As time is so precious these days, the most of your summer vacation with your family is very important. Search for exciting, thoughtful activities and ideas for fun and adventure can be difficult. Opposed short attention span and boredom is now possible with the advent of gift experiences.

Gift experiences can be adapted to spy on all range of budgets and an incredible variety of flavors, from the gourmet kitchen to games. Meet the children with aRange of sporting activities. Let's develop skills that they have learned previously, or they earn the opportunity for new experiences.

Perhaps your child is a shining testimony received? Give it a day, that their dreams come true. Test drive a rip-roaring Ferrari or take place in an exciting F1 Grand Prix simulator, will emulate the chance to make your child the hero to swell with pride. This experience gifts can contain large groups of people. Why notThey invite family and friends for a fun evening F1 Grand Prix simulator.

Take advantage of the rare British summer sun with a water landscape adventure. Spend a breathtaking days watching dolphins or diving with sharks. The beauty of gift vouchers experience is that the door to any number of ways to open the account does not otherwise have been too.

Delight your children with an animal experience that beats any zoo. Set in a family llama trekking or adopt your ownown monkeys. Reviving fantasies with a cowboy Kids Adventure Day, saddle and perfect their skills as a cowboy or cowgirl.

With the children away with his grandparents, perhaps an opportunity arose to spend quality time with your sweetheart? Pamper each other with rotten luxury getaway, theater trips and relaxing day. There is now no excuse to claim a lack of imagination, as the companies all the thinking for you! Submerge and liven up your summer break.

Recommend : Review Before Buying LCD HDTV Big Screen

Halloween costumes--Shayley is a cat ninja.

Dear Friends,

 Well, I’m a little down tonight.

I’ve had a return of some very inconvenient spells of got-to-be-at-a-bathroom late this week. I thought I was over it by last night, so I had big plans of taking Shayley and her friend, Jacq, to trunk or treat and then meet up at church with more friends for trick-or-treating in town. I was extremely careful all day about what I ate, and even ate supper at 3:30 in the afternoon to give my tummy time to settle before time to head out. So much for that. I never made it past my mom’s house in Floyd. I did get to see her and Jacq in their costumes (Shayley, cat ninja; Jacq, dead bride). My mom took the girls to trunk or treat, then thankfully Charlie got off work in time to take them around with friends in town.

I know I cannot really whine about this.  I’m alive and here and got to spend the day with Shayley.  But I would so like to be able to get out and do more.

Halloween has never been a particularly good day for me.

Nine years ago tonight I was preparing to return to work the next morning, ending my maternity leave. It was a hard night. We were still staying at my mom’s house because our house was half torn apart amidst an unfinished addition. Charlie and friends decided to do stuff together that night and forgot to call me. 

Six years ago today, my first colon polyps were found. They were benign and the fact that I had the good fortune of having them found and removed without ever having any symptoms gave me the false sense that vigilance always equals safety. That very evening happened to be the first time Shayley wanted to go trick-or-treating (she was 3.) I was still half groggy from the sedation of the colonoscopy (it’s much better now-a-days), but I walked up to a few houses with her and Charlie. It was a surreal feeling, having had the doctor tell me that day I would not have lived to any where near 50 if he hadn’t found and removed those polyps. I was 33 at the time and couldn’t quite fathom that thought.

Last year, the entire month of October seemed like a nightmare, and I’m not even going to try to remember the details.

This morning Tater started barking and barking and barking. He tends to only bark at stuff at night, about time we’re trying to go to sleep. And usually it only lasts a few minutes as we hear him rushing about the yard after possoms or raccoons or something. But this morning was different. He kept looking down across the driveway as he barked and we looked and looked and could not see anything. He kept on with great ferocity. Charlie tried letting him in the house to calm down, but he could not be settled and wanting back outside. He barked almost constantly for over an hour, including full-throated howls with mouth pointed vertically skyward.

A few hours later, after Charlie had gone to work, a neighbor drove up in his jeep. He was bringing up fresh baked bread and pickled beets, and also a word of warning. A bear was in our next door neighbor’s yard this morning. And  a few weeks before someone had seen one down at the end of our driveway, he said. He advised that we keep a close eye on Shayley since she loves to play in the yard. Thank you, Tater. You’re a good boy.

 Vigilance. It’s no guarantee, but it doesn’t hurt. I guess Halloween’s have not been so bad.

 Thank you for your continuing prayers.

NIU has the most oddly designed music building I have ever seen.

So there are 2 buildings that are connected, one to the North and the other to the South. The North building is where I spend most of my time, as it has all of the percussion rooms. The big percussion room is right next to the large ensemble rehearsal room, which makes it fairly easy to schlepp things to and from rehearsals, but the big room is also right behind the recital hall. This means that whenever there is anything going on in the recital hall; recitals, lectures, dress rehearsals, recording etc., we are not allowed to practice or really make any noise in there, which sucks as it is one of our 4 practice rooms that we share between 23 people.

Also in the North building, the only elevator is built right behind the concert hall. Whenever there is a concert going on, they have to shut the elevator off because it makes way too much noise. This is EXTREMELEY INCONVENIENT. The other grad student was telling me about how his recital last year was on the same day as some concert in the concert hall, so he had to move his entire multi set-up and drumset down 3 flights of stairs. Screw that!

Bathrooms are also very strange… The North building has 4 floors. However, there are only Mens restrooms on floors 1 and 3. There are female bathrooms on every floor. WTF? The south building has this problem too, with only mens rooms on 1 and 3 while each of the three floors has a womens restroom.

I am just amazed that somebody could actually sit down and design buildings like this, and that it would also GET APPROVED AND BUILT! I’m pretty sure I could have designed a more fully functional building when I was 9, but maybe thats just me.

The nice thing about Ikea is that they have cheap furniture. But basically everything else about the experience I had with them has sucked.

