My granddaughter's project for her school's science fair was titled "Walking On Water." Actually, she walked on a mixture of cornstarch and water (240 pounds of cornstarch and 24 gallons of water). The mixture, named Ooblech by Dr. Seuss, is a liquid until it is stressed (pushed or pulled) then it becomes a solid only while it is stressed. This allowed Priscilla to walk on top of the otherwise liquid Ooblech. If she walked slow or stopped while on the Ooblech she would sink as if she was in quicksand. And, as with quicksand, it is hard to get out after you sink! If the Ooblech is allowed to dry completely, it returns to the original cornstarch powder. Red food coloring was added for the pink color.
"Walking On Water"
Friday, April 30, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
GOP Starts Rumor That Supreme Court Candidate Is A Lesbian
I am convinced that the Republican National Committee, the Republican congressional leadership and the majority of Republican politicians are willing to do anything that benefits them and their major financial supporters. Their latest dirty trick is unethical, immoral and a violation of civil law.
A Republican Senatorial staffer and past member of the GW Bush administration started a rumor that Elena Kagan, a candidate for the Supreme Court, is a lesbian. Focus on the Family immediately piled on in their typical non-Christ-like manner by proclaiming that they would oppose the appointment of a homosexual. The White House in a rare response denied that Kagan was a lesbian without suggesting that sexual orientation is an issue.
However, the GOP and Focus are ignoring the truth, as they normally do. I can't wait to hear how Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Newt Gingrich and the FOX propagandists will take advantage of this lie.
These people are everything they disapprove of. They are an embarrassment to America and, if they are Christian role models, they invalidate the Christian religion. Why would any intelligent, informed, ethical, compassioate person respect the GOP and the Christians that follow them.
Don't ignore the GOP and their so-called Christian cohorts, actively oppose them. They are unethical and un-American and anybody that supports them either knowingly approves of their conduct or is too ignorant to know them for what they are. Their is not a third option; if you support them and you are not ignorant then you are no better than they are.
A Republican Senatorial staffer and past member of the GW Bush administration started a rumor that Elena Kagan, a candidate for the Supreme Court, is a lesbian. Focus on the Family immediately piled on in their typical non-Christ-like manner by proclaiming that they would oppose the appointment of a homosexual. The White House in a rare response denied that Kagan was a lesbian without suggesting that sexual orientation is an issue.
However, the GOP and Focus are ignoring the truth, as they normally do. I can't wait to hear how Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Newt Gingrich and the FOX propagandists will take advantage of this lie.
These people are everything they disapprove of. They are an embarrassment to America and, if they are Christian role models, they invalidate the Christian religion. Why would any intelligent, informed, ethical, compassioate person respect the GOP and the Christians that follow them.
Don't ignore the GOP and their so-called Christian cohorts, actively oppose them. They are unethical and un-American and anybody that supports them either knowingly approves of their conduct or is too ignorant to know them for what they are. Their is not a third option; if you support them and you are not ignorant then you are no better than they are.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
American Family Association Wants To Deport Muslim-Americans
Bryan Fischer, Director of Issues Analysis at the American Family Association, wants to deport Muslim-Americans unless they convert to Christianity. Obviously Bryan Fischer and AFA have not accepted that the government of the United States of America, according to its Constitution, is secular. It's also obvious that Fischer doesn't accept that our Constitution requires a separation of Church and State for the purpose of protecting the religious rights of each and every citizen. Does Fischer not understand the First Amendment of the Constitution or does he simply refuse to accept it like most, if not all, conservative Christians?
Jesus didn't instruct his followers to banish all non-Christians so why do so many Christians want to replace our democracy with a Christian theocracy? But Fischer believes that by deporting non-believers he is protecting "the freedom, liberty and civil rights we cherish in the West." But he cherishes them for Christian Americans only. If Fischer succeeded in having the Muslim-Americans deported, he would then demand the deportation of all non-Christians.
You and I don't think that Fischer will succeed but his kind are now playing rough with those who disagree and the rough play, if not stopped now, will turn violent.
The following is Fischer's statement. Note that he believes that American-Muslims and Muslim churches in America are guilty of treason.
