Our dilemma

How many of the readers of this post have ever complained about new laws passing that are unconstitutional?  Like really be honest.  And usually you think "how could our perfect goverment become so corrupt?"  Here's the answer to the last question.  It is a slow process little bits at a time kind of like that boiled frog analogy where we think "oh it's only a little bit of my freedom, or it doesn't have anything to do with me."  Or maybe people did realize they were losing their freedom  but thought "oh I'm too small to make a difference, or it will adjust itself on its own." Well, did it adjust itself ? It did adjust itself here and there but unfortunately that's even a slower process than losing the rights to begin with.  Are we going to have the mentality that it will adjust itself on its own or catch our freedom and keep our goverment and the inalienable rights and freedoms it was based upon before it's to late?

Things that you thought were true but are totally false.

Mount Everest is one whopping big mountain, but is it the tallest in the world? In fact it is not. A mountain is highest in regard to how far it soars above sea level. But technically it is tallest from base to summit. And Mauna Kea kills it at being the tallest.

Here's the deets: Above sea level, Mauna Kea (in Hawaii) is only 13,799 feet (4,206 meters). But when you count the crazy enormous portion of it that's underwater, it's 33,465 feet tall (10,200 meters). Everest, that snobby little upstart, is only 29,029 feet (8,848 meters) above sea level, with none of it below sea level [source: Mitchinson and Lloyd].

But the shame doesn't end there. Mount Kilimanjaro hasn't taken the stand yet. Kilimanjaro is 19,340 feet (5,895 meters) top to bottom. So it's not as tall as Everest – but Everest is surrounded by the rest of its friends, the Himalayas, all of which are collectively growing by a quarter of an inch per year and pushing Everest's summit higher. Kilimanjaro, on the other hand, is solitary, rising out from the relative flatness of Tanzania all on its dramatically striking own [source: Mitchinson and Lloyd]

another one is that Different Parts of Your Tongue Detect Different Tastes.

Lots of people think different parts of the tongue are fine-tuned to detect different tastes. The tip of the tongue is where you get your cupcake on, the sides are where the salty taste really hits home, bitter's in the back, and in between is the sour zone. This "fact" was the prevailing notion for a very long time. It has persisted in spite of millions of kids in health class insisting that the wooden spoon just tastes like wooden spoon, no matter how they lick it.

More recently, however, we've found out that the whole zones theory was pretty much bologna. (That would be the umami talking. More about that in a sec.) It turns out people can sense different tastes all over their tongues. There are a few outliers, but for most people, them's the facts.

Then there's the fifth basic taste that doesn't get a lot of PR, and that'sumami. Auguste Escoffier, the pimpest chef in 19th century France, concocted this fifth wheel in the palate party. Foodies swooned over it – it's been described as savory and meaty – but scientists stuck to the sweet/salty/bitter/sour taste tetrahedron.

Even though umami was a familiar taste in Japan, the "fifth taste" idea didn't get much traction there, either. That is until Kikunae Ikeda, a whiz-bang Japanese chemist, decided to get to the bottom of what umami was all about. He figured out the taste came from glutamic acid, and he called it the Japanese version of yummy.

No one at the time believed him, though, and it wasn't until the end of the 20th century that scientists decided to look into it. They realized Ikeda was right all along.

 Your fingers don’t wrinkle in water because the skin is absorbing water and swelling.

It’s actually caused by the autonomic nervous system, and is thought to have evolved because it gives ancestral primates a better grip in slippery, wet environments.

look here for more info.

General Motors

Recently general motors (gm) had to recall 2.6 million cars for faulty ignition switches. This is a chart of the cars they recalled and what was wrong with them. But overall the ignition switch could cause the engine to stop and/or the airbag to be disabled.

