Sunflower Update

I drove past the field today and they were gone. They have not looked very good for the last week. They had drooping heads and many looked seedless. There was a sign on the edge of the field identifying Natorps as the sunflower planter. They were nice when fresh but the field now looks better mowed.

Smile

Along Snider Road just north of Fields-Ertel there is something new this year. What in previous years had been just another soy bean field is planted in sunflowers.

I pass this field on my way to somewhere several times a week. For the past month the flowers have been in bloom. Every time I have passed the field, there has been someone standing at its edge looking at the field of sunflowers.

Most of the time people are also taking pictures of the sunflowers. People standing along Snider Road with a camera taking a picture of a field. I have also seen people on top of ladders taking photos from above, I have seen more than one couple just inside the first row kissing while having their picture taken, and entire families surrounded by sunflowers being photographed.

It makes me smile to see people made so happy by a field of sunflowers. I have seen sunflowers before but this is the first time have have witnessed such a fuss around the flowers.

Does anyone know why?

Haircuts

I never know how to react right after my wife gets a hair cut. Nearly 25 years of marriage has taught me that haircuts are always a risky subject. Maybe it is too short, maybe the shape is wrong, maybe the color isn't what she really wanted. There are too many possible problems. However, if she loves the haircut and I don't say how good it looks then I get told I never notice anything.

At work the risks are just as high with the added risk of what is really appropriate for a male to be saying to a female co-worker. I wouldn't think an innocent comment like, 'that's a cute haircut' could be considered harassment but I am not 100% sure that I can ever comment on how someone else looks in the workplace.

So I behave like a chicken in both situations and act as if I hadn't noticed.

Yesterday after work I got my hair cut.

The only comments I received today were variations on the "you got a haircut" theme. No one said it was cute, or made me look slimmer or younger, so either others play the chicken game also or it is really a bad haircut!

Vacation

Any additional vacation ideas? (June 28).

How far ahead to you plan your vacation?

Does planning start as soon as the last vacation ends?

Are several little vacations (3 days or less) better than one big see it all vacation (7 days or more)?

When is your favorite time of year to take a vacation?

If you vacation in the winter do you go to a winter location or is a winter vacation used to go to warm location?

Do you save up for vacation, or put it on credit?

July 4th Trivia

Many of the answers have been repeated in yesterday's news broadcasts about the 4th:

1). Name the president(s) who died on July 4, 1826, (50 years after 1776).

2). Name any other presidents who died on July 4th, any year.

3). Name the president(s) born on the 4th of July.

4). What early 20th Century song is about a composer born on the 4th of July?

5). Name the composer from question #4 above.

6). Name the only Chief Justice of the United States to die on July 4th.

7). Name the current presidential connection to July 4th.

Declaration of Independence

Here is the complete text of the Declaration of Independence.
The original spelling and capitalization have been retained.

(Adopted by Congress on July 4, 1776)

The Unanimous Declaration
of the Thirteen United States of America

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Source: The Pennsylvania Packet, July 8, 1776

(Copied from the following website)

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.html

4th of July

Happy Independence Day!

Did you ever wonder why we have fireworks on the 4th of July?

Well, let me tell you about someone who predicted it happening ....

Back in 1776 there was a man named John Adams who was at an extended business meeting in Philadelphia. Mr. Adams had a habit of writing to his wife Abigail, who had not traveled with Mr. Adams to Philadelphia, but remained home in Massachusetts.

Mr. Adams was a person that had a few revolutionary ideas.

For some reason the Adams Family didn't feel the need to keep their private correspondence private, so the contents of his letter is known. (If alive today, I would think they would be very comfortable having a very public Facebook or My Space page).

In the letter written July 3rd, 1776 Mr. Adams states: "The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more."

Adams' prediction was off by two days. From the outset, Americans celebrated Independence Day on July 4, the date the much-publicized Declaration of Independence was approved, rather than on July 2, the date the resolution of independence was approved in a closed session of Congress. (Thank you Wikipedia).

Numerically Challenged?

I will give him the benefit of the doubt, he is probably counting Puerto Rico, DC, Iraq, Israel, Egypt, Mexico, Panama, and Guam.

Those extra states sure help explain the budget deficits.

Happy Independence Day!

Yes, I know it is only July 2nd.

Did you know that the 2nd Continental Congress voted on July 2nd, 1776 to accept a resolution that the thirteen colonies of America were independent of the British rule?

It took two more days for the wording of the formal declaration to be approved.

Our Independence Day Holiday has been celebrated two days late ever since.

