Search engines-who pays the most?

Since starting this blog thing, occasionally I go to
the Google search page and enter the title of a blog
I have posted. The 'search' can be a copy/paste of the
title, but when Google gets through searching, about
80 or 100 sites are listed that have varying degrees
of relatedness BEFORE my blog listing shows up!

What is this?

Why are all of these sites listed first? Some don't
really even relate. If an important person's name
(read that 'in the news,' in 'politics,' in the
entertainment field, in any current event)
is the same as one of the words in the search request,
that link will show before a direct quote request!

I guess they are paying for that position on the
page of links, hmmmm?

How much does it cost to be the number 15 listed link?
The number 35 listed link? Don't even think of going
for Number 1, 2 or 3, way out of my price range!

I know, this is just a blog. However, I have also
noted this same occurance when searching for other
phrases. My request never comes out as the first
listed link. Who needs to search the searches?

the SENATE MAJORITY LEADER'S SURVEY

The day before yesterday, I received in the mail
a survey mailed out by Senator Frist. Normally, I
don't do surveys. If you really read the questions,
rarely do they ask questions properly, or a least
the way I would like them to be asked.

For instance; Question No. 3-
"Should we ban human cloning for experimental purposes
even if there might be some promise for future
treatments?"
[Answers available to all questions on the survey:
Yes, No, Undecided.]

What a can of worms this question is.
First, if you answer NO-don't ban the experiments, then
your answer can be construed to be for human cloning AND
future treatments.
If you answer YES (for banning), then you are obviously
against future treatments also!

Question No. 4-
"Should Congress continue to pursue a Constitutional
amendment to protect marriage as the union of a man
and a woman?"

I love this one! But, what's the point of asking this
question?
The question clearly states that Congress is 'already
pursuing' an amendment regardless of how I answer the
question! And, it then says that if I answer NO, then
I am against "protecting" future marriages of
heterosexuals. How could anyone be against marriages,
although there is an argument for that scenario? And
what has Congress ever "PROTECTED?" If the government
wants your land for a highway and you don't want to
sell, is Congress going to let you keep your land?
How many litigations do you need to sift through before
you get the idea?

Here's another one: Question NO. 5.-
"Should the United States increase spending to protect
its borders and coastlines?"

So, this tells us that CONGRESS is already spending
money to protect our borders and coastlines.
(note how the question shifts from Congresses' to
The United States' responsibility? That's because the
question involves spending money and
this question distances Congress from the act of spending
money!)
Exactly 'from what' the question doesn't say. Are there
invading armies lined up at our borders?
Except for 9/11, I haven't read of anyone attacking us
from across our borders. And, as for 9/11, whatever we
were already spending didn't seem to be enough, did it?
The kind of attack that ocurred on that day will
never see enough money to prevent it from happening again.
Yet, ironically, they didn't ask us in a survey if we
should spend lots of money for us to attack another
country across our borders (and on the other side of the
world), but then, protecting our borders really isn't as
important as getting re-elected, or the next photo-op,
is it?

Here's a tricky one: Question NO. 41.-
"Do you favor increasing federal spending on research into
renewable energy resources, such as wind and solar energy
and hydrogen fuel cells?"

First of all, I'm not so sure that it is the governments
place to spend our money on any research that the government
will not then give the results, in a tangible way, back to
the people that funded that research, us. When the government
spends money on researching... anything, it is the
entreprenuers that benefit, not the people. If the
entreprenuers are going to benefit, let the entreprenuers
pay for the research. They will pay for the research if
there is sufficient demand for whatever it is they are
considering. That's called 'supply and demand.' Or, if the
government is going to do the research, sell the results
to the entreprenuers... at a profit!

So, the questions I have presented really don't deserve an
answer from me.
But, for question 2, my answer is YES ban human cloning. The
"promise of future treatments" will not be diminished by
stopping cloning. Other treatments will be forthcoming.
The question should not be an 'either/or' question.