These problem at least 12 deaths and 31 crashes. There are a few things that they could have done to avoid this crisis and that they can do to never do again.
First, they could test the vehicle haw people will drive it. By that i'm referring to the quote by GM that says "the cars are safe to drive as long as a key and ring only are the only items on a key chain." But almost no one does that. Most people have at least a dozen keys on their key ring. They should test the car with a weight and also without for this particular problem.
Second, they need to address issues when they arise. And not in secret. In this problem they tried and failed fixing it by changing the part and not the part number. So they wouldn't be accountable for the problem. If they would have announced the problem right up front they wouldn't have had to pay so much and they would have had an easier time fixing the problem because it was already public.
Third, they need to be honest. This covers everything else i think but really this is what it's all about. They kept the problem secret and they tried to fix it secretly to be unaccountable for their mistake as i mentioned earlier. they new this was wrong and they did it anyway. "GM said that Our principle throughout this process has been to the put the customer first" and that's all fine and well but what about before this problem was discovered by the public, were we first than or money. They new this could and probably would kill people but they didn't do anything about it.
I've concluded that if they just always put the customer first, above anything and everything, than they will have a successful business that will not have huge problems like these. And possibly they will even have more trust by their costumers because of their people.

National Popular Vote

There is a movement underway to create a National Popular Vote by a system of interstate compacts. Currently 10 states have signed on to this compact, pledging the votes of all their delegates to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote. This compact would take effect when enough states to total 270 electoral vote (electoral majority) sign on to the compact, thus insuring that the winner of the popular vote would have enough electoral votes to win the election.

Advocates of this reform say, for example, "what this would do is, all those billions raised for campaigns, instead of being funneled into a handful of states, they would have to be spread out across the whole country..." While their concern for disproportional spending is admirable, it is also completely disingenuous. This will not negate the "momentum" effect of states with early votes in the primaries. But it will funnel enormous amounts of money to the 146 counties where over half the U.S. population resides.

If we compare the map of the counties where half the U.S population resides with the map of the results of the last presidential election, it is easily noticeable that these same counties are overwhelmingly Democrat.

This is a transparently political Democratic party grab for power. It is just as transparently political as the Republican's attempts to decrease minority voting under the banner of "preventing voter fraud."

Cold Steel vs. Benchmade

Some have asked. Many want to know. I have set on a quest to answer the question. Cold Steel vs Benchmade, who will win? Having searched for, and found valuable information on both kinds of knives, I will tell the story of the epic battle!
Different factors:

1) blade steel.

2) blade sharpness.

3) handle material.

4) handle strength.

5) lock strength.

6) size.

7) overall quality.

8) variety.

9) price.

Cold Steel's knives consists of mostly aus8a knives, with a few harder, tougher, steel. And a couple of high carbon steel.
Though the aus8a steel has been expertly heat-treated, it is still rather soft. The Benchmade knife army is full of really hard, strong steels, that few can rival. The various types of steel are all top notch.

After a hard and bloody battle, the Benchmade comes out on top. The aus8a Cold Steel knives have been beaten with the Benchmade's harder, tougher steel. But the Cold Steel knives held up very well, and for a good long while, they were beaten. The winner is BENCHMADE!

The battle if the sharpest blade. The two are equal, but, it will take Cold Steel a shorter time to dull the edge, thus, BENCHMADE wins!

The handle strength, and material varies from strong, reinforced plastic, to aluminum and steels, on the Benchmade knifes. The cold steel has usually strong plastics for there handles, that are very tough. The Cold Steel knives gave very comfortable, and fit the hand well. The winner is COLD STEEL!

When it comes to the lock on the knives, Benchmade usually has the
AXIS lock, which is a strong lock. But it is beaten by the Cold Steel
Triad Lock, which is the strongest talk on the market. The winner is, COLD STEEL!

The size for most of the Benchmade knives is usually smaller, and don't very that much it there sizes. But Cold Steel's knives have a large selection of sizes. They can range from 12" to 2". Thus, COLD STEEL wins!