The most compassionate thing we can do for Muslims who have already immigrated here is to help repatriate them back to Muslim countries, where they can live in a culture which shares their values, a place where they can once again be at home, surrounded by people who cherish their deeply held ideals. Why force them to chafe against the freedom, liberty and civil rights we cherish in the West?
Muslims who have become naturalized citizens, of course, would need to commit an act of treason to forfeit their citizenship and become eligible for repatriation. Based on the Constitution's definition of treason in Article III Section 3 ["adhering to (the) Enemies (of the United States), (or) giving them Aid and Comfort"] treasonous acts are likely committed on virtually a weekly basis here in the U.S. in many mosques and Islamic organizations.
Muslims continue to have as their objective the Islamization of the entire world, including the U.S., and are taught by their god to use force where necessary to accomplish the goal. The current objective of Muslim activists is to create a brand new Islamic state - meaning a state like New Jersey or Montana - out of existing jurisdictions and establish a virtual Islamic homeland in our midst.
Many Muslims are on our shores on student visas and such and have not yet become citizens. We must politely decline their request for naturalization (becoming an American citizen is a privilege, not a right) and use the money we would otherwise spend on their welfare, their education, their medical care and their incarceration to graciously assist them in returning to their countries of origin.
Bryan Fischer, the AFA and every like-minded person and organization are un-American. Beware because I feel their numbers and political influence are growing.
Jesus didn't instruct his followers to banish all non-Christians so why do so many Christians want to replace our democracy with a Christian theocracy? But Fischer believes that by deporting non-believers he is protecting "the freedom, liberty and civil rights we cherish in the West." But he cherishes them for Christian Americans only. If Fischer succeeded in having the Muslim-Americans deported, he would then demand the deportation of all non-Christians.
You and I don't think that Fischer will succeed but his kind are now playing rough with those who disagree and the rough play, if not stopped now, will turn violent.
The following is Fischer's statement. Note that he believes that American-Muslims and Muslim churches in America are guilty of treason.
The most compassionate thing we can do for Muslims who have already immigrated here is to help repatriate them back to Muslim countries, where they can live in a culture which shares their values, a place where they can once again be at home, surrounded by people who cherish their deeply held ideals. Why force them to chafe against the freedom, liberty and civil rights we cherish in the West?
Muslims who have become naturalized citizens, of course, would need to commit an act of treason to forfeit their citizenship and become eligible for repatriation. Based on the Constitution's definition of treason in Article III Section 3 ["adhering to (the) Enemies (of the United States), (or) giving them Aid and Comfort"] treasonous acts are likely committed on virtually a weekly basis here in the U.S. in many mosques and Islamic organizations.
Muslims continue to have as their objective the Islamization of the entire world, including the U.S., and are taught by their god to use force where necessary to accomplish the goal. The current objective of Muslim activists is to create a brand new Islamic state - meaning a state like New Jersey or Montana - out of existing jurisdictions and establish a virtual Islamic homeland in our midst.
Many Muslims are on our shores on student visas and such and have not yet become citizens. We must politely decline their request for naturalization (becoming an American citizen is a privilege, not a right) and use the money we would otherwise spend on their welfare, their education, their medical care and their incarceration to graciously assist them in returning to their countries of origin.
Bryan Fischer, the AFA and every like-minded person and organization are un-American. Beware because I feel their numbers and political influence are growing.
Will Nevadans Actually Opt For Sue Lowden Instead Of Harry Reid???
According to polls Sue Lowden is leading against Harry Reid in the race for the US Senate seat for Nevada which is currently held by Harry Reid, the US Senate Majority Leader. Harry Reid is trailing because he led the Senate fight to pass the Health Care Reform legislation. Sue Lowden is leading because she had nothing to do with the Health Care Reform legislation and she would have opposed Health Care Reform if she had been in the Senate.
In a recent candidate forum Lowden was asked what she would have done instead of the Democrats' Health Care Reform legislation. Most of her response was a regurgitation of what other Republican politicians are saying but Lowden added a couple of her own ideas that should cause Nevadans to reject her candidacy. Lowden suggested that everybody should take maximum advantage of a pre-tax health care savings account. "And if you want to save $20,000, good for you," said Lowden.
