Yep, I just threw the flag on it.
A recent news search on google.com showed me that there are a grand spanking total of *ZERO* deaths attributed to Swine Flu in the United States.
Zero.
And there's an estimated 103 in Mexico, a place where merely drinking the water can under the right (or wrong) circumstances make your guts stop working properly.
Oh no, woe is us!
The real problem is the mass media, turning this metaphorical mole hill into a mountain, and then telling everyone there's an avalanche in progress.
I'm sick and tired of the media blowing unimportant things out of proportion.
Why aren't we hearing more about the civil rights violations of students or photographers? We occasionally hear about the initial incident, but rarely the aftermath or resolution.
What am I talking about? Cases like:
1) http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/privacy/12877prs20000815.html
2) http://articles.latimes.com/2002/may/01/local/me-thong1
And for a mere sampling of the long list of incidents involving photographers:
3) http://www.carlosmiller.com
I'm not ancient and I'm not naive, but I can and do remember a time when the media actually spent (at least some) time reporting on stories of corruption and wrong doing, bringing the dirty truth into the light, while it's kicking and and screaming. I think they called it "investigative journalism." And I'm pretty sure that the current trend should be referred to as, "lazy ass sensationalism."
Granted I can only speak for myself, but I'm tired of it, and I know they can do better.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
Those Tricky Ancient Egyptians!
Yeah sure there are a lot of wahoos who think the Egyptians were visited by UFOs....
And granted that I don't believe humanity is the only sentient lifeform in all of existence....
But those ancient Egyptians were a tricky bunch.
Their structures are very sound, and in some cases aligned with great accuracy in regards to astronomical phenomenon, and that's not all!
All of the recovered documents, all of the archeological finds of egyptian ships, all of the portrayals of their ships...they're all short-range, coastal ships. None of them, or their navigational devices and techniques (that we know of) are suitable for long range trips or ocean crossings.
And yet, Egyptian remains have traces of cocaine in them. Which comes from a plant indigenous to South America.
And there is Egyptian symbology found at sites in Australia.
There's no rational explanation available that fits within our current understanding.
Just some food for thought...
And granted that I don't believe humanity is the only sentient lifeform in all of existence....
But those ancient Egyptians were a tricky bunch.
Their structures are very sound, and in some cases aligned with great accuracy in regards to astronomical phenomenon, and that's not all!
All of the recovered documents, all of the archeological finds of egyptian ships, all of the portrayals of their ships...they're all short-range, coastal ships. None of them, or their navigational devices and techniques (that we know of) are suitable for long range trips or ocean crossings.
And yet, Egyptian remains have traces of cocaine in them. Which comes from a plant indigenous to South America.
And there is Egyptian symbology found at sites in Australia.
There's no rational explanation available that fits within our current understanding.
Just some food for thought...
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Nudity in Art is not a Sin.
As you should hopefully know if you're reading this, I am a photographer.
Yep, an artist of sorts.
One of the things I delight in is doing photoshoots with women. Why? Because they're God's Masterpiece. They're the last living thing that God created before his son, Jesus.
Anywho, the site where I have my gallery, DeviantArt, allows you to follow the work and journals of other artists. And one of them, a very talented one in my book, got confronted over one of his pieces by someone who believes that faith and nudity do not mix.
For that artists' journal, go here: http://markdaughn.deviantart.com/journal/24419665/
Some of my thoughts on the matter went into a response there, which I will repost below:
According to the bible...
God created humanity nude. *We* went and screwed up.
So in our ill-gotten wisdom, we covered ourselves.
The problem with nudity isn't what God wants. If God wanted us not to be nude, we'd be born wrapped up like miniature versions of Muslim women, with only our eyes showing, nevermind that Adam and Eve wouldn't have thought to cover themselves; they already would have been covered. The problem with nudity is that we bring our social baggage to the party, baggage that tends more often than not to equate nudity with sex and/or pornography, instead of just appreciating the form on an aesthetic level.
