Nick and I have taken another step into adulthood.
We have set the first requirement for any house that we may want to purchase/build in the future. While searching for an interesting jigsaw puzzle to build (yes, facebook friends, this post is quite a bit belated), we came across this: LIFE: The Great Challenge.
And just like that, our future house gained a prerequisite: It must have a 15' wall.
Eventually we will become stinking rich, and will have several thousand to blow on a puzzle. When we do, we MUST have a place to display said puzzle. (Especially since it is extremely unlikely that we will have both the money and good eye-sight. But that makes it all the more display worthy .... right?)
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
A few thoughts about Obama's speech tonight:
INTRODUCTION:
"I won’t bore you with the details of every plan or proposal, but basically, the debate has centered around two different approaches." -- I want details! I'm not an idiot, and I do not believe everything I hear on TV. I want the details of BOTH plans, so I can decide for myself which is better.
NOT OBAMA'S APPROACH:
"... let’s live within our means by making serious, historic cuts in government spending." --YEAH!! It's about freaking time!!
"Let’s cut defense spending at the Pentagon by hundreds of billions of dollars." --OK, not as good. However, I've never known Obama (or any politician for that manner) to give fair and accurate reporting on an opponents plan, policies, or practices. I'll wait for actual facts before judging this point.
"Let’s cut out waste and fraud in health care programs like Medicare" --YEAH!!! Again, about freaking time!!
"Finally, let’s ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to give up some of their breaks in the tax code and special deductions." --We'll get back to this one in a few minutes.
OBAMA'S APPROACH:
"It would reduce the deficit by around $4 trillion and put us on a path to pay down our debt." --I don't want to be 'on the path' I want a balanced budget. I have to live on one, why doesn't Washington?!
"And the cuts wouldn’t happen so abruptly that they’d be a drag on our economy" --You're talking like all of this will happen overnight. NOTHING in Washington happens overnight.
"While many in my own party aren’t happy with the painful cuts it makes, enough will be willing to accept them if the burden is fairly shared." --We'll get back to this one too.
"That’s not right. It’s not fair. We all want a government that lives within its means, but there are still things we need to pay for as a country -– things like new roads and bridges; weather satellites and food inspection; services to veterans and medical research." --You're right. It's not fair. But I have to forgo a LOT of the things I am used to. Why doesn't the government? Why can't Washington make every penny count? What's so wrong with telling some researchers that they have a really great project, but there just isn't enough money in the coffer to help out?
"And keep in mind that under a balanced approach, the 98 percent of Americans who make under $250,000 would see no tax increases at all. None. In fact, I want to extend the payroll tax cut for working families." --And now I come back to the two points that I skipped. How is this any different than the last point in the plan that you didn't like? You have 2% of Americans making up all the new revenue, while you give more tax breaks to 98%. How, exactly, is this a burden evenly shared? Do you not pay attention to what happens when you tax an entity (person or corporation) more than others? It just happened in California ... they leave your tax jurisdiction. FYI, they take their money with them.
THE PROBLEM, AS OBAMA SEES IT:
"Now, what makes today’s stalemate so dangerous is that it has been tied to something known as the debt ceiling -– a term that most people outside of Washington have probably never heard of before." --Great. Now we're idiots, and have no clue what is going on.
"Understand –- raising the debt ceiling does not allow Congress to spend more money." --You'll have to go into depth on this one, because I am really not getting it. If Congress doesn't need to spend more money to pay the country's debts, WHY does the debt ceiling NEED to be raised?
"In the past, raising the debt ceiling was routine. Since the 1950s, Congress has always passed it, and every President has signed it." --Yes. Isn't this why we are in trouble now?
"We would risk sparking a deep economic crisis -– this one caused almost entirely by Washington." --Um ... correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't federal spending completely in the control of Washington? So, isn't the whole reason that you had to interrupt my TV show, to insult me, Washington's fault?