The overall quality between the knives is not very different. The Benchmade knives come out on top, due to the materials they use to construct their knives. BENCHMADE wins!

The Benchmade had a very large selection and varieties of knives. But they don't differ from each other very much. They're usually limited to pocket folders. The Cold Steel knives also have a very large selection of folding knives, as well as fixed blades, push daggers, throwing knives/throwing stars, spears, clubs, and swords. COLD STEEL wins!

And last, but not least, the price. Benchmade knives usually cost anywhere from $150-$400. But the Cold Steel knives have a much lower price, for near matching quality. They usually range from $25-$200. COLD STEEL wins!

Now, in my personal opinion, I believe Cold Steel you better place to put your money. The biggest reason for this is the price and quality ratio. You get a lot more for whet you pay at Cold Steel.

COLD STEEL wins!

football players unionize

On March 26, Peter Ohr, Regional Director of National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) Region 13 held that Northwestern University’s football players are in fact school employees and have the right to form a labor union. and they did.
but this is wrong their not employees. the employees at a college are teachers, coaches, and instructors. they teach everyone else who are the students how to do whatever they are teaching. soon they will be asking for money. it won't be the first thing that will happen but they will eventually once most teams have a union. then they will get it even though it is currently against N.A.C.C. policy. but that might even hurt them because of taxes.
they do seem to have some reasons that are good though. apparently the N.C.A.A. is good at forgetting players once they are injured. but if players are being treated unfairly then they don’t need to have a union. they can appeal to or sue the N.C.A.A. for protection. but they don't need to be employees. even though the N.C.A.A. should sufficiently care for them if they get hurt in a game, that's not a reason to become employees. just convince the government that the N.C.A.A. have a legal right to do so.
i think that

college athletes aren't employees. it's more like a apprenticeship than anything else. they learn how to do the job (play the sport) and develop their ability in it, so that they can go on to do it successfully as a professional. professional teams want to see that they player has had experience and has been good on the field. and that is easiest if there's a big team that the players go on as preparation before they become a pro. so

many professional sports have minor leagues to train players but in the case of N.F.L. and the N.B.A. the N.C.A.A. is the minor league.

so this whole thing shouldn't happen. and if it continues they will eventually ask for pay and then schools may not have enough money for other areas or sports. so i think they should have fixed their problems they say they had within the system, and not create this new system.

Placing Political Conditions on Humanitarian Aid to Foreign Countries. Just or unjust?

      Is making countries accept terms before receiving aid after a natural, or economic disaster just, or unjust?

      On the one hand, we have the position that it is unjust. The primary argument here would be Human Life, and Human Dignity.
      Humanitarian Aid as defined by the Global Humanitarian Assistance is: "Aid and action designed to save lives, alleviate suffering, and maintain and protect human dignity during and in the aftermath of emergencies." I would like to draw special attention to the terms: Designed to save lives, and also maintain and protect human dignity.
      While the people in power are stuck bickering over who gets what when it's all over, and how the money is supposedly used, millions are dying. Which is certainly not designed to save lives, but to benefit for their country and their benefit as much as possible rather than trying to save lives, alleviate suffering and protect human dignity.
      What if the country is not able to accept the terms? These people won't be able to get the aid that it needs. Thus, the affirmative is arguing that political conditions on humanitarian aid are unjust, and therefore should not be tolerated.

      Some argue that it is just. The points that they make are:
      Our primary responsibility is to our own people. Those in charge of the country, our main concern, is that of keeping their own people safe. They have the right to know where, and when that money, food, or clothing is going to. If no conditions are made, how can we be sure that our money is going to the right place? In North Korea we sent them aid, and they used it to build Nuclear weapons and have been threatening their trade partners, the US, South Korea, China, Russia, and the UN. Without political conditions, or strong ones at that, countries could deprive the aid to those that need it and use it against those countries that sent it. In order to protect their people, and maintain the dignity of the people being helped, and making sure the aid is given to those that need it, the Negative concludes that it is just.

