"James Kim is a hero":http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/07/missing.family/index.html
What an amazing man!
I'm sure, in the same situation — lost in treacherous, snow covered mountains and out of gas — there are many people that would walk down the road a bit to see how close help might be or what lingered just around the corner. But, dressed as he was, most of us would run back to the car shivering and begging for warmth. James Kim knew how cold it was outside: he'd been in and out of the car for 9 days. But he decided that the best thing to do for his family would be to seek help, despite the pain of the cold and the long arduous walk ahead of him. Few people would make that sacrifice. Most of those who did would turn back after a mile, at most, heading back to the warmth. But James Kim continued on for 10 miles ("see the path he took":http://www.layoutscene.com/james-kim-path/index.html) before he could physically go on no more. James Kim is a true hero.
"E. Coli outbreak thanks to Taco Bell Green Onions":http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/12/07/e.coli.outbreak/index.html
84 have been sickened by the outbreak so far. Is it just me or is there a whole lot of E. Coli going around lately? First there was the Spinach last September. Then that same company recalled some lettuce in October. And of course, in those same two months there were cases of botulism toxin being found in carrot juice in both the US and Canada. Now green onions from Taco Bell aren't safe. When are we going to learn that the Industrial Food Supply is bad. I've been preaching this to those that would listen for quite a while now.
First, it limits the variety of fruits and vegetables available to us by pushing out most local growers. This destroys local culture oriented around food and eliminates regional varieties of even more common foods.
Over time, the expectation of what foods are available to most consumers has been condensed. Seeking to produce the "best" produce for the lowest price, the Industrial Food Manufacturers have consolidated production and distribution into the most efficient locations for each specific food. So all of the citrus fruit, for instance, in the produce section of your local mega-mart comes from a very limited number of places. This means that local minerals and nutrients are no longer present in the soil that our food is grown in and, therefore, no longer in the food that is grown.
By having the majority of our food grown in only a few places, we also open ourselves up to the threat of individuals and organizations with mal intent by having a nearly single point of entry into the American Food Supply for the injection of toxins and other biological agents.
Even without the threat of terrorism, by engineering and controlling almost every degree of the food we eat, we open ourselves up to potential problems that we never even considered. What if those new Grape flavored Apples ("Grapples":http://www.grapplefruits.com/) that I've seen on the shelf become common place? What if, unknown to those producing the food, they contain some hidden element that is toxic to us. What if we don't find out until it's too late? Would anyone care for a Trans Fat? They're delicious.
As if all of this wasn't enough, did you know that the Industrial Food Supply is bad for the environment? As early as 1978 the problem was recognized in a book entitled "Eating Oil" which was published following the world's first oil crisis in 1973. The book detailed the food industries reliance on fossil fuels. Today, "the situation is only worse":http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/34/10314 with even more of our food coming from these environment harming industrial plants.
Having every bite of food you eat engineered and grown by one of five major companies just isn't a good idea. Health and security risks aside, it ruins the rich culture surrounded by food and drastically reduces the average American pantry. 50 years ago, pancake mix wasn't all that common. In 50 more years, will we even keep flour in our cupboards?
"An Ohio woman microwaved her one month old baby":http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/12/07/baby.microwave.ap/index.html
Allegedly, of course. China Arnold, 26, is charged with killing her baby by putting her in a microwave. Even if she didn't do it, someone put a child in a microwave oven and started it. Someone put a baby in a microwave and turned it on. Someone put a *child* in a *microwave oven* and started it.
I almost don't believe it.
Human beings are sick by nature. It's in our genes or something. Most of us suppress it. Some of us do not. I understand this. But this is beyond sick. This is an innocent child — a human life — killed in what must be one of the most cruel methods that one could kill another person. Whatever punishment this person receives will not be enough.
"If it's not going to protect me, then what's the government for, again?":http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/12/08/town.guns.reut/index.html
A small town in Western Pennsylvania is encouraging its residents to purchase guns and learn how to use them in order to protect themselves in the event of a home intrusion. While I'm all for our right to bear arms and protect ourselves, I always believed that it was a *right* not a *requirement*. If I have to protect myself, then what am I paying my taxes for? Isn't the majority of our Government's job to protect its citizens? Sure, there's public school. But, I'm not letting my kids into a public school if I have to sit out in front of it with a gun all day to protect them there too. And yeah, the road-ways are awfully nice, but certainly not worth what I pay in taxes. I can find other ways to get around. So what am I paying for?
"Tastes great and keeps the babies away":http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/12/07/chewable.contraception.ap/index.html
A new chewable, spearmint flavored birth control pill has hit the market as if swallowing a tiny pill wasn't easy enough. I wonder though: will women using this new variety have to worry about the bits of pill that get stuck in their teeth. I'd advise a good swish-and-swallow following each pill, just to be safe. Or, wait…. I know! Just swallow the new chewable, spearmint flavored pill.
"It's fucking cold down here!":http://www.cnn.com/2006/WEATHER/12/07/big.chill/index.html
Tom: And now to our weatherman Ollie Williams for the Blackie-Weather Forecast, Ollie?
Olie: IT'S RAININ' SIDEWAYS!
Tom: Don't you have an umbrella?
Olie: USED TO!
Tom: Where is it now?
Olie: INSIDE OUT TWO MILES AWAY!
Tom: Is there anything we can do for you?
Olie: BRING ME SOME SOUP!
Tom: What kind?
Olie: CHUNKY!
Tom: Thanks, Ollie. Up next, a pig that refuses to eat Jews. After this.– The Family Guy
"Canada gets it right, again. Pack your bags.":http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/12/07/canada.samesex/index.html?eref=rss_world
Canada's House of Commons rejected Prime Minister Stephen Harper's motion to reconsider the law allowing gays and lesbians to marry. So say we all.
I'm not gay. I don't even know that many gay people. It doesn't really affect me in any way if gays can marry or not. That's not the point.
The point is this: if my government affords some form of luxury or special privilege to individuals who choose to socially and financially join themselves together, there should be no stipulation on the quantity, quality, or variety of person those individuals choose. You can name that relationship whatever you want. We've been calling it "marriage" for thousands of years, why stop now. Placing stipulations on who can obtain these luxuries is discrimination. Period. It doesn't matter how that word is defined in a religious setting — there will be no church in my state, thank you very much.
Religious organizations, on the other hand, are private entities and should be entitled to any belief or discrimination they'd like to uphold. So if the Catholic Church, for instance, forbids gay marriage, that's their choice. Any individual that chooses to remain a member of an organization that openly discriminates against himself is asking for pain and suffering.
Some people try to fight against gay marriage without playing the religion card. This is admirable, sure, but their argument is stupid. It is founded in the idea that the marriage of men and women has been woven into the fabric and culture of every civilization to have ever existed and that destroying that now could have unforeseen social ramifications that they'd rather not test. The problem with this argument is that there are a lot of aspects of our society that haven't always been present that could have (and did have) unpredictable social implications. Look at electricity, television, and the automobile; Welfare and public health care systems; Interracial marriage; the separation of church and state; Women's suffrage; the end of slavery; DEMOCRACY and CAPITALISM! These things all had unpredictable social implications but we went ahead with them anyway because we knew it was the right, proper, and FREE thing to do.
Gay marriage isn't just about gays and lesbians being able to marry one another. It's about FREEDOM. Not freedom for some. Not freedom for the majority. *FREEDOM for ALL*.