I believe God is an artist. Why? Because he has a style. Yes, a style. Let me break it down into two classes. Animals with skeletons, and animals without. Look at their construction, the shape of things, the internal organs...they're all very similar. Evolutionists would say that's proof of their opinion, but very few organisms evolve beyond whatever is needed to stay in their biological niche; some things don't, for example sharks and crocodillians.
Anywho, if God is an artist as I believe, then according to scripture, God's Masterpiece is Woman. I firmly believe that capturing and presenting a woman's beauty is like paying homage to a great master, very similar to art students practicing the works of the masters to get a grasp on certain fundamental aspects of their styles, in that they, like nude photographers, gain an appreciation and understanding about the works of the masters.
I think there's an applicable bible verse that can easily apply to those of faith who capture and portray the beauty of women.
1 Corinthians 10:31 - Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.
Nudity is not inherently evil, nor is it a inherently a sin. Capturing nudity in any medium is not inherently evil or a sin. The moral issue comes into play in regards to our attitudes and approaches.
If a person views all nudity as evil, then they need to examine two things:
1) In Genesis 1:31 "...God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." so what entitles that person's judgement to overrule God's and view the human nude as bad, evil, or sinful?
2) If all nudity makes a person feel ashamed to see it, what is the source of their shame? It clearly isn't God, who inspired David to say in Psalms 139:14 - I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
Yep, an artist of sorts.
One of the things I delight in is doing photoshoots with women. Why? Because they're God's Masterpiece. They're the last living thing that God created before his son, Jesus.
Anywho, the site where I have my gallery, DeviantArt, allows you to follow the work and journals of other artists. And one of them, a very talented one in my book, got confronted over one of his pieces by someone who believes that faith and nudity do not mix.
For that artists' journal, go here: http://markdaughn.deviantart.com/journal/24419665/
Some of my thoughts on the matter went into a response there, which I will repost below:
According to the bible...
God created humanity nude. *We* went and screwed up.
So in our ill-gotten wisdom, we covered ourselves.
The problem with nudity isn't what God wants. If God wanted us not to be nude, we'd be born wrapped up like miniature versions of Muslim women, with only our eyes showing, nevermind that Adam and Eve wouldn't have thought to cover themselves; they already would have been covered. The problem with nudity is that we bring our social baggage to the party, baggage that tends more often than not to equate nudity with sex and/or pornography, instead of just appreciating the form on an aesthetic level.
I believe God is an artist. Why? Because he has a style. Yes, a style. Let me break it down into two classes. Animals with skeletons, and animals without. Look at their construction, the shape of things, the internal organs...they're all very similar. Evolutionists would say that's proof of their opinion, but very few organisms evolve beyond whatever is needed to stay in their biological niche; some things don't, for example sharks and crocodillians.
Anywho, if God is an artist as I believe, then according to scripture, God's Masterpiece is Woman. I firmly believe that capturing and presenting a woman's beauty is like paying homage to a great master, very similar to art students practicing the works of the masters to get a grasp on certain fundamental aspects of their styles, in that they, like nude photographers, gain an appreciation and understanding about the works of the masters.
I think there's an applicable bible verse that can easily apply to those of faith who capture and portray the beauty of women.
1 Corinthians 10:31 - Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.
Nudity is not inherently evil, nor is it a inherently a sin. Capturing nudity in any medium is not inherently evil or a sin. The moral issue comes into play in regards to our attitudes and approaches.
If a person views all nudity as evil, then they need to examine two things:
1) In Genesis 1:31 "...God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." so what entitles that person's judgement to overrule God's and view the human nude as bad, evil, or sinful?
2) If all nudity makes a person feel ashamed to see it, what is the source of their shame? It clearly isn't God, who inspired David to say in Psalms 139:14 - I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Barack Hussein Obama and the United States of America
...and with the title above, I'm sure I'm on some government watch list somewhere.