The Ideal School

                                                                                    The Ideal School 

     The Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius in the 2nd Century, A.D. in his personal writings, now known as “Meditations, writes of his experiences as a student. He tells us about his great-grandfather, Catilus Serverus, who advised him “to avoid the public schools, to hire good private teachers, and to accept the resulting costs as money well-spent”. That was 1,800 years ago!

     The public school system in American began in earnest after the Civil War. This is when the federal government funded and controlled schools replaced the private education system. By 1870, 57% of the school age children in America were enrolled in public schools. Then by the beginning of the 20th Century numerous groups pushed for a more comprehensive and bureaucratic public education system that was suppose to be  “critical to America’s future”. The Progressive movement replaced the community run schools with their sophisticated and standardized system that was backed by business leaders and the labor unions. 

     In 1905, seeing the rise of Germany as an economic threat, the United States manufacturers pushed for state-run trade schools. Then these American businesses, along with the labor unions, pressured Congress to expand federal spending on education. The school administrators, teachers and students all had a place in producing a standardized “final product”. Even today public education is dominated by these objectives.

     The role of public education has expanded to encompass all aspects of family life  - such as:  instilling moral values, managing health and nutrition needs, fighting crime and protecting children from physical and psychological harm  -  public education has taken control of every aspect of the student’s life! Finally, numerous groups use the public school system as a way to promote their own political and social goals....racial integration, democratic participation, or environmental awareness. 

     Every year since World War II, the American public felt that something “new” was happening in public school reform. But statistics tell a different story. There has been very little change in student performance, in fact the changes were downward. What has become clear is that government is totally unsuited to teach America’s students.  

     “America’s monopolistic, bureaucratic, over-regulated system of public schools is woefully unprepared to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century. Political, business and education leaders continue to talk about “reforming” the current public education system. They should, instead, be discussing how to replace it.” 

     Studies show that private schools produce better students than public schools. My ideal school is a private school that has teachers and administrators who listen to input from the students and their parents.     

www.forbes.com/sites/ashoka 

Advertising

I recently learned that most news sites only post news articles that will draw  the attention of the public so that people can see the advertisements. Before you watch a video, you will almost always see an advertisement, and on the sides of most internet sites there will be an ad. As I've searched the internet looking for interesting news articles to write about,Ii found it difficult to find interesting stories that didn't seem like pointless stories. For example, one thing I came across was about how a Spanish pop singer was murdered. I am not unsympathetic, but I don't think that kind of thing is relevant.It is all for the advertising.

Should Any Vaccines Be Required for Children?

                                                     Should Any Vaccines Be Required for Children?

    “Vaccine advocates argue that vaccination is safe and one of the greatest health developments of the 20th Century. They point out that illnesses, including rubella, diptheria, and whooping cough, are now prevented by vaccination. They also claim that anti-vaccination studies are often faulty, biased and misleading.” 

   

  “ The opponents of vaccination argue that children’s immune systems can deal with most infections naturally and that the side effects of vaccinations, which include  seizures, paralysis, and death, are not worth the risk of vaccinating against non-life threatening illnesses. They cite numerous studies to prove that vaccines trigger problems like autism, ADHD, and multiple sclerosis.”   

      This debate has been going on for decades. After researching extensively I have listed just a few of the arguments that are being offered:

PRO Vaccines            

1. Vaccination should be required for children. No individual should have the right to risk  

     the health of the public solely for the purpose of satisfying their personal moral,   

     philosophical, or religious views.   

2.  Vaccines can eradicate disease and prevent serious illness and death. Mandatory         

     vaccination has eradicated diseases that once killed thousands of children, such as   

     polio and small pox.

3. The American Academy of Pediatrics claims that most vaccines are 90-99%  

     effective. But when the children who have been vaccinated do contract the disease,  

     despite being vaccinated against it, they usually have milder symptoms with less 

     serious complications than an unvaccinated child that gets the same disease.