Lowden also offered, "And I would have suggested, and I think that bartering is really good. Those doctors who you pay cash, you can barter, and that would get prices down in a hurry. And I would say go out, go ahead out and pay cash for whatever your medical needs are, and go ahead and barter with your doctor."
How many people who are in need of real health care reform can put $20,000 into a health care reserve account each year? Nobody? Then who is Lowden talking to? Does she really understand the issues?
How do you think your doctor, your pharmacist and your hospital would react if you start bartering with them for your health care needs? Will they refer you to a psychiatrist? What goods or services could you offer in exchange? Produce from your farm or garden? Your labor to mow their lawns or clean their offices? How many chicken eggs will your doctor demand in exchange for a colonoscopy? How many times will you be mowing the grass at your hospital in exchange for a heart valve replacement?
If Nevadans don't like Reid, that's fine with me, but I hope for the sake of all Americans that they don't elect Lowden. Lowden's political party selected the candidates that Nevadans can choose from and, as is often the case, their pick serves the party more than the people. The party has already given Nevadans John Ensign and has defended him, in spite of his unethical and illegal conduct, rather than remove him they won't risk losing another seat and the filibuster, which they have already used 50 times in this session.
Nevadans should elect a senator that will obey the laws, understand the issues and represent the citizens but so far the oddsmakers in Las Vegas see them doing otherwise.
In a recent candidate forum Lowden was asked what she would have done instead of the Democrats' Health Care Reform legislation. Most of her response was a regurgitation of what other Republican politicians are saying but Lowden added a couple of her own ideas that should cause Nevadans to reject her candidacy. Lowden suggested that everybody should take maximum advantage of a pre-tax health care savings account. "And if you want to save $20,000, good for you," said Lowden.
Lowden also offered, "And I would have suggested, and I think that bartering is really good. Those doctors who you pay cash, you can barter, and that would get prices down in a hurry. And I would say go out, go ahead out and pay cash for whatever your medical needs are, and go ahead and barter with your doctor."
How many people who are in need of real health care reform can put $20,000 into a health care reserve account each year? Nobody? Then who is Lowden talking to? Does she really understand the issues?
How do you think your doctor, your pharmacist and your hospital would react if you start bartering with them for your health care needs? Will they refer you to a psychiatrist? What goods or services could you offer in exchange? Produce from your farm or garden? Your labor to mow their lawns or clean their offices? How many chicken eggs will your doctor demand in exchange for a colonoscopy? How many times will you be mowing the grass at your hospital in exchange for a heart valve replacement?
If Nevadans don't like Reid, that's fine with me, but I hope for the sake of all Americans that they don't elect Lowden. Lowden's political party selected the candidates that Nevadans can choose from and, as is often the case, their pick serves the party more than the people. The party has already given Nevadans John Ensign and has defended him, in spite of his unethical and illegal conduct, rather than remove him they won't risk losing another seat and the filibuster, which they have already used 50 times in this session.
Nevadans should elect a senator that will obey the laws, understand the issues and represent the citizens but so far the oddsmakers in Las Vegas see them doing otherwise.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
President Obama Order To Kill American Al Qaeda Leader Is Just
I condemned Dick Cheney for secretly establishing a CIA assassination team that answered only to him. I wouldn't have had a problem with using a non-covert team to kill, if necessary, terrorist leaders who could not otherwise be brought to justice and whose guilt as a terrorist leader was supported by real evidence. President Obama has been accused of continuing the abuses committed by the Bush administration by authorizing the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki. Eliminating the enemy was never an issue for me. Planning to do so covertly in violation of US laws as Cheney did was an issue. President Obama is acting within the law. If the terrorist targeted for elimination believes that he is unjustly accused, then let him surrender to the US or its allies and prove his innocence in court. The battlefield, in my opinion, is wherever the terrorist is. I don't think Anwar al-Awlaki should be an exception because he holds a US citizenship. Timothy McVeigh was a citizen of the US but his killing would have been justified if he would not surrender and resisted arrest with deadly force. Since the US cannot safely arrest Anwar al-Awlaki and if he refuses to surrender, I believe his killing is justified.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)