve pictures of them where they have the temerity to look like girls!

What the frig is this? Since when are they supposed to grow up and be all... mankiller-like? I had to deal with this with one sister already, and now its a cousin AND a sister. I have this ingrained older brother trait that I need to get past I think. Basically, realizing that my younger close female siblings are no longer kids and are now young adults. That is hard to do.

I threatened to sit on the porch with a shotgun at my other sister's prom and I really would do it for my youngest. I even scared a guy when I was casually holding a hammer once and was talking about how precious my sisters were to him. Ms. Rose probly remembers that. Anyhow, as is usual, my oldest younger sis totured me with stories of my youngest sis growing up. Then, I had to hear about my cousin in the same manner. It's maddening I tell you. I'm proud of them, im happy for them, and I just have to accept the fact that they arent kids anymore. Sigh... My family rocks.

In closing...

The e-mailer

Have you ever encountered one of those people, you know... the ones who like to e-mail? Now, I admit it, I use e-mail. I use e-mail when I have something to say and I dont want to use snail mail or texting. But SOME people go wayy overboard. You know what im talking about.

They send you a quick e-mail asking you some random inanity. So you answer right? Then they respond with a fucking book in your inbox. And if you dont respond to EVERY POINT in that goddamn book of an e-mail they bitch about you not being responsive on e-mail.

It makes me want to kick these people into a well and force them to have to only communicate by shouting up to the people at the top. Either that or spamming their inbox until their mail server crashes. The well sounds more fun though.