Question NO. 4? I am really saddened by this question.
I don't think it is congresses' place to legislate the joining
of anyone in marriage. At first, the "official congressional"
response was to let the states take care of this question.
Now, congress seems intent on coming down on one side or the
other. What brought on this change?
I'm sort of like Gore Vidal when essentially the same question
was put to him. Two people, man/woman or woman/woman or man/man
want to get married. So? What's that to me? I don't care! It
doesn't affect me! It doesn't affect me anymore than when my
mom asked me whether I would object to her remarrying,
15 years after my father had passed away. I told her that if
she thought this man, whom I had not met, could make her happy,
Go For It! She's the one who would have to live with him, not me!
I would tell two women or two men the same thing.
The first racially mixed couple I saw walking down a street
in Nashville Tennessee about 30 years ago didn't bother me as
far as they were a black man and a white woman. I was
concerned about their safety in being so bold as to walk down
the street holding hands, in this part of the country. But, they
appeared to be very happy. Good. I went about my own business.

Try rephrasing that question for better accuracy. Try 'Should
Congress pursue a Constitutional amendment to DEFINE marriage
as the union of only a man and a woman?'
Rephrase Question No. 3 to read 'Should we ban human cloning
for experimental pruposes?'
Rephrase Question No. 5 to read 'Should Congress increase spending
on border patrols?'

And here's an interesting note, in the Instructions is the request
to "...return your completed Survey in the next 7 days to ensure
accurate and controlled sample results for your voting district."

H-m-m-m-m. "Controlled sample results." What is that? Obviously
my answers will be a sample of my opinions, so that leaves
'controlled results.' "Controlled" by whom? "Controlled" how?
If my answers are disagreable, does that mean that my answers will
find their way to the round file? Is that how they will be "controlled?"

I just don't like surveys. The questions are rarely straight-
forward. Generally, they are slanted to get a positive response
to questions already decided but need a head count of those
who agree.

Term Limits is still looking better and better.

The GREATEST Show On Earth!

The circus?
No.
The United States.

Can you imagine what the rest of the world
must be thinking as they read our headlines
or see us on television.

I'm reminded of a song from the movie "GYPSY"
that goes something like:

"Let me - entertain you,
Let me - make you smile,

Let me do some old tricks,
And then I'll do some new tricks,

I'm very ver-sa-tile."

and then,

"This is my country, Land that I love!!!!"
Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.
And I do, love this country. It is the best situation
comedy on the planet.

Some senators want guarantees from Ms. Miers.
Actually, that isn't correct. They don't want
a judge, what they want is Ms. Miers on the bench with
strings leading to their office so that they can
tell her when to jump and how high.

And these people "represent" the entire population
of a state? Oh woe is that state.

Term limits is looking better and better.

It is time to TAX THE CHURCHES!

In my state, Tennessee, religious institutions and
organizations, among others, are given a tax-free
status. That is, by producing a piece of paper
issued by the Tennessee Department of Revenue that
shows a Sales & Use number, purchases made in the
name of and for the use of the church will not be
charged sales tax on those purchases.

I grew up with this fact and have, for most of my
life, agreed with its concept. Ironically, I was taught
that this country was founded by people who wanted
to escape religious persecution. They wanted the
freedom to embrace whatever religion they chose or
choose to embrace no religion at all.
Now, in this century, we are witnessing more than
ever, the lessening of the separation of church and
state. Once again the Church(es) is looking for
more power over its flock. They find it in politics.
Politics is not becoming more spiritual but
Churches are becoming more political.
Most people will not say anything even if they
disagree because they or their parents are members
of those churches.

So I will speak.

It is time to tax the churches. Tax their purchases,
tax their land, tax their buildings, tax their income.
If the church is going to have a say in my political
life, then it is time for them to share the burden of
their existence, with no more free rides.
Being tax exempt throws the burden of filling in their
missing monies onto the very people who can least afford
it, and, it is also an under-the-table form of discrimination.

It is time to tax the churches.

Antonio Banderas and Emma Thompson's movie

I have just finished watching their movie "Imagining Argentina."
A sad but honest commentary on just how cruel man can be to his
fellow man. A little bit of power goes a long way.