"But the new approach that Speaker Boehner unveiled today, which would temporarily extend the debt ceiling in exchange for spending cuts, would force us to once again face the threat of default just six months from now." --Good! I want Washington to keep this item on the agenda, to have the threat of default hanging over their heads until they BALANCE THE DAMN BOOKS!! If this means having a temporary measure passed, and the issue is forced in another 6 months, then fine. But BALANCE THE DAMN BOOKS! NOW!!
"We know what we have to do to reduce our deficits; there’s no point in putting the economy at risk by kicking the can further down the road." --Maybe it will finally get it through your thick skulls that the American people want the DAMN BOOKS BALANCED!
"Again, they will refuse to ask the wealthiest Americans to give up their tax cuts or deductions." --You mean unlike point four in the plan you don't like?
CONCLUSION:
"I’ve told leaders of both parties that they must come up with a fair compromise in the next few days that can pass both houses of Congress -– and a compromise that I can sign." --If a compromise passes both houses, sign the damn thing. If it has a good chance of working, and is constitutional, why in the hell would you refuse to sign it?!
"Now, I realize that a lot of the new members of Congress and I don’t see eye-to-eye on many issues. But we were each elected by some of the same Americans for some of the same reasons." --Yes. The American people want a change, and they didn't think that the current powers that be (first the Republicans, now you) could/would make it happen.
"If you want a balanced approach to reducing the deficit, let your member of Congress know. If you believe we can solve this problem through compromise, send that message." --Seriously? Call your congressman and tell them to vote for my plan? Why? You haven't given ANY details about your plan. All you've done is break into my normal TV programing (again!), insult me several times, give some vague assurances that 98% of Americans won't see their taxes increase, and threaten not to sign any plan that isn't yours. Are you six?
For those of you interested, all of the quotes from Obama were taken from the White house's website. You can find his whole speech here. Thanks for listening to me rant.
"I won’t bore you with the details of every plan or proposal, but basically, the debate has centered around two different approaches." -- I want details! I'm not an idiot, and I do not believe everything I hear on TV. I want the details of BOTH plans, so I can decide for myself which is better.
NOT OBAMA'S APPROACH:
"... let’s live within our means by making serious, historic cuts in government spending." --YEAH!! It's about freaking time!!
"Let’s cut defense spending at the Pentagon by hundreds of billions of dollars." --OK, not as good. However, I've never known Obama (or any politician for that manner) to give fair and accurate reporting on an opponents plan, policies, or practices. I'll wait for actual facts before judging this point.
"Let’s cut out waste and fraud in health care programs like Medicare" --YEAH!!! Again, about freaking time!!
"Finally, let’s ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to give up some of their breaks in the tax code and special deductions." --We'll get back to this one in a few minutes.
OBAMA'S APPROACH:
"It would reduce the deficit by around $4 trillion and put us on a path to pay down our debt." --I don't want to be 'on the path' I want a balanced budget. I have to live on one, why doesn't Washington?!
"And the cuts wouldn’t happen so abruptly that they’d be a drag on our economy" --You're talking like all of this will happen overnight. NOTHING in Washington happens overnight.
"While many in my own party aren’t happy with the painful cuts it makes, enough will be willing to accept them if the burden is fairly shared." --We'll get back to this one too.
"That’s not right. It’s not fair. We all want a government that lives within its means, but there are still things we need to pay for as a country -– things like new roads and bridges; weather satellites and food inspection; services to veterans and medical research." --You're right. It's not fair. But I have to forgo a LOT of the things I am used to. Why doesn't the government? Why can't Washington make every penny count? What's so wrong with telling some researchers that they have a really great project, but there just isn't enough money in the coffer to help out?
"And keep in mind that under a balanced approach, the 98 percent of Americans who make under $250,000 would see no tax increases at all. None. In fact, I want to extend the payroll tax cut for working families." --And now I come back to the two points that I skipped. How is this any different than the last point in the plan that you didn't like? You have 2% of Americans making up all the new revenue, while you give more tax breaks to 98%. How, exactly, is this a burden evenly shared? Do you not pay attention to what happens when you tax an entity (person or corporation) more than others? It just happened in California ... they leave your tax jurisdiction. FYI, they take their money with them.