1) You have to special order certain items of furniture in the specific section of the store where they have that item of furniture. I don’t understand why this can’t also happen at the checkout — it’s all electronic anyway. I had to go through the store twice because of this. Including the shipping line, which took forever.

2) The stores are arranged in a linear format. There are few or no shortcuts. I’m sure this helps them trick hapless customers into making lots of impulse purchases, but it’s really annoying to have to go through all the sections of the store that you’re not actually interested in just to get a single item.

3) They only ship big things. This means you can see all of their furnishings and stuff online but you have to go to the store to buy them. Also, even if you are shipping furniture, you cannot have them put your other stuff along with it. It’s possible I could have found this out on their website, but I didn’t know and ended up carrying around a bunch of junk to dinner and stuff.

4) Lots of furniture items come in several boxes. This does allow more efficient packing, however (a) sometimes in the store they only have some of the boxes, which is very frustrating, and (b) it’s easy to fail to get everything. My friend and I both missed getting essential parts of our bed frames because of this. The cashiers supposedly check to make sure you have everything, but apparently Ikea’s system doesn’t do a good enough job of informing the cashiers what to check for.

5) The furniture is kind of crappy. Of course, you get what you pay for, and also I may have just grown up around too much old furniture and have a wrong impression of modern furniture. But every single wooden item in my room (also including the chair from Amazon and the desk from Office Depot, so it’s not just Ikea) are made of particleboard. Maybe I should make like my dad and go to Amish country in Pennsylvania for my furniture. Theirs is hand made from real wood.

6) This last complaint is kind of questionable, since I don’t actually know yet what went wrong. But I ordered a couch (see #1 above) for delivery last weekend and it didn’t come. I also never received a call from the shipping company. I called Ikea and they claimed the shipping company got it from them before last weekend. I tried to call the shipping company and didn’t get through. At best (for Ikea) they use a crappy shipping service too. That company also doesn’t even let you ask for a time of day for delivery. They’ll come on the day specified, between 7am and 10pm. And my parents used to complain when the electrician or plumber or whatever would give 3 or 4 hour windows!

I just needed to get that out there. It’s bollocks and I always want to rant when confronted with this kind of bullshit. Ikea won’t see another dollar out of me.

I often tell Tokyo-ites how marvelous their train and subway system is: fast, convenient, clean, and safe. Mostly, Tokyo residents stare in disbelief when I explain how filthy the transit system in San Francisco is.

Recently I read a reminder that not only is San Francisco’s transit dirty, slow and inconvenient, but also dangerous. In the aftermath of a serious stabbing of an 11 year old boy, riding a Muni bus for his first time, the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper’s top political columnists provide the following advice for riding transit at night:

Muni manners: Roxann Hohman, who often rides Muni home from work late at night, passes on some unwritten safety rules for fellow riders. To wit:

– Sit in the middle. The mentally unstable and homeless sit up front where they grope or panhandle at will. The hood rats sit in the back where they can punch people in the head on the way out just for kicks.

– Keep your purse jammed under your arm and the strap wrapped around your wrist, lest someone grabs it on the way out the door.

– If you listen to music, don’t use the telltale white earbuds of an iPod – it’s just asking for trouble. And never listen to music so loud that you can’t tell what’s happening around you.

– Finally, don’t say anything to the three teenagers who are screaming at the top of their lungs, though they are just 2 feet from each other. To do so ensures you’ll get jumped, and you won’t get much help.

Is it any wonder that public transit is a service used almost exclusively by the poor in San Francisco? I am certain these columnists, and many of their readers, never ride the MUNI, certainly not in the evening. With such a continued heavy dependence on private automobiles, will San Francisco be able to grow without sacrificing mobility, air quality and health?

 
An inconvenient truth 2.0 – a brief primer on global climate change, spiritual mythos, extinction events, ET, and our precarious existence

A passing thought for the fempto second . . .
 
An outside observer, from another world, would look upon this world as a once lovely, but badly damaged planetoid, with a hopelessly inept pseudo-intelligent life form on the fast track toward self destruction.
 
From that perspective, the resident humanoid species in its current form, for the most part, has become an out of control infestation on our once lovely planet. 

Is our DNA really “ours?”
 
Just for a brief moment, forget mainstream organized religion, corporate financed geopoltical intrigues, and our delusionary perceptions of self allocated importance.
 
We are but grains of sand in the cosmological landscape, and as such, a mundane, and for the most part, still very flawed, toxic lifeform.
 
We are at the end of our “training period”, but have shown very little improvement in those areas of wisdom and maturity that would justify our existence in this cosmic ecology, though we have managed to advance rather quickly into various arenas of science an technology.
 
But even here, in this context, we have failed, flunked the test, in that in many cases these advances really came about as catalyzed by war already in progress, or in anticipation of creating yet another war.
 
If anything, the planet is basically about to experience a “system reset”, a reset of, well, Biblical proportions, as it were, that we were in fact told about, but have so badly mis-interpreted these earlier examples and “lesson plans” presented to us, that it could be a reasonable design strategy to “purge” the planet of its offending, failed lifeform and civilization, with an asteroid.
 
But not just any asteroid.
 
No, this next “incoming” big rock from space is part of a larger design strategy.
 
For those who wish to see us, our lovely but badly damaged planetoid, and the universe in the context of “intelligent design”, fine, no problem.
 
In fact, I absolutely would support that perspective, but perhaps not  not in the context of how this term is currently utilized.
 
And so, that leads this author and hopefully the reading audience to this quote extracted from a just published article on huge, potentially catastrophic, destructive asteroids possibly colliding with earth in the not too distant future.
 
. . . the door [is] open to damaging impacts on Earth with little or no
warning, a panel of scientists reports.  <
 
 
 
This is news?   Hardly.
 
However, what is news is the shift towards urgency, and an to attempt regain relevance among the general public, and the world.
 
Sadly, NASA is slipping further and further away from the global center stage prominence it once enjoyed.
 