This movie is about the dictatorship of Argentina back during
the 1970's-1980's. I remember the mother's marching in the
square. Either I read about it or saw it on television, but
it was real. It happened.

The chill that this movie gave to me was that the Gestapo was
the model for these who were in power in Argentina. The
hangers-on who were enjoying the favor of those in power just
looked the other way, pretended not to notice or that whatever
was going on didn't have anything to do with them. The world
at large seemed to see nothing either. Again.

______________________________________

I don't know what the experiment is that the 'world civilization'
is trying but it seems pretty harsh. Has the "ME" generation
finally reached an age where they have taken over the leadership
of the worlds governments? Because it certainly appears to be
reflected in the leadership of this country.
_______________________________________

I also wonder, since I don't thoroughly understand the connection,
what the peoples ringing the Gulf of Mexico are so angry about. Is
something going on in that ring that we are not getting from the
media? It takes a lot of 'energy' to create the weather havoc that
we are witnessing in that area. What kind of 'energy of the people'
is being expressed in the weather there?
________________________________________

And are we going to let the people stranded by the earthquake
and weather in Pakistan to just.... freeze to death? Is that their
lot in life, to show the world just how uncaring it is, once again?

We can instantly spend billions of dollars on up-to-the-minute
military weapons and whatever is needed to get those weapons to
the war scene, because someone or some country "may" be a threat
to our way of life, but we bitch and bicker while considering how
to spend money that will improve that way of life.
_________________________________________

For some strange reason, the United States loves to contradict
itself. You would think that its very survival depended on those
contradictions.

A President in the U.S. can only serve two terms in office. Why?

Yet the people who can create more waste, who can pillage the
states and consequently a bigger area, who can enmasse make bigger
and better mistakes are allowed to remain in office for a life time.
These people of power can carry over their 'status-quo' from one
President to the next, to the next, to the next, and we pretend
that it is the President who retains all the power to run the country.

If you ever want change, substantial change in this country, if you
ever want new ideas, fresh ideas, current ideas to be considered in
this country, you are going to have to also place a limit how long
the power holders have to come up with those ideas. A man/woman who
figures they have a comfortable 20 or 30 or 50 year time span in
office to really solve this countrys problems is not going to put
their best ideas on the table tomorrow morning. They spend their
first term learning the ropes. The second term is spent trying to
get on some committee or other. The third term sees an occasional
blurb in a newspaper. The fourth term is the 'acceptance' term
whereby they become "one of boys" and more publicity. The fifth
term begins to show a few signs of 'leadership' in getting a bill
to the floor, finally. The sixth term is the "I'm accepted
(entrenched) now" term and you can begin to see the results of
the 'cronyism' that lines their pockets, their homes, their jaunts,
their parties, their inside information (aka investments, probably
in other states)
With all of that to look forward to, you will not get their best
today or tomorrow, its way too early in the game.
It just ain't gonna happen!

I AM GOD! Well, maybe the next best thing.

From YAHOO News, 10/25/05 AP release

"President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also denounced attempts to recognize
Israel or normalize relations with it.

"There is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will
wipe off this stigma (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world,"
Ahmadinejad told students Wednesday during a Tehran conference called
"The World without Zionism."

"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic
nation's fury, (while) any (Islamic leader) who recognizes the Zionist
regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the
Islamic world," Ahmadinejad said."

___________________________________________

Isn't this so typical of man, the new god of the universe.
Give people a choice, an "either/or" choice with no way out, except
the way the proclaimer wants! There is no middle ground here, no hope
of reconciliation, no living in peace. You accept his way or no way!
YOU WILL DIE! But even worse, you will die AN INFIDEL!
INFIDEL (in this case): anyone who doesn't do what I say. I AM
THE LIGHT, THE WAY! I and I alone will lead you to ......? fade out

This man reminds me of a character in the movie "Kingdom
of Heaven."
His retort was something like, "I am the king. I am Jerusalem."

Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems to be attempting to blur the line
between being a mere mortal coping with the world he lives in and
himself being the Islamic world.