C'est la vie.
First of all, let's get the really important bit out of the way. I am not a racist. The only group of people I hate and/or despise are stupid people, who come in all shapes, sizes, colors, and religions.
There's a misunderstanding that a lot of the United States and possibly the world at large seem to be operating under. Pay close attention here, this is for the historical record.
Barack Hussein Obama is not the first African-American President.
No, I have not lost my mind. No, I am not blind. You see, Barack Hussein Obama is like Tiger Woods, in that they both look African-American, but they're both mutts in terms of their heritage. Now being a mutt isn't a bad thing. In people and also in animals, having a bloodline of mixed heritage tends to allow a being to possess the strongest, most beneficial genetic traits that all of their ancestors have to offer, to be stronger and more successful.
Additionally, Barack Hussein Obama, was raised by the Caucasian portion of his family, and thus was socially trained to have the thought patterns, attitudes, speech patterns, and biases typically associated with being Caucasian by Social Scientists.
So there you go, by his genetics AND his upbringing, Barack Hussein Obama is not the first African-American President of the United States of America.
Now, onto less scientific topics, specifically my thoughts and opinions on Barack Hussein Obama in specific, as well as voting in general.
If a man walked into the corporate headquarters for a company with over 2,730,050 (this number comes from the 2007 Census of Civilian Federal Employees and does not include however many people are members of the US Armed Forces) employees, applied for the position of CEO, and said the below statement to the interviewer(s), I'm pretty sure he would *NOT* get the job.
"I'm here to try and become your new CEO. I've had seven years of middle (state-level) management experience, and less than three years of upper (federal level) management experience. I should warn you that the references there on my application, when you call them, none of them will be able to tell you anything I've done above and beyond my regular job duties. Now I know that isn't much experience and that this company has fallen on hard times, but for reasons I can not articulate, I believe I can take the reigns and lead this company out of collectively, the worst time period in its existence."
And effectively, that's what he did, and he is now the President of the United States of America.
In addition to his marked lack of experience, I also was greatly affronted by the audacity of statements made by Obama and his campaign regarding Reverend Jeremiah Wright of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. There is no legitimate way to go to a church for years (since 1988 to be specific), to claim to view Jeremiah Wright as a mentor and like "an old uncle" and say you haven't heard negativity or controversial statements while in his presence. Because that's what Obama did, before he issued a second statement saying he had indeed heard controversial statements. And more than that, he retracted an invitation for Jeremiah Wright to speak at a campaign-related function.
Which leads into some related items.
1) I don't like that he knowingly lied about what was coming out of Jeremiah Wright's mouth. You don't forget statements like, "God Damn America!" and if you miss that sunday service, you can bet your church friends would call to tell you about it, nevermind that the church taped it's services.
2) Religion in general, and Pastors in specific, are like radio stations. You only belong to religions you feel speak to you, and that you can embrace. You only go to churches whose doctrine, and the interpretation and philosophy of the ministers that you agree with. If it were a country music station on the radio and you hated country music; you wouldn't tune in, you'd find a station whose content was more to your liking. To use a sentence from wikipedia, Stanley Kurtz, writing an opinion piece in a National Review cover story on Wright, said, "Nearly every sermon Wright preaches, as well as his now-infamous bulletins and church magazines, is filled with his radicalism, and it's therefore impossible not to conclude that Obama was broadly attracted to Wright's politics."
3) I don't like how sneaky it seems that Obama didn't start distancing himself from Wright and from Wright's Church until it became politically expedient. He equated disowning Wright to disowning the "black community" or even his own grandmother. But when it was his best bet gain a political edge, disowning Wright is exactly what he did.
On to voting!!
Many people, including at least one of Obama's fellow legislators, when asked "What has Barack Obama done?" could not come up with an answer. In fact, the legislator tried to deflect the question, but got pressed on it and still drew a blank. Also, I had a dear friend who believed, or claimed to believe Obama was the best choice of the 2008 election, but when I asked her, "Why? What has he done, what political decisions has he made? What is it about his campaign platform that makes him the best choice?" Well...her response was, "I dunno."