There are many who doubt, and rightfully so, that NASA may ever gain that position again, or for that matter, any single nationstate.
 
However, this missive is not about NASA, the space program, geopolitical intrigue and policy, religion, or any other such typical topics of interest, but merely to establish a background, a template by which to examine our rapidly advancing future history and its already predicted consequences.
 
In this context, it needs to be noted that the days of such nationalistic dominance in the realms of space travel and exploration are fading away, with, of course, one very major exception.
 
And that would be . . . . the militarization of space.
 
The relevancy of this observation will become apparent shortly.
 
Before jumping to any rash assumptions, no it is not the USA, though we certainly have our share of such ambitions quietly flourishing outside the realms of public knowledge.
 
The correct answer is China, and her “marriage of convenience” partner in such endeavors, Russia.
 
In fact, when our space shuttle fleet is retired in 2010, we will have no capacity, none, for delivering large scale payloads into space. 
 
Well, at least none that the general public will ever know about.
 
But wait . . .
 
And now, as the late Paul Harvey would say, “for the rest of the story . . .  “
 
The stakes are high, in fact higher than they ever have been in the history of which we are currently aware or willing to acknowledge.
 
Everyone on the inside knows that space is the next big thing in the emergent global economy,  military and geopolitical power.
 
Whoever “owns” the keys to this next strategic realm will own the world – this cannot be overstated.
 
This seems rather obvious to anyone with even a modest passing interest in such affairs.
 
But then again, there is another view . . .
 
 
I propose that the eventual impact of an “extinction event” class asteroid is not only inevitable, but in fact a sort of design feature, in a way.
 
And no, I’m not going to plunge into Biblical scripture or the concepts presented by such into the  murky realms of Biblical prophecy, though there is a sort indirect of connection.
 
I would propose that an extinction event planetary scale purging is not only the natural way of things, it is in fact a requirement that any such world must face, as part of its evolutionary “testing” and development process.
 
In other words, unless us humanoids here on Earth cannot get our [fill in the blank] together, we are in fact due to be flushed, as it were, down the cosmic toilet bowl of potentially interesting, but failed planetary civilization  ”experiments”.
 
I would submit that the concept of “we were made in the image of God” is true enough, but that of course leads to the question of who or what is, or more correctly, was depicted as “God” thousands of years ago?
 
“and now for the rest of the story”  twist . . .
 
Is our DNA only “ours”?   No.  
 
Have we been visited before, on numerous occasions, by “someone” from out there?  Yes.
 
And are these two questions linked together?   Absolutely, of course.
 
Call it “neighborhood planning” if you wish, on a cosmic scale.
 
I would further submit that this has nothing to do with some sort of warm and fuzzy nurturing agenda from our benevolent space comrades from other star systems.
 
Please, spare me . . .
 
Rather, such endeavors are more like a protective measure, and an asteroid impact of a planetary scale is like a reset button for a world plagued with an errant or dysfunctional civilization.
 
And now, briefly back to our Biblical scriptures and prophecy teachings for just a moment . . .
 
What were those commandments that were “delivered” to us via a message received at the mountaintop, and cast into stone by none other than Moses himself.
 
I don’t see commandments, or holy “anything” here.
 
However, what I do see is a history of genetic modification, in which a local species of Earth specific hominid was selected for an “upgrade”, followed by a series of “lesson plans” that we would eventually have to learn.
 
And what happens if we, that lifeform and civilization in question do not follow the instructions of the aforementioned lesson plan?  
 
That planetary reset button is activated.
 
Well, OK . .  but why an asteroid?  
 
Couldn’t the errant lifeform in question simply be eradicated by some sort of clever biological scheme, as in an “Andromeda strain” type of microbe designed for this purpose,
 
No, that just won’t do.
 
Because what a planetary reset design strategy would really require would be a complete system reset, as in complete extinction of the lifeform in question, and all remnants of their existence.
 
Start over, from scratch. 
 
Completely different paradigm, and the planet herself would need a bit of a makeover.  A huge asteroid hit would create fantastic tsunamis, to scour the landmasses clean, followed by tremendous seismic disturbances never witnessed by a civilized world.
 
And, as the planetary makeover gets under way, there would also, of course, be a period of radically enhanced volcanic activity, such as witnessed here on Earth many millions of years ago, not by humans, but by lifeforms which only exist now in the form of fossils

 
What isn’t washed away, reduced to rubble or melted away  into molten rock could then be completely scraped off the planetary surface with an  iceage, via huge glaciers covering most of the planet, for say, about 10,000 years or so – that should get the job done.
 
An ice age conveniently provided, at least in part. to that aforementioned asteroid impact and the following incessant volcanic eruptions occurring around the world/ 
 
This is what I would refer to as the “real inconvenient truth”
 
So, let’s review, shall we?
 
Here we are, on our very lovely but badly damaged planet, the outcome of a  “genetic upgrade” that may have gone awry.
 
We were presented, at multiple times in various locations and cultures around the world, with a series of “important” timelines, and lesson plans.
 
Around the world, these emergent cultures devoted vast amounts of effort and  spectacular skill in creating calendars and astronomical observatories by which to measure and comprehend these cosmological timelines and how they might affect our world.
 
Throughout much of the known world in these ancient times, these lesson plans.  cosmic calendars, and spiritual mythos also told of an ancient time, when another advanced civilization once existed, was destroyed (perhaps by its own hand), and  the earth had horrific calamities visited upon it – floods, earthquakes, volcanoes radically changing climate, huge glaciers that covered the land, where strange beasts from another time once roamed the land.
 
Hmmm . . .  any of this sounding familiar, perhaps?
 
 
This is the “comprehensive” planetary makeover, which not only completely removes the offending lifefoms and their civilizations, but also gives the struggling planet a bit of “breathing room”, to re-establish its bio-diversity, recover the harm brought to it by wasteful and destructive industrial practices, and allows the planet to replenish its landmasses with new landscapes and mineral resources.
 