4. Since some individuals that have been vaccinated may still get sick when exposed to 

     infected individuals,  75%  -  90% of the population (depending on the disease), must    

     be vaccinated to achieve “herd immunity”.  When herd immunity is achieved the  

     number of immunized individuals is high enough to prevent the spread of disease 

     through the population. 

CON Vaccines

1. Governments should not have the right to intervene in the health decisions parents 

     make for their children. 3l% of parents believe they should have the right to refuse 

     mandated school entry vaccinations for their children. 

2. Many parents hold religious beliefs against vaccination. Forcing such parents to 

     vaccinate their children violates the 1st Amendment which guarantees citizens the 

     the right to the free exercise of their religion. 

3.Vaccines can trigger auto-immune disorders such as arthritis, multiple sclerosis, 

      lupus, Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), and other disorders. Vaccines can cause 

      brain inflammation (encephalopathy) which can lead to death or permanent brain   

      damage and disorders such as Autism, ADD/ADHD, and other developmental 

       problems. 

4. Vaccines are promoted primarily to generate profits for manufacturers and 

      financial donations for medical organizations that endorse vaccines.  A house

      Committee on Government Reform report revealed that the CDC Advisory                      

      Committee on Immunization Practices had members who had financial ties to 

       vaccine companies.  The former CDC Director is currently the CEO of Merck               

       Pharmaceutical. 

  

     “Mainstream doctors and media pundits are notorious for claiming that the vaccine-autism debate is over and that no legitimate scientific evidence exists to suggest even a possible link between vaccinations and autism spectrum disorders (ASD): case closed. But a thoroughly-researched report recently published reveals that there are at least 22 published scientific studies that show a link between vaccines and autism and that there are many more with similar findings.”  Infowars - http://www.infowars.com 

     Both sides stand firm in their convictions. The CDC now recommends that each child receive an astounding 68 vaccinations by the time they reach 18 years of age!! The opponents of vaccines feel that the government should not intervene in the health care decision regarding vaccinations for their children. I agree that the welfare of the child should be left up to the parents not the government. Furthermore, that the bare minimum vaccinations be given only for the life-threatening diseases. 

Posted by:  Cole Baker

Why do they attack us?

I've always wondered why the terrorists attack us.  It says in The Thousand Year War that the "terrorists" feel like we are attacking them.  So why do they feel threatened? Well, Mr. Maybury says that the crusaders came and attacked the Muslims a really long time ago and the Europeans have fought multiple times with the Muslims and the Americans stumbled into the "wars" a while back.  The Americans and Europeans see every series of battles as a separate war where as the Muslims see it as one big war which is the Europeans vs. the Muslims.  So the true question is not why are they attacking us but why are we still at war with them.

There is some food for thought.

Crimea succeeded from Ukraine

The basic rundown of the story is that Ukraine's government decided to trade with Europe and not Russia. The people didn't like that so they changed there government. While this happened Crimea decided that they liked Russia better than Ukraine and succeeded from Ukraine and voted for Russia to annex them (partially because of their long history with Russia and always liking Russia anyway). And now the International community has decided that you aren't allowed to seceded from your country if your not being abused. but they still do almost nothing about it.
But why shouldn't Crimea succeed if they want to they can. The people they succeeded from left and let them go so why should we still keep bugging them. In the ideal situation we wouldn't, and if we weren't so worried that some country becoming more powerful than we wouldn't care. So i think that we should just leave them alone and the only people that should be making a big deal out of this are the ones involved that being: Ukraine and Russia. We should just sit back and let other countries make their own decisions.

The Gold Standerd

The ideal situation for the econemy would be if we had a gold standerd. If our country had a gold standerd then it would encourage the rest of the world to do the same. It would also prevent inflation. Another benefit would be that there would be free flow of capitol across borders. Eventually, if the whole world adopted the gold standerd then most budgets in the world would be balanced