In my opinion, the bottom line is this: regardless of the office in question, if you do not know why, or can not articulate a valid reason for how you are going to cast your vote, then you should abstain. Voting, like jury duty is a civic duty, a thing to be performed responsibly and carefully because you are not exercising that power just for yourself but for all of your fellow Americans. It's on the level of "the fates of millions" so don't half-ass it, okay?
Just as an aside, I hope I'm wrong about Barack Hussein Obama. I've already seen him backtrack on things, economists have already poked holes in his supposedly miraculous economic plan, and he's making a lot of excuses in his weekly podcasts. I hope I'm wrong, which I don't say often, because my being wrong would be a much better thing for America than my being right.
C'est la vie.
First of all, let's get the really important bit out of the way. I am not a racist. The only group of people I hate and/or despise are stupid people, who come in all shapes, sizes, colors, and religions.
There's a misunderstanding that a lot of the United States and possibly the world at large seem to be operating under. Pay close attention here, this is for the historical record.
Barack Hussein Obama is not the first African-American President.
No, I have not lost my mind. No, I am not blind. You see, Barack Hussein Obama is like Tiger Woods, in that they both look African-American, but they're both mutts in terms of their heritage. Now being a mutt isn't a bad thing. In people and also in animals, having a bloodline of mixed heritage tends to allow a being to possess the strongest, most beneficial genetic traits that all of their ancestors have to offer, to be stronger and more successful.
Additionally, Barack Hussein Obama, was raised by the Caucasian portion of his family, and thus was socially trained to have the thought patterns, attitudes, speech patterns, and biases typically associated with being Caucasian by Social Scientists.
So there you go, by his genetics AND his upbringing, Barack Hussein Obama is not the first African-American President of the United States of America.
Now, onto less scientific topics, specifically my thoughts and opinions on Barack Hussein Obama in specific, as well as voting in general.
If a man walked into the corporate headquarters for a company with over 2,730,050 (this number comes from the 2007 Census of Civilian Federal Employees and does not include however many people are members of the US Armed Forces) employees, applied for the position of CEO, and said the below statement to the interviewer(s), I'm pretty sure he would *NOT* get the job.
"I'm here to try and become your new CEO. I've had seven years of middle (state-level) management experience, and less than three years of upper (federal level) management experience. I should warn you that the references there on my application, when you call them, none of them will be able to tell you anything I've done above and beyond my regular job duties. Now I know that isn't much experience and that this company has fallen on hard times, but for reasons I can not articulate, I believe I can take the reigns and lead this company out of collectively, the worst time period in its existence."
And effectively, that's what he did, and he is now the President of the United States of America.
In addition to his marked lack of experience, I also was greatly affronted by the audacity of statements made by Obama and his campaign regarding Reverend Jeremiah Wright of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. There is no legitimate way to go to a church for years (since 1988 to be specific), to claim to view Jeremiah Wright as a mentor and like "an old uncle" and say you haven't heard negativity or controversial statements while in his presence. Because that's what Obama did, before he issued a second statement saying he had indeed heard controversial statements. And more than that, he retracted an invitation for Jeremiah Wright to speak at a campaign-related function.
Which leads into some related items.
1) I don't like that he knowingly lied about what was coming out of Jeremiah Wright's mouth. You don't forget statements like, "God Damn America!" and if you miss that sunday service, you can bet your church friends would call to tell you about it, nevermind that the church taped it's services.