A complete system reset.
 
We were warned, and instructed, carefully, about all of this.
 
But, as I’m guessing to be the case, we have flunked the test.
 
In fact, the only folks who seem to have any sort of grasp at this early history and what was “delivered” at the time, have completely lost its true meaning, and instead have succumbed to a bizarre collection of self serving so-called “religious” doctrines, and fanatical, inflexible interpretations which have in fact caused more harm, in the context of wars, greed, and “enforced ignorance”, than any other aspect of our current civilization, past or current, could ever cause.
 
A toxic genetic attribute, the so-called “god part of the brain”, needs some adjustment.
 
Perhaps that genetic attribute was assigned to a series of worlds, to study the affects, positive and negative, for future reference.
 
After all, invoking a sort of genetic magnification of this mental attribute would be a perfect solution to create a more manageable, if not benevolent  lifeform in the ;King term. and perhaps on other worlds this may already be the case.
 
But the bottom line is this . . .
 
Folks, we are a specimen in a petri dish, an experiment, inoculated onto this earth many millennia ago – get over it!
 
Can we please progress past the 12th century, and at least attempt to understand any of this?
 
We were created, and instructed after our “creation”, by “beings from the heavens”, who did make a real effort to guide us fumbling humanoids here on
our lovely planet.
 
The irony here is that we are going to have to abandon many of the core concepts of the major religions that have spawned forth from those experimental beginnings.
 
I’m always open to seeing the glass half full, but at this juncture, that may be a dubious assessment at best.
  
Just to be on the safe side, better reset that planetoid.
 
It was a lovely experiment while it lasted -  though I’m sure our checkered past has been entered into someone’s log book and research archives.
 
Perhaps, if nothing else, we are a “worst case” example, to be studied, maybe in a “textbook” of some sort for young students on another world . . . but I digress.
 
At least we can say we did serve a purpose.
 
And where did I see something along those lines, as in serving the supreme being . . . ?
 
Oh, that’s right, that was included in those aforementioned lesson plans, the plans that eventually led to the irreversible path of destruction . . .
 
Yeah, better not make that mistake again.
 
Unless, of course, the particular “flavor” of ET who initiated this agenda wants to create a destructive, errant lifeform, that could infect someone else’s cosmic neighborhood.
 
Well hey, who says ET is perfect?
 
Oh, that’s right, those badly misinterpreted lesson plans once again.
 

As an act of mercy, and for the sake of the planet herself, not to mention the pre-emptive protection of the cosmic ecosystem, the aforementioned infestation would be immediately purged, and samples of its DNA studied as  specimens of a flawed, pathological lifeform.
 
I know, truth indeed can be “inconvenient” at times.
 
Oh well . . .

My boyfriend’s mum and dad live abroad but return to England for a few weeks every summer. This week his mum was meant to go back home to join his dad (who had gone back 2 weeks before to return to work). However the evening before travelling she realised she could not find her passport. The first thought was that her husband may have taken it in his luggage by mistake but he couldn’t find it either. A few days later she still hasn’t found it and is in the process of getting a new one. Hopefully she should be able to travel some time next week.

If everyone reduced their carbon emissions to 0, the film predicts that the carbon levels in the atmosphere will reduced to levels lower (i.e. better) than the optimum levels seen in 1970 where such problems due to Global Warming were minimal. I sit here looking out of the window in my high-rise flat in the heart of London and see many waste products being released into the atmosphere. These waste products contain high levels of carbon emissions. If anything, this is making my view a smoggy and dull which doesn’t span very far in distance – and this is not due to other buildings getting in the way (a metaphor?!).

Going green can be effortless...

Some although suggest that such pollution from aerosol particles are leading to Global Dimming – an effect which results in aerosol particles absorbing and reflecting sun rays back out into space, therefore counteracting the effects of Global Warming. However, the research into Global Dimming aren’t as reliable as those into Global Warming (in my view at least…) and also suggests that we need to pollute the atmosphere even more in order to lower the Earth’s atmosphere. Surely with extended pollution, this will release higher concentrations of carbon-related waste which inevitably overcome any temporary effects of Global Dimming – if any? (My account and understanding of Global Dimming is slightly hazy – do correct me or add more if necessary) Personally I would think that instead of polluting the atmosphere, a cleaner world would be a better world.

I know there are many posts, articles etc just like this one demanding people need to cut their emissions down – and although there are worldwide successes, this is clearly not enough. The numbers of individuals not cutting down are still greater than the numbers who are. This leads onto something a friend of mine said – “Why should I waste so much of my time and energy trying to cut down on leisurely habits in order to try and save the planet when clearly a greater number of people are counteracting my efforts?” As more and more people get involved, the closer we all are together to solving this problem. As the film points out, small individual efforts can solve large problems. Minority groups have many success stories in over-powering the majority – women can vote, homosexuality is no longer a mental disorder, slaves were freed – to name a few of the more obvious accounts in history. I’m not here to bore you with the finite scientific details. I think the majority of us are aware that this is a real issue whether we choose to accept it or not. However, the minority of us are doing anything about it.

The minority are slowly becoming the majority. However, there is still a great number of people out there still in the current majority soon turning into a minority. This needs changing. My friend is a great person, but the quote is clearly a wrong set of mind. Of course an individual’s work can make drastic changes, and those drastic changes get amplified as more people do it. I am happy to say that this person is continuing to make an effort. I don’t ask for perfection and leading to 0… but to at least change. Think on the plus side – if you go green, your bills get drastically lower.

Here is a link to my google search on “Go Green” to find out how you can change. A lot of these efforts are actually quite effortless…

“Jesus replied, ‘Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.’”  — Matthew 18:20

Two relatives have been spending the summer at my home.  Because my house is relatively small, the extra guests have made daily life challenging to say the least. Every time the situation grates on my nerves, I feel guilty.  They are my family.  I’m supposed to welcome them into my home, to love them.  Yet, they’ve made my life uncomfortable.  Can I honestly love them under such circumstances?