Misinformation, Part 2

The previous 'essay' on misinformation recalls to mind another
scenario of similar duplicity in information.

Whether read in a book, newspaper or magazine or possibly even
heard on radio, I don't remember. I just remember the incredulity
I felt when discovering that many "facts" that are frequently
"quoted" in these same media are not facts at all, but are
conjectures on someone's part that, once stated, begins to take
on a life of their own.

The source of this strange myth-making machinery was revealed so
deftly and so studiously and logically that to defy its conclusion
would be superscillious.

How all of this comes about, once you are shown its progress
step by step, you wonder that you ever accepted it from any
one as fact for anything other than your own insanity. But,
be that as it may, the misinformation marches own and rarely is
taken to task.

One scenario: tests are being run in a laboratory on the breakdown
of the content of the human body. The human body is composed of
solids, liquids and gases. Of the liquids, a percentage is water.
The water in the human body of an "average" sized person is the
equivalent of about six to eight glasses of water at any one time.

One of the researchers carries this little oddity home and, after
dinner, in front of the television, is reminded of it by a
commercial. He begins to think about this little fact that hasn't
appeared in any medical journal to date. His imagination begins to
dwell on the outflow of water and the intake of water in the human
body.
Another "fact" pops into his mind concerning the human dehydration
point. The conclusion reached is that to prevent dehydration, IN
A WORST CASE SCENARIO, a person would needed to have consumed 8
glasses of water that day.

The next day at the lab, he discusses this with a collegue, how long
could a person last in the desert, etc., and they agree on certain
points, the eight glasses of water being one of them.

Six months later, as they are filing their report, they include the
dehydration/8-glasses- of-water find. Another six months pass and a
congressman, who has read the report, mentions the 8 glasses of water
in one of his appeals for additional funds to the Health Department
of his state. Three days later the newspaper states the need for
humans to consume 8 glasses of water a day to prevent deyhdration
with the source of this "new health fact" as being the congressman
who read it in a medical journal. After a year or so have passed, the
'dehydration' part is dropped from any reporting and the fact
that humans need to drink 8 glasses of water a day becomes "common knowledge."

And misinformation marches own.

My own attesting to this myth parade ocurred when I was in high school.
One night I was watching the late news and reporters had zeroed in on a
prominent figure who was in/making the news at that time, for one thing
or another.
They buttoned-holed him on the steps of the statehouse as he was exiting
a hearing/questioning session. I listened to his answers intently.
I heard his responses clearly, I understood them. I was satisfied with
his answers.

The next morning, which was Saturday, as I ate my breakfast cereal, I
grabbed my favorite and honored newspaper and was dumbfounded by the
headlines. The headlines screamed words about the aforementioned
"interview" and said the very opposite of what I had heard!
My curiosity piqued, I avidly read every article about this situation
and was dumbstruck with what I read. The newspaper had twisted everything
that the man had actually said into the very opposite!

My love affair with newspapers was over. I never picked up an issue
of this paper after that and decided that if I don't see or hear
it for myself, I would never believe another newspaper again. To this
day, I rarely read a newspaper.

Now, how did they arrive at an opposite conclusion?

As I began to mull over this question, I began to understand the trail
of mis-information that often occurs more frequently than we realize.

The newspaper sent a reporter to cover the man's appearance before
a state congressional committee-no television reporters allowed.
The reporter jots down his notes on what the man said fairly accurately
and takes them back to the office. This would be good to include
somewhere in the next mornings edition.
At the 'news jam fest' wherein topics are considered for the morning
edition and what would appear on the front page and what would appear
in other sections, the reporters notes are discussed.
In the office, away from the actual event, the reporters notes are
either read or just related to the group.
The main point is that in this discussion, the reading back of notes
will, unless the reporter is extremely astute, drop the inflections
used by the interviewee. With inflections dropped, tone of voice not
heard and just words on a piece of paper as a source, words with no
life in them at all, allowing pauses at points other than at which
they had actually occured, etc., one can, by turning your head
sideways slightly, arrive at the entirely different conclusion than
was actually stated.
In their rush-meeting for the morning edition, the panel of reporters
and editors arrived at the opposite conclusion from what I had actually
heard on television.