2) Religion in general, and Pastors in specific, are like radio stations. You only belong to religions you feel speak to you, and that you can embrace. You only go to churches whose doctrine, and the interpretation and philosophy of the ministers that you agree with. If it were a country music station on the radio and you hated country music; you wouldn't tune in, you'd find a station whose content was more to your liking. To use a sentence from wikipedia, Stanley Kurtz, writing an opinion piece in a National Review cover story on Wright, said, "Nearly every sermon Wright preaches, as well as his now-infamous bulletins and church magazines, is filled with his radicalism, and it's therefore impossible not to conclude that Obama was broadly attracted to Wright's politics."
3) I don't like how sneaky it seems that Obama didn't start distancing himself from Wright and from Wright's Church until it became politically expedient. He equated disowning Wright to disowning the "black community" or even his own grandmother. But when it was his best bet gain a political edge, disowning Wright is exactly what he did.
On to voting!!
Many people, including at least one of Obama's fellow legislators, when asked "What has Barack Obama done?" could not come up with an answer. In fact, the legislator tried to deflect the question, but got pressed on it and still drew a blank. Also, I had a dear friend who believed, or claimed to believe Obama was the best choice of the 2008 election, but when I asked her, "Why? What has he done, what political decisions has he made? What is it about his campaign platform that makes him the best choice?" Well...her response was, "I dunno."
In my opinion, the bottom line is this: regardless of the office in question, if you do not know why, or can not articulate a valid reason for how you are going to cast your vote, then you should abstain. Voting, like jury duty is a civic duty, a thing to be performed responsibly and carefully because you are not exercising that power just for yourself but for all of your fellow Americans. It's on the level of "the fates of millions" so don't half-ass it, okay?
Just as an aside, I hope I'm wrong about Barack Hussein Obama. I've already seen him backtrack on things, economists have already poked holes in his supposedly miraculous economic plan, and he's making a lot of excuses in his weekly podcasts. I hope I'm wrong, which I don't say often, because my being wrong would be a much better thing for America than my being right.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Bargain Books
So yeah...I buy books, a lot of them, but in this instance I'm talking specifically about comic books.
I've bought comic books for years at Cheryl's Comics, a great little shop in Charleston, in the area known as Kanawha City.
But she and I are in agreement; some of the things you can buy through her, you can get cheaper online. Now the monthly comics themselves are pretty much the same online or in the store, with the caveat that you have to pay shipping under some circumstances. So I save money by buying those from her, and I enjoy doing business with her.
But when it comes to the hardcover books like Sinestro Corps War: Volumes 1 & 2, Tales of the Sinestro Corps, Green Lantern: Rage of the Red Lanterns, and Green Lantern: Agent Orange, which are all books that play a part in The Blackest Night...you can get them up to 34% off MSRP by buying through Amazon.com.
Shop smart. Support your local comic book store, but save money where appropriately.
A bad economy doesn't mean going without your comics; point of fact, if we all spent more carefully, our economy wouldn't be in the situation it is now.
I've bought comic books for years at Cheryl's Comics, a great little shop in Charleston, in the area known as Kanawha City.
But she and I are in agreement; some of the things you can buy through her, you can get cheaper online. Now the monthly comics themselves are pretty much the same online or in the store, with the caveat that you have to pay shipping under some circumstances. So I save money by buying those from her, and I enjoy doing business with her.
But when it comes to the hardcover books like Sinestro Corps War: Volumes 1 & 2, Tales of the Sinestro Corps, Green Lantern: Rage of the Red Lanterns, and Green Lantern: Agent Orange, which are all books that play a part in The Blackest Night...you can get them up to 34% off MSRP by buying through Amazon.com.
Shop smart. Support your local comic book store, but save money where appropriately.
A bad economy doesn't mean going without your comics; point of fact, if we all spent more carefully, our economy wouldn't be in the situation it is now.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
The Slutfest that is Laurell K. Hamilton's Anita Blake Series
Laurell K. Hamilton has the potential to be a great author and write wonderful books, I know, I've read some great stuff by her.
But about eight books into the Anita Blake series (#8 is Blue Moon) the series goes from being an amazing set of supernatural mysteries with heavy flirting and where supernatural beings have their own cultural uniqueness that is explored a little more with each book into a quest for new ways to force Anita to bypass her moral standards and engage in sexual activity as much as possible.