In prayer over the situation, I was reminded of Jesus’ comment about his lack of a home.  That was a terribly degrading situation.  To think — to go from having the entire universe at his disposal (John 1:3; Ephesians 1:22) to being homeless.  How uncomfortable that must have been.  How inconvenient.   But despite it all, Jesus chose humble surroundings for 33 years because he loves us.  Then he took on further inconvenience by dying on the cross.

I am inspired by his example.  I will not wait until it is convenient before choosing to love.

Algore is a liar. He has lied to the House energy subcommittee about his financial interest in cap and trade. He denied that he had a financial interest in cap and trade and said that if he ever did make any money he would give it away. He is lobbying for legislation to make us poor and to make him rich, pure and simple.

As I understand it Algore has a company that invested $6 million into a software company that’s going to make cap and trade software. He’s personally invested $35 million in a variety of global climate changey thingy’s. He made this money from his inconvenient lie movie and the 175 large he gets for spewing his BS in a lecture.

The whole climate change thing is not about the environment, it’s about taking our freedom away. They won’t stop using coal or gas but they will force the businesses to get in line behind them, just like they did with GM. then it’s going to be just like a third world country, it almost is now, where everybody is so afraid of the government that when they have an election ninety percent of the people vote for the party in power because they fear the consequences of anything else.

I’m constantly amazed at how people in this part of the world like to make things difficult.  Like riding motorscooters on the sidewalk. (No, I’m NOT getting out of your way on the sidewalk no matter how many times you beep your horn.)  They are incredible at finding exactly the right spot on a scooter infested sidewalk to stop and block all traffic going both ways too.  It’s really a gift.  Like just now, walking into this internet cafe. The guy stationed out front to invite people inside stepped into the little 1 foot space between the outdoor tables and the parked scooters with his arm extended like Vanna White to show me the way in.  And completely blocked the only entrance.  It’s seriously amazing.

I was terribly impressed earlier when a guy actually drove his scooter INSIDE the cafe I was at and got off the scooter IN the doorway.  I’m not sure how to top that one.

To question the benefits of a fundamental approach to the study of history, is to essentially pose a question of insight and certainty. It is not merely about a holistic view, but more about if a holistic view is even possible within history. Is it possible to encapsulate the whole of eternity into a defining moment and still remain tangibly accurate? Is the macro and micro interrelated and interchangeable? And most of all, what kind of answers does a big approach provide that are beneficial? Would it, possibly, solve the nature of the human phenomenon? Can the way history is viewed contribute towards a Utopian world?

Science, the pioneer of the empirical method, is at its core very fundamental; for millennia it searches for a total explanation for the question of why and how. History too, in order to hold any sense of credibility, must adapt a scientific process, so it is inevitable that the fundamental nature of defining truths has rubbed off on the study of history. The search for full illumination, the unveiling of a masterful design, is the core propellant in our documentation of history. The hope remains that in revealing the mystery of the human nature through a historical view, some reconciliation would be possible for the current world paradigm. The hope remains that a Utopian society can be resolved. One could almost say that all detailed closed-space studies of history are subconsciously constructed as a piece of a bigger puzzle. For science itself is a manner of viewing history, branched into separate yet connected approaches.

In fair consideration, the core criticism for a total view of history is that it would be a generalisation that would be contradicted by certain small-scale studies. Where there are so many historical contradictions and paradoxes, a full view is implausible. Yet the argument stands that for the true historian, there are no contradictions, only undiscovered patterns. That the true historian is more than a simple documenter of events, but also a sociologist. A study of cause and effect is a necessary proponent of historical documentation, so it is understandable that sociology and history work hand in hand. David Christian, for instance, is insistent that history is not merely documentation, but that it also holds a message. Weather the message is that humanity is ultimately violent or peaceful is the cause for discovery. This is perhaps the primary intent of a big approach to the study. Seeing as the past is thought to be a definition of forming who we are and where we stand today, it was unavoidable that some underlying meaning is not only sought, but also, necessary.

It is an issue of contribution to one’s identity. If the history of a town contributes towards their personal identity, it is only rationally intrinsic to formulate a historical world identity. The opposing argument has been that it is naïve to think that a positive historical identity would have any effect upon the individual, and what is worse, that history seems to present a negative human identity. So, inevitably this becomes an issue of unified vs. separatist. Collective vs. segregated. If history holds any markedly poignant message it is that differences are the primary cause of conflict. Unification has always been the resolution. This intensifies the responsibility of the historian to think in unified terms. Perhaps the aim of seeing the big picture is to cause a revolution in the ways in which history is viewed and taught.

Which leaves the question, would it help improve anything? This is the debate that has perhaps captured historians at this period in time. The conclusion of which, if it transpires, will hold immense changes. With the technological freedom of communication, the internationalist view has sprung the world with a reckoning force. Ideas of a collective human identity have become an imminent reality. A shift in paradigm has taken place following the ability of one person to speak to another across the world. As such, historians are now being affected by the paradigm-shift, and it is arguably the cause for emphasis on the big picture. It seems that a holistic view would in itself be the actual cause for improvement.

At this point, perhaps it is useful to substantiate how much a government and society is affected by history. On the power and benefit of unification. The nature of the debate calls for an embarkation into the human psyche. The efficiency of the map that historians create determines the effectiveness of the journey. Just as a bad road-map would detrimentally influence the safe passage of traffic, so too does mutant ideas of history affect the sanctity of a nation. A world-view of history is akin to seeing the forest for the trees. If one but looks, for instance, at the example provided by the period of the silk roads, where an influential interchange of commodity as well as ideas took place, it is also noticed that political fragmentation severely impacted the exchange of resources.