THE PROBLEM, AS OBAMA SEES IT:
"Now, what makes today’s stalemate so dangerous is that it has been tied to something known as the debt ceiling -– a term that most people outside of Washington have probably never heard of before." --Great. Now we're idiots, and have no clue what is going on.
"Understand –- raising the debt ceiling does not allow Congress to spend more money." --You'll have to go into depth on this one, because I am really not getting it. If Congress doesn't need to spend more money to pay the country's debts, WHY does the debt ceiling NEED to be raised?
"In the past, raising the debt ceiling was routine. Since the 1950s, Congress has always passed it, and every President has signed it." --Yes. Isn't this why we are in trouble now?
"We would risk sparking a deep economic crisis -– this one caused almost entirely by Washington." --Um ... correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't federal spending completely in the control of Washington? So, isn't the whole reason that you had to interrupt my TV show, to insult me, Washington's fault?
"But the new approach that Speaker Boehner unveiled today, which would temporarily extend the debt ceiling in exchange for spending cuts, would force us to once again face the threat of default just six months from now." --Good! I want Washington to keep this item on the agenda, to have the threat of default hanging over their heads until they BALANCE THE DAMN BOOKS!! If this means having a temporary measure passed, and the issue is forced in another 6 months, then fine. But BALANCE THE DAMN BOOKS! NOW!!
"We know what we have to do to reduce our deficits; there’s no point in putting the economy at risk by kicking the can further down the road." --Maybe it will finally get it through your thick skulls that the American people want the DAMN BOOKS BALANCED!
"Again, they will refuse to ask the wealthiest Americans to give up their tax cuts or deductions." --You mean unlike point four in the plan you don't like?
CONCLUSION:
"I’ve told leaders of both parties that they must come up with a fair compromise in the next few days that can pass both houses of Congress -– and a compromise that I can sign." --If a compromise passes both houses, sign the damn thing. If it has a good chance of working, and is constitutional, why in the hell would you refuse to sign it?!
"Now, I realize that a lot of the new members of Congress and I don’t see eye-to-eye on many issues. But we were each elected by some of the same Americans for some of the same reasons." --Yes. The American people want a change, and they didn't think that the current powers that be (first the Republicans, now you) could/would make it happen.
"If you want a balanced approach to reducing the deficit, let your member of Congress know. If you believe we can solve this problem through compromise, send that message." --Seriously? Call your congressman and tell them to vote for my plan? Why? You haven't given ANY details about your plan. All you've done is break into my normal TV programing (again!), insult me several times, give some vague assurances that 98% of Americans won't see their taxes increase, and threaten not to sign any plan that isn't yours. Are you six?
For those of you interested, all of the quotes from Obama were taken from the White house's website. You can find his whole speech here. Thanks for listening to me rant.
Friday, July 22, 2011
It's a girl!
Should you want to see if a blessed event is about to descend upon you, click here. No lab work needed! Results are 100% guaranteed*!
*The result is guaranteed, NOT the accuracy of said result.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Christmas in July
If any of you have the chance to read this book, I highly recommend it. I've been reading it, off and on, for the last 6 months. Recently I've been using it to burn through those pesky 30 minute waits at the doctor's office, as my body decides if my allergy shot is going to kill me. (Judging from some of the welts, it's been a close call. But I diverge. Back to the book.)I thought I'd share a paragraph that completely sums up what I like about this book.
Enter the bee. "What we can smell, honeybees can smell. There is not a big difference," explains German scientist Randolf Menzel. This is good news for smell research, for there are plenty of things you can do to a bee that you dare not do to a human.
The Physics of Christmas, Roger Highfield, pg 197.
Friday, June 17, 2011
Turd Burgers, a soylent green subsitute
There are many things for which recycling can be used for. I'm just not sure that this is one of them.