The above instance is similar to the situation that occured in the
famous O.J.Simpson trial when a black attorney, questioning a white
policeman, drilled him on how he could possibly know that he was
talking to a black man on a telephone!
In 95% of the cases, I know when I am talking on the telephone to
a black person simply because of the above newspaper scenario. How
words are pronounced, tone of voice, inflections, slang expressions,
accents, etc., is how you tell if you are talking to a black person,
or a Mexican, or a Scandanavian, or an Australian , or my wife, or
my son, my daughter or anyone else on this planet, and anyone who
ignores those attributes just to keep from maybe being termed a
racist has committed a worse crime.

To this day I believe that that particular incident set the tone of
that trial in the jurors' minds and from that moment forward it
established a standard by which all subsequent evidence was judged.
I am not saying that O.J. was guilty because of this. I am saying
that the evidence that was presented after that tense moment,
was considered by the jury with a "can this be considered as
racist" shadow hanging over it. The hint and accusation was not
acutally stated but exposed by implication and it could not be
retracted.

And misinformation marches on.

Next subject please.............

Perpetuating Misinformation

Mis-information can be big business.
This came to light recently when a company that my company
buys from heavily told us that our rating in Dun & Bradstreet
had dropped precipitiously! WHAT? We don't subscribe to
Dun & Bradstreet!
Later, checking over the report that was obtained by a
friendly third party, the facts of the 'misinformation' came
to light.

But first - many years ago, I was charged with the duty of filling
out a D & B report at the request of the company that employed
me at that time. One thing that stood out in my mind as strange
about the report was the actual lack of factual information
that was being requested by D & B. On that particular
form, I even ignored some of the questions.

When one considers these reports in light of large, multi-million
dollar corporations, I suppose the information can be quite good
at sizing up someone with whom you want or don't want to do
business. When coupled with small companys of 1 to 10 employees,
the lack of specific information can be quite damaging.

For example: at the time I filled out the report, I noticed
that the questions did not allow for actual dollar amounts
to be entered. They only asked for ranges of dollars, as in
$1 to $100 would be the answer to one question. In some cases,
the amount that should have been plugged in was between $1 to
$10, but that was not a choice on the form.
A contested amount of $10 or less, which could be a disputed
discount amount, generally 1 or 2 percent for paying within
10 days of the date of the invoice, or an inaccurately
applied sales tax to a non-taxable sale not being paid, is shown
by D & B as $100 past due! RED FLAG!
For a small company of 3 or 4 employees, this type of reporting
can send your blood pressure to the ceiling, especially when one
of the people you buy from considers it of sufficient importance
to point it out to you!
In the instance of my filling out one of their reports, amounts
between $1 and $45 were ignored and not recorded. Also, I knew
what the disposition of each case was and they were being
resolved, ergo, not reported to D & B.

All of the above "$1 to $100" is honestly reported information,
but it just isn't accurate. If you were reading a D & B report that
said your potential customer had a past due balance with one of
D & B's customer for "$100 or less," will you assume it to be $1.09 or
will you assume it to be $99.99?
From the person not paying sales tax on an item being legitimately
purchased for resale, to the bookkeeper who sees the outstanding
amount of $3.56 in sales tax, to that same bookkeeper filling
out a D & B form provided by the service to which his/her
company subscribes-that a particular customer has a past due
balance over two months old of $1 to $100, to D & B passing that
information on to one of its good customers, also a subscriber
and causing them concern, to that concerned vendor passing along
that information to its buyer, us, because they revere a D & B
report sufficiently to call their customer and voice their concerns.
It is all honestly reported, as it appears on paper.
What isn't being asked and reported on in a D & B form is the
equally important questions:

"Do you also purchase as well as sell to this customer?"
"Do you owe this customer any money?"
"Is that amount from $1000 to $5000?"
"Is that amount past due?"
"How long?"

You see, if you are not a subscriber to D & B, your side of the
story doesn't get told. You don't fill out a report on the company
who lists you as a "Past Due" account.