The first evidence to negate a Utopian view to be a naïve one is the nature of the universe itself: ever changing, expanding, and as some theorise, due to begin imploding. With ideas such as these, the implication is that societies also are ever changing: moving from disruption into unity, then, perhaps back to conflict. Ironically, history as thus far documented all too keenly reveals that this change is the only overwhelming constant. From galaxies to geological cycles to the birth and death of an organism. Even societies transferring from barbarianism into a peaceful nation, such as the Tibetans. Or the Indus Valley civilization once reputed to be rich in their innocuous wisdom now amounting to a corrupted and scavenging race in comparison to their past.

The idea of random change has infiltrated much of the sciences and modes of thought – so much as to entertain the notion of the primordial soup: the creation of life is often philosophically and scientifically indulged as an accident. This is a colossal contradiction for a life-form whose very intelligence relies on and is defined by pattern recognition. It is irrational to assume that wherefore there are patterns that dictate every other action, the very birth of this order would itself be an accident. Thankfully, with the emergence of quantum physics formed a powerful advocator of inert order within the big picture. And most of modern biology is concerned with discovering the hitherto undiscovered underlying patterns.

What remains profoundly captivating here is that history is not merely a study of economic or social change or of conquest and globalisation, but markedly a study of ideas being born and destroyed. With the industrial revolution arrived an idea now known as modernism – which lead to which, is still debatable. Perhaps it was a slow building idea that gave fruition to what we now call modernism, and the idea allowed for the discovery of machinery. The point, however, is that at the turn of the revolution occurred an expotential leap in population, the cause of which continues to baffle historians. Ecological research regarding population growth has come to conclusions that the level of population as well as species is directly proportionate to availability of habitat space. That after an equilibrium number is established, this number will remain constant irrespective of the introduction of new species or the extinction of pre-existing ones. Which leads one to ponder what form of new space was created by the industrial revolution to affect the equilibrium so sporadically.

This form of interlinking has proven itself empirically sound. It is an exchanging of ideas, of seeing the big picture. The question must be asked, what is history for? Upon what motive does one procure a detail of their past? And the obvious answer is, to provide a meaningful system of existence – to substantiate that there is most definitely an evolution and a purpose that is transpiring. In this case, it is interesting that the failure of the industrial revolution to provide a Utopia, that the birth of post-modernism, coincides with the period in time when we are finally ready to see history as a whole. Kicking and screaming perhaps, but we are at a point where we are looking at the big-bang – almost juxtaposing it with the industrial revolution, in order to see a principal truth. Besides, universal history has always been synonymous with mythology – it simply wasn’t an aspect of science, until now. Notwithstanding that the idea of world history arose alongside cosmology and evolutionary biology, perhaps it is the debate of revolution vs. evolution that has prompted us to consider the nature of a Utopia. Because after all, what are we evolving towards?

Speaking of the interrelation of the macro and the micro, the first disapproval stems along the lines of how there is far too much variation on local levels that get omitted when deriving a total outlook. The Agrean Era stands as a good example of this, but paradoxically the evidence that lead to current conclusions about that era were scattered on different globes, and it was collaborated in order to get a full picture. Besides, the core of ecology and biology demonstrates that all conflict and flourishing of species is strictly resources related. Psychology is strongly influenced by Abraham Maslow’s explanation that humans are driven by needs and are not inherently evil. Physics also agrees by procuring its second law of thermodynamics. Entropy. It is the quest for resources, the abundance or lack of them, that is the cause of equilibrium, conflict or dissemination. History also seems to have reached this conclusion. This would not have been possible to see if one did not stand back to look.

To understand that this is an issue of resources holds several layers of meaning for historians such as David Christian who contemplate the possibility of a Utopian society. The industrial revolution took place because the introduction of machinery placed the peasants in severe danger of losing their long held resources. And though historians have looked at history quite frequently through the lens of consumption and economic decisions, it would seem they were not too far off the mark. Except to say, the pessimism that has entranced several historians comes from their conclusion that there is no true abundance of resources, and that they are depleted time and time again. This, however, should not fail to provoke the historian to shift their angle onto the opposite side of how consumption is viewed and consider anew.

Though the rise of inequality is directly linked to economic differences, what is synonymous is the possibility of resolving these differences. The big picture makes it abundantly clear that we are not inherently a greedy species. As much as standing back to view a forest reveals the easiest path through it, so too do we begin to ask the right questions in historical study when interchanging the micro and the macro. The big picture in itself will not provide all the answers, as much as the localized picture, by itself, would be fragmented. One should have respect both for the details as well as the broad strokes. When the two are juxtaposed, an insightful clarity is gained.

In this case, the historian begins to ask, what sort of situations have lead to the resolving of differences? He or she begins to explore this avenue. Since he is the chooser of the lens through which he views history, this very choice is a prominent responsibility. And through discovering the several situations that resolve differences, he begins to uncover a fundamental pattern. The very discovery of this pattern will bear its effects on the identity of the society. This, it seems, is David Christian’s purpose in enthusiastically opting for the importance of world history.

Fundamental patterns are proliferate. Take phi for instance: the underlying geometry encountered frequently throughout biology and even in the construction of galaxies. DNA is another example. Agriculture arose in numerous places seemingly independently. Everything affects everything else. The environment is dynamic, and at face-value there seems to be no order, yet continuous exploration has eventually lead to a core formula. Science would have succumbed were this not the case. The final question, then, is that given the disparity between developed and undeveloped countries, how can a reconciliation be initiated?

Historians have on the most part concluded that if anything can be seen from ethno-archeology, it is that people do not always act to better adapt to their environment or to cooperate. On the other hand, a sense of abundance was created by tribes and societies of the past who made the act of sharing and gift-giving an essential part of their lifestyle. There is as much evidence that shows humanity’s compassionate awareness for the environment as there is of environmental degradation. These forms of mixed-messages make it easy to resort to resignation.