I think that it's time we admit that there's a limit to what we are willing to recycle.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Did someone say science?
I apologise for the interruption, but this is not the usual sardonic/sarcastic post that I usually generate. I will get back to those next time. I promise.
I recently finished reading an article in Scientific American that discussed the lack of science in the curriculum of early education. They specifically mentioned pre-K through K, but I don't recall much formal education in science before the third grade.
I agree with the article in that we are doing our children a great disservice by not starting formal science education at an early age. There doesn't have to be a downplay, or removal, of anything that is currently being taught in early education to include science. But it will require more early educators to be comfortable with science ... something that is lacking currently.
However, this is something that you can easily foster in the home. Children ask a lot of questions. Especially young children. When they ask a question, take some time to "seek" out the answer with them. I understand that this can not be done for every question. (I was 12 when my youngest sibling was born. I remember how many questions were asked each day!) Even if you choose only one or two questions a week, you will be teaching your child the skill set they will need to reason and apply logic. In short, you will teach them how to learn "science." (When they grow up, they may not like doing it, but they will be able to do it.)
I was fortunate enough to grow up as my dad was going to college. While doing his homework, he would take the time to explain to my sister and I what he was doing. I remember sitting on his lap holding a large flash card with a letter of the alphabet on it. He would be reading a text book, and whenever we came across the letter we were holding, we could yell and point it out. I'm sure it was a huge disruption in his studding (when I was going to college, I would think back to this and wonder how he got any studding done!) but I am very grateful for the time he took.
I would like to encourage all of my readers with young children to take sometime and teach your child how to use the scientific method. If they ask a question, ask them what they think is the answer is, why they think that is the answer, etc. Some kids will get frustrated with this method, so try somethine else. Get them thinking any way you can. Teach them not to be afraid of learning new things, thinking differently from others, and even getting the wrong answer. Help them discover the joys of learning. I believe that this is one of the most important skill sets that parents can teach their children, and I hope to pass it on to mine.
Ok, I've been preachy enough for one day. It's time to slaughter some darkspawn. Dragon Age, here I come!
I recently finished reading an article in Scientific American that discussed the lack of science in the curriculum of early education. They specifically mentioned pre-K through K, but I don't recall much formal education in science before the third grade.
I agree with the article in that we are doing our children a great disservice by not starting formal science education at an early age. There doesn't have to be a downplay, or removal, of anything that is currently being taught in early education to include science. But it will require more early educators to be comfortable with science ... something that is lacking currently.
However, this is something that you can easily foster in the home. Children ask a lot of questions. Especially young children. When they ask a question, take some time to "seek" out the answer with them. I understand that this can not be done for every question. (I was 12 when my youngest sibling was born. I remember how many questions were asked each day!) Even if you choose only one or two questions a week, you will be teaching your child the skill set they will need to reason and apply logic. In short, you will teach them how to learn "science." (When they grow up, they may not like doing it, but they will be able to do it.)
I was fortunate enough to grow up as my dad was going to college. While doing his homework, he would take the time to explain to my sister and I what he was doing. I remember sitting on his lap holding a large flash card with a letter of the alphabet on it. He would be reading a text book, and whenever we came across the letter we were holding, we could yell and point it out. I'm sure it was a huge disruption in his studding (when I was going to college, I would think back to this and wonder how he got any studding done!) but I am very grateful for the time he took.
I would like to encourage all of my readers with young children to take sometime and teach your child how to use the scientific method. If they ask a question, ask them what they think is the answer is, why they think that is the answer, etc. Some kids will get frustrated with this method, so try somethine else. Get them thinking any way you can. Teach them not to be afraid of learning new things, thinking differently from others, and even getting the wrong answer. Help them discover the joys of learning. I believe that this is one of the most important skill sets that parents can teach their children, and I hope to pass it on to mine.
Ok, I've been preachy enough for one day. It's time to slaughter some darkspawn. Dragon Age, here I come!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)