And misinformation marches on.

Military 2: This is War?

I think it interesting that of all the things that we can do, we still cannot bring Ben Laden to a judicial court. And the search for him seems to have fizzled out, become less important than other 'scandoulous current events,' forgotten. The original reason sons and daughters are still dying in Iraq has been put on a backburner, so to speak, not only by our President but by the media. And all of the Nazi war criminals are still at large, aren't they? None have ever been brought to trial, have they?

Doesn't this strike you as strange? Is there anyone out there?

Yet we have people- in this coutry- who can accomplish anything, witness the "Mission Impossible" TV series and the latest movies.

I know what you are going to say, "But that's in the movies! They can do anything they want in a movie."
Yes, I agree.

But don't just stop there!

That is also creativity unencumbered by military rules and regulations and movements of masses of personnel and equipment. Creativity that isn't in lock-step with certain historically approved military maneuvers, modern day rules, approved logistics, tons of requisitions and forms.
Saddam Hussein's men had the creative genius to don civilian clothes in order to get close enough to our military personnel to wreak havoc, in a small way (if you consider the death of your son or daughter a minor inconvenience to the greater good).

[Is it just me or does this point out the rather dumb notion to 'dress properly' for war? We are going to kill people, but only 'certain' people, and only people dressed in a certain way. Are we declaring war against terrorist's or against certain costumes?]

Is there not sufficient money in our treasury to hire some of these creative people to accomplish a goal that the military and the CIA are ill-equipped to handle?

What do you think it would cost to hire a good detective writer, or several, to come up with a good undercover plot to find and abduct Ben Laden? It certainly seemed fairly easy to shoot John F. Kennedy, didn't it? and Ronald Regan? and Robert Kennedy? And they were paid..... how much?

I would almost be willing to bet that a couple of mil would hook a few authors to work out the plot and maybe a couple of mil more to hire the team, outfit them and transport them toBen Laden's door. And this would be a savings of ....how much money, how many lives?

Who is setting our priorities?

Of course, it seems only logical that when you already have a standing army and multi-billion dollar organizations and industries built around the possibility of war, that should war become a possibility, you will seek advice from.... guess who? Your Military Advisors! That makes sense. Doesn't it? And what kind of advice do you think you will get? Military solutions, maybe?
What if they weren't there?

War is stupid. It makes arms sellers rich and the grunts dead.

Gays In The Military

And why not?

We've always had them. We will always have them.
But why is it so necessary for gays in the military to proclaim their gayness?
I don't understand that.

Do gays in a church choir proclaim their gayness?
Do gays in nursing-home care proclaim their gayness?
Do gays in real estate proclaim their gayness?
Do gays in typesetting proclaim their gayness?
Do gays in trucking proclaim their gayness?

Or,
Do bi-sexuals in architecture proclaim their ambisexousness?
Do bi-sexuals in photography proclaim their ambisexousness?
Do bi-sexuals on the assembly line proclaim their ambisexousness?
Do bi-sexuals in the music industry proclaim theirambisexousness?

Do right-handed people proclaim their hand preference when getting married?
Do tall people proclaim their exact height when buying a house?
Do brunettes declare their hair color on the marquee of the playhouse in which they are performing?
Do thin people declare their clothes sizes when buying a ticket to a concert?

No?
And, why not?
I'm glad you asked.

They don't proclaim it because:
A. They won't receive a diploma or certificate for proclaiming it.
B. They have a different order of priorities than those wishing to do so.
but mainly:
C. It really just isn't that important to their being a functioning human being.

If you are entering the military for the simple reason that there are so many males assembled just for you, then, yes, you need to declare your gayness, and, be REJECTED for duty! Personally, I don't want you on the front line 'defending my rights' because you have all ready negated my rights by putting your own rights above mine and everyone else's and that is not what this country and the military is about.