Historians have a long-standing favour for small-scale investigations because they believe the human phenomenon is only revealed in the details, so they consider vast generalizations to be unsophisticated. On afterthought, this is the truly naïve view, for their choice of scale is still biased by that which they choose to focus upon. Some facets are usually underplayed, and other aspects often overemphasised. The nature of falsification affects both small-scales and larger scales equally, and it is often the case that the errors in the conclusions become obvious when you cease to be biased towards a choice of scale. It is proven time and time again, that bias is indeed the enemy of clarity.

How one would reconcile the bias of nations with opposing interests depends entirely on the map of reality that rules humanity. It is inevitably an exploration of balance and imbalance. It is an issue of contingency. For instance, seeing as at the time of the industrial revolution, Asia also contained the technology to effect the discovery of machinery, why did they fail to do it? Much like sedentism and over-population lead to agriculture, one can logically allude that there was no necessity presented to create the situation for such a discovery. In the same context, it is the necessity now that would lead to a resolution.

Yet every positive improvement has had its detriment. Bigger populations have included more diseases. With modernity came the clearing away of peasants. The signs so far indicate a cycle of reciprocity leading to entropy. A recharging followed by a diffusion. Knowing this, it seems unfathomable that there can be co-existence without aggressive enforcement of some kind or other. But certainly, a Utopian world of abundant resources and peaceful co-existence is possible. It has eventuated many times within history, though as spectacularly short-lasting as it is glorious. In our current scenario also a sense of progress is witnessed. And when we hold the totality of history within our scope, from the creation of the universe until now, we witness nothing but abundance. And the thought occurs, if the recurring element that is necessary for peaceful co-existence is the quantity of resources, we are surely within a Utopia. Perhaps recognition is all that is necessary.

As much as the master who submits to the servant becomes autocratic, such would be the effect of the environment upon the mind. And Science, in false hypothesis, assumes and continues to experiment with such an illusiory conditioning. Drawing dangerous conclusions at that, expressing with firm and obnoxious regard that we are but slaves to our environment. Reactionary instruments. The objective approach would be the willingness to expose the nature of this oppression, or at the very least, to test the potential of the mind in manifesting its will. In this light, one derives definite principles on the spirit of man, as well as a pronounced disclosure on the character of the individual within a Utopian society. Abraham Maslow’s purport on the Self-Actualised person is a remarkable example.

Self-Actualisation is synonymous with Utopia. At this point, it is important to delve to the crux of the matter – it is impossible to have a Utopia without the recognition of Spirit. Of the mystery of “peak experiences”, for lack of a better term. Ultimately, Utopia is an idea, therefore this is entirely an issue of the human psyche. The abundance of resources, or the subjection to entropy, is wholly a mindstate. This is a natural course of reasoning, a substantiate hypothesis that is empirically verifiable: the mind creates the matter. If the mind is a closed-space, then your thoughts and your personal reality are subject to entropy. So, your mind has to be an open-space – exuberant, generous, inclusive and expansive. That’s the difference between heaven and hell. Unity in diversity and creative abundance are the flairs of a Utopian society. This mentality needs foremost to be individually established – and this would effectually, naturally, translate into society and government. The revolution is within.

There is no political agenda here, that would be to thoroughly miss the point.

I am convinced purely because I am aware of my own nature – and I cannot see a single reason why the spirit of any other man is any different….

“Each and every one of us, knows each other explicitly and intently because we all share the same phenomenon of loneliness.”

“Thats all?”

Smiles as the thunderbolt strikes. “Yes.”

“Harry,” said Basil Hallward, looking him straight in the face,”every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter. The sitter is merely the accident, the occasion. It is not he who is revealed by the painter; it is rather the painter who, on the coloured canvas, reveals himself. The reason I will not exhibit this picture is that I am afraid that I have shown in it the secret of my own soul.” — A Picture of Dorian Grey, Oscar Wilde.

2 percent of the world are already in Utopia.

Het enorme succes van An Inconvenient Truth verdient navolging.
Miljoenen mensen over de hele wereld hebben de documentaire gezien.
Op veel scholen en in veel collegezalen is de documentaire vertoond.

Nu is het tijd voor de volgende ongemakkelijke les voor de opgroeiende generatie:
er zijn grenzen aan de economische groei; de grondstoffen raken op.

Voor de sequel kan Al Gore putten uit het Rapport van de Club van Rome uit 1972.
De auteurs voorspelden 35 jaar geleden al dat de wereldbevolking niet onbeperkt kan blijven groeien en dat de natuurlijke hulpbronnen beperkend zouden worden.
Peakoil is realiteit, de wereldolieproduktie is sinds juli 2008 al met 2% gedaald. Gelukkig is de vraag naar olie met meer dan 2% gedaald.
Na de olie zal ook het aardgas en steenkool opraken. Zeldzame metalen worden steeds zeldzamer.
Schoon drinkwater wordt steeds schaarser. Hoe lang kunnen we de wereldbevolking nog voeden ?

We lopen al tegen de grenzen aan, de economische recessie is het eerste voelbare gevolg.
Als er één les belangrijk is voor de jeugd dan is het dat er Grenzen zijn aan de Groei.

Nog ongemakkelijker dan the Inconvenient Truth,

Another Inconvenient Truth : Limits to Growth

Here is a short list of things that I have seen in the news that someone has determined causes global warming.

1. Cars

2. Cows farting.

3. Mowing my lawn.

4. Bottled water.

5. Spam E-mail.

6. Fat people.

7. Making solar panels.

8. Appliances.

9. Power plants.

10. Volcanoes.

11. Humans in general.

12. Eating food.

13. Toilet paper.

14. Making bumper stickers about global warming.

15. Drowning polar bears.

16. Printing e-mails.

17. Sending e-mails.

18. Reading blogs.

19. Searching for ways to stop global warming on the internet.

20. Al Gore.

Sersly… Is there anything on God’s green Earth that doesn’t cause global warming? I smell an agenda.