The plot itself became a device for manuevering Anita situations that require her to have gratuitous sex, and conversations & monologues that approve of and justify her actions.
Concurrently with these changes (that include BDSM and sex with strangers) started occurring, the author herself stopped thanking her "husband Gary" and began thanking "J. who says yes more than he says no" and "doesn't make me feel like a freak." The mysterious J. is later credited as her husband Jonathan.
Also at the same time, she unveiled a new series about a Faerie Princess, and couched the Faerie Culture as being openly and aggressively sexual in nature.
I can understand wanting to put your newfound desires, urges, and deviant (this is a scientific word meaning "not in keeping with the norm") sexual fantasies into your work, as authors and artists can be inspired by their emotions and not just their imagination. And while I openly applaud how Hamilton uses a culture and society to incorporate them into her newer series, I am extremely dissappointed in her choice to make the Anita Blake series 2/3 sexual activity + 1/3 plot.
Why? Because for 8 books we read that Anita won't have sex without commitment, that her morals and standards are vitally important to her, and that she won't put someone in the position of her college fiance, to give them what they want and be dropped. And then she has 5-somes, threesomes, orgasms in public, flogging her submissive lover in a public setting, going up on a strip club stage in a short skirt and no panties to participate in her submissive lover's erotic performance. It's just not in keeping with the character, and it's not even mixed into the story, it dominates the new books.
I guess I can sum it up simply that I'm dissappointed with her using her libido to write the more recent parts of the Anita Blake series instead of her brain.
Edit:
One additional thing. I noticed that with her increase in sexual content, more mistakes have slipped in such as he/she mistakes, and accidental name-swaps. Kinda like her editor and beta-readers are trying to skip the massive amounts of sex and get to the plot.
But about eight books into the Anita Blake series (#8 is Blue Moon) the series goes from being an amazing set of supernatural mysteries with heavy flirting and where supernatural beings have their own cultural uniqueness that is explored a little more with each book into a quest for new ways to force Anita to bypass her moral standards and engage in sexual activity as much as possible.
The plot itself became a device for manuevering Anita situations that require her to have gratuitous sex, and conversations & monologues that approve of and justify her actions.
Concurrently with these changes (that include BDSM and sex with strangers) started occurring, the author herself stopped thanking her "husband Gary" and began thanking "J. who says yes more than he says no" and "doesn't make me feel like a freak." The mysterious J. is later credited as her husband Jonathan.
Also at the same time, she unveiled a new series about a Faerie Princess, and couched the Faerie Culture as being openly and aggressively sexual in nature.
I can understand wanting to put your newfound desires, urges, and deviant (this is a scientific word meaning "not in keeping with the norm") sexual fantasies into your work, as authors and artists can be inspired by their emotions and not just their imagination. And while I openly applaud how Hamilton uses a culture and society to incorporate them into her newer series, I am extremely dissappointed in her choice to make the Anita Blake series 2/3 sexual activity + 1/3 plot.
Why? Because for 8 books we read that Anita won't have sex without commitment, that her morals and standards are vitally important to her, and that she won't put someone in the position of her college fiance, to give them what they want and be dropped. And then she has 5-somes, threesomes, orgasms in public, flogging her submissive lover in a public setting, going up on a strip club stage in a short skirt and no panties to participate in her submissive lover's erotic performance. It's just not in keeping with the character, and it's not even mixed into the story, it dominates the new books.
I guess I can sum it up simply that I'm dissappointed with her using her libido to write the more recent parts of the Anita Blake series instead of her brain.
Edit:
One additional thing. I noticed that with her increase in sexual content, more mistakes have slipped in such as he/she mistakes, and accidental name-swaps. Kinda like her editor and beta-readers are trying to skip the massive amounts of sex and get to the plot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