If you are gay and want to enter the military because you have a deep seated need to contribute to the protection of the "American Way of Life," and that includes gay's, then, by all means, join the military. I appreciate your wanting to protect me and my rights as well as my neighbors and I will defend your right to join the military. If you place your duty as a soldier above your sexual preference, then doesn't declaring your sexual preference suddenly get pushed further down the list of priorities? It sort of becomes a moot point.
Of course, you have to decide. Which is more important to you, telling everyone about your gayness and being gay or defending your country and the right to be gay in that country?

And as for those of you who use the old and worn blanket arguments against gays in the military, I can only say, "C'mon, get real!"
You are parrotting arguments that will make you acceptable to your other mindless friends and have refused, once again, the "painful" responsibility of thinking your own way through an issue.

Military 2: This is war?

Have You Ever Wondered Why...

HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHY.......we accept it as fact that no two snow flakes are alike?Is there any person, living or ortherwise, who has seen every snowflake that has ever fallen or will fall? Isn't it a little presumptious to assume that because 6000 snowflakes aren't identical that number 6001 is not going to look just like number 2379?
HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHY.......todays "facts" are constantly replacing yesterday's 'facts'? I was taught that a fact was everlasting. Who taught me wrong? Why did they do that to me?
HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHY.......even though man can't make a perpetual motion machine (or anything else perpetual, for that matter), like the revolving planets that rotate around molten interiors since the beginning of time, man still considers himself the measure of all things?
HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHY....... yardologists recommend that we water our house plants and yards with water purified by a local utility company, which probably has some chemical(s) mixed in, but palm trees and other greenery thrive on water at the oceans edge, utilizing salt water? A calendar hanging on the wall in front of me shows an island with palm trees at the very edge of the ocean and whose roots will be covered by the ocean water (salt water) at high tide, yet they are very healthy!
HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHY.......those who have everything think that they are the only ones who are capable of setting the rules for those who seemingly don't have much of anything (except possibly peace of mind)? Of course, they do so from the perspective of their own experience and how they managed to get what they have. Often, they gloss over the criminal or immoral things that they did, but then, right and wrong has nothing to do with anything, does it?
HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHY.......radio programs that sponsor "A Moment With Dr. I. Knowitall" will give you Dr. Knowitalls view of a medical situation, vitamin, diet or other nonsense situation today, and tomorrow, that same radio station will give the opposing view by a different doctor! Is medicine practiced on "opinions" or knowledge?
HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHY......after they 'hang their shingle,' we say they are 'practising' medicine? Isn't that kind of like saying they are rehearsing? When do they put on the actual play? When do they stop practising and become doctors?
HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHY.......a church condems pagan rituals while praising and singing hosannahs to accompany their own, currently correct, rituals, like passing the offering plate, being baptised or standing to sing some songs while sitting to sing others?
HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHY....... video producers will find the absolute smallest type available in the entire universe to write technical information about the movie contained within the box. Information like-what language it is in, what language are the subtitles in, how long the movie runs, the lead star, who else is in the movie, is it wide-screen or fullscreen? This is all "technical" and unimportant information to the consumer, isn't it?
HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHY....... video stores will put a video on the shelf as a "New Release" movie, but, when you rent it, you realize that this is the same movie you watched on a regular channel on local television about 5 months ago? The explanation is that it "is" a new release... to videos stores. Maybe video store owners should watch a little more tv and fewer videos.
HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHY......no one has ever caught on film, an insect being knocked out of the air by a rain drop?
HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHY......videos makers will inflate the description of the movie on the box as being wonderfully everything; action, drama, special effects, love, sex, yet the description of the actual story is condensed to one short sentence?
HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHY......producers of porn movies setup the fake stage sets, sometimes even with proper costumes, so that the"actors" can get right to the task at hand and the cameraman can do close ups of the mouth action? Is there a happy medium between porn and legit movies?
HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHY......a store manager will assign the answering of all incoming telephone calls to one of the two girls on the register, working feverishly to checkout the 10 people in line, while the manager and his/her four or five of assistants stand around, within 15 feet of the telephone, arms folded, surveying the landscape? Is there a law that says a store manager isn't allowed to answer a telephone, taking pressure off the cashier and showing the customer standing in line with money ready, that he was helping them to get through the line quicker?

more to come