These all are owned by me and please join the ones created by me! Thank you for your time!

I Hate the Drive Thru: MySpace Group | Facebook Group

The level of importance of a major problem has come to my attention. I am very concerned about fast food drive thrus. They are just plain inconvenient and I would rather do the work of going inside. Find out the reasons why I think so on my new Groups

I’m Not Perfect: MySpace Group | Facebook Group

My other semi-new Facebook group is for those of us who have the balls to admit we’re not perfect.

These all are owned by me and please join the ones created by me! Thank you for your time!

I Hate the Drive Thru: MySpace Group | Facebook Group

The level of importance of a major problem has come to my attention. I am very concerned about fast food drive thrus. They are just plain inconvenient and I would rather do the work of going inside. Find out the reasons why I think so on my new Groups

I’m Not Perfect: MySpace Group | Facebook Group

My other semi-new Facebook group is for those of us who have the balls to admit we’re not perfect.

By Kellene Bishop

Our U.S. Constitution.  When I hear those words I swell up with pride and a sense of reverenced awe to realize that men from such diverse backgrounds and beliefs could have come up with such an inspired document.  Yes, it is not perfect in light of the many unprecedented ails that our country experiences today, but I firmly believe that it is a heavenly inspired document.  Just as the parting of the Red Sea, so did God cut through the clutter of biases, prejudices, and paradigms of those rather ordinary men to come together and create a guiding document that attempted to express and ensure universal fairness and a nation of true freedom.  Sadly, today that document is condemned by the very persons who take an oath to uphold it as irrelevant, archaic, and outdated. 

Many believe that to recognize our nation as unique is narcissistic and prideful.  It simply is not.  The fact that our nation was founded on the principles of true freedom—to act according to our own conscience so long as such actions did not tread on the freedoms of others—was based on the recognition of the true value of human life.  As such this nation was indeed the first and still is the most unique nation in the world.  No other nation has ever attempted to convey such freedoms to its citizens.  No other nation has ever believed enough in its citizens to acknowledge that such freedoms even belonged to its citizens.  The United States of America attempted to do that which had never been done before; to believe that a people would choose good over bad if permitted to make decisions for themselves, and as such to prosper in the pursuit of life, liberty, the pursuit of property, and happiness.  This belief was so fundamental to the birth of our nation that the millions of those who toiled and plowed for such a standard gave their lives in the selfless sacrifice of time, money, and even blood to seal their belief of such a notion. 

Have the history books ever mentioned any other document which has inspired such consistent goodness, sacrifice, and virtue before which influenced so many?  When it was first created, was there evidence of any evil intent to have tyrannical power of the people of this nation?  Even if the Constitution had conveyed a desire for power over the people at the time, it could not be enforced upon a people who were passionately ready for the responsibilities of freedom.  They could fathom nothing less at that time and they would accept nothing less. 

Today however, many attempt to dismiss the merits of the Constitution, not because its doctrines are faulty, but because such doctrines are seriously inconvenient to the duplicitous and tyrannical desires of those who are expected to uphold it. 

For example, it wasn’t convenient for President G. W. Bush to wait until “probable cause” was evident prior to him taking down a suspected terrorist.  So he simply created various acts to eliminate such needs so long as the government agents were willing to “claim” that their investigations “may” benefit the results of a terrorist investigation.

The government was greatly inconvenienced by not being able to spend as much as they wanted to.  And according to the Constitution’s requirement of taxation WITH proper representation they were handcuffed.  So, “inconvenience be damned”, they claimed to have ratified an amendment that enabled them to tax the citizens of this nation egregiously.  (They never did ratify such an amendment, but they sure do like to pretend they did in hopes that we won’t pick up on it.)

Certain political parties are shackled with the merits of the 1^st Amendment of the Constitution, so they seek to create another bill, ironically called the “Fairness Doctrine” in an effort to eliminate those who would dare express any opposing views of the government with any semblance of influence.

And so it continues…

Unfortunately, the people as a whole are starting to get wise.  Their freedoms are starting to be seriously inconvenienced by a government that was supposed to working FOR them for no other purpose than to uphold and protect the U.S. Constitution.  Essentially, this inconvenient document is the ONLY thing that ensures our government officials even have a job!  So the only way they can get around this is to attempt, with the help of the complacent media, to appropriately color that which is good, bad, and that which is truly bad, good.  They are attempting to usurp the foundations of this country by completely ignoring the laws of the Constitution.  Our government officials are also looking to other nations in hopes to uphold their decisions based on the improper popular decisions of foreign nations who never entertained our value system.  (That’s like a doctor wanting to get surgical advice from a mortician.)  “Well, the French courts ruled this way, so let’s try that,” or, “The U.N. seems to think like this, so let’s do that.”

Sadly, the U.S. Constitution has clearly become inconvenient to those who value freedom as well.  We work all day, everyday to pay our taxes so that those we’ve elected to office take care of ensuring such freedoms, only to find that these stewards of the people have been asleep on the job.  And they’ve slept through some of the most critical legislation in the history of our nation, to the point that they couldn’t even be bothered to read most of this legislation.  So now, not only do we have to work to pay our government to do their jobs and provide for our own families, we have to take what precious time we have left to make our voices heard, let them know that we are indeed monitoring them, and in some instances, even doing their job for them.  (see this CNN article)  Talk about an inconvenience, right?

This nation was indeed founded on that which is good.  It IS indeed unique—unique in that we were formed for the purpose of giving true freedom to the people, and empower the people to hire government officials to work for them to aid in ensuring such freedoms are upheld.  I agree, it isn’t convenient to have to make decisions for ourselves and not have everything dictated to us.  And it’s not convenient to have to take time to get educated about issues and candidates.  But it’s our freedom to do so just as much as it’s our freedom to fail in doing so.  While the constitution may be an inconvenient document for both good and evil causes, only a proactive inconvenience will ensure that it stands for that which we truly want.  Freedom.