Shifting Morality

The recent movie based on the book My Sister's Keeper by Jodi Picoult raises a number of moral questions. I can only address the book and the movie in general terms since I have neither read the book, nor seen the movie. My only information is from Wikipedia for the book and the movie trailers for the movie. The Wikipedia sight contains spoilers for the book, so don't go there unless you want to know the ending.

The morally disturbing part about this book and movie is that a child is created in a laboratory to provide body parts for a sickly older sibling. Not being a parent I don't know how I would react to the illness of my child, but to sacrifice a second child to save the first one is not right. At what point does the second child become a human being with all the legal rights to defend herself against parents wanting her body parts. (The point of the movie?) The parents in this movie (again only from what I have seen in the trailers) don't believe the child has individual rights at age 11. The parents never granted the second child any human dignity, she was created only to be a parts factory.

What does this movie say about our society when something like this is presented in a seemingly rational manner? Are the parents seen as heroes for wanting to save their first daughter, or villains for the inhumanity shown to the second daughter? Does the younger daughter have an obligation to 'save' the life of the older daughter? Are any of the moral questions addressed or does the movie only play on the emotional? Does the current society accept a moral code?

I think this book & the movie indicate how dehumanized society has become. Is there no value to life except for its utilitarian value?

If a person can serve a utilitarian purpose then they are valued in society, if a person serves no purpose, well too bad. Does our society exist to only serve the people that are valued? Does raw power determine value to society?

What does this say for the powerless in society; the poor, the elderly, the unborn, and the mentally ill? Do they have any inalienable rights granted by their creator (such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) or do they settle for only those rights that the government grants them? Are they dependent on the generousity of those with power?

If we are dependent on government granted rights, we must also be aware that those rights can change as the power base within government changes.

What do you think?

Quotations

I have a book of quotations, 8,789 Words of Wisdom by Barbara Ann Kipfer, that I look at occasionally. There a few things I don't like about the book, so I end up putting it down after a few pages. (But then I pick it up a few days later). For example, many quotes in the book contradict previous listed quotes. What is up with that, it is just confusing.

On page 234, 'Truth is the truth no matter what others may think'.

On page 236, 'The truth is relative'.

I find it difficult to reconcile these two statements. I think they are mutually exclusive statements. Can they both be correct?

Another thing I dislike about the book is the lack of identification of who is being quoted.

Who said the truth is relative? Did the author make it up just to be contentious?

Some of the quotes I like:

'Have passion for what you are doing.'
'Nothing is permanent except change.'
'Celebrate being alive.'
'Let your character speak for you.'
'Act like the person you want to be.'
'Dreams can become real.'
'Be led by reason.'
'A good laugh and a long sleep are the best cures.'

What are some of your favorite quotes?

Is there any quote you use to guide your life?

Vacation anyone?

If money and time did not restrain you, where would you like to spend your next vacation?

Would it be a busy city or a quiet retreat? Would you take someone with you to share the experience or would you prefer to do it alone? The choice is up to you, after all this is your fantasy vacation.

What would you take with you? Books, music, or empty suitcases for shopping?

Do you like to take pictures while on vacation? And do you share your pictures?

Will you check your email, voicemail, Facebook, or MyFaceSpaceSite? (I know a shameless plug).

Tell me about your adventure.

Private Long

Private William Long.

Does the name mean anything to you?

Dr. George Tiller mean anything to you?

Both men met their deaths about a month ago in gun violence from a single gunman.

Dr. Tiller was murdered in a church in Wichita, Kansas and Private Long was murdered on a street in Little Rock, Arkansas. Both men became targets for what they did with their lives. Dr. Tiller for being an abortionist, Private Long for being a soldier.

An attack on a military target on the streets of American gets little notice from the news media.

Media bias once again? I understand the attraction of reporting on Dr. Tiller. He had a high profile, people had already heard of him because of his connection to Kathleen Sebelius, so his death is truly newsworthy. My first reaction when I heard the first reports of an unidentified abortion doctor being shot in Kansas was to wonder if it was Dr. Tiller.

Private Long on the other hand was a young man unknown except to those in his circle of friends and family. Private Long gained notoriety only in his death. But the media was reluctant to report on his death at the hands of a Muslim convert in an act of domestic terrorism.

Is there a bias toward making bad examples out of murders of abortionist doctors, while minimizing the threat of terrorism on American streets?

Could Private Long's killer be charged with a 'hate crime'?

Mario Lavandeira's Problem Week

Poor Mario Lavandeira (aka Perez Hilton) just can't get a break this week.

First he insults and gets an assault from an associate of the Black Eye Peas singer Will.I.Am. and now he insults Michael Jackson fans when he blogs that Michael was doing a publicity stunt, instead of having an actual heart attack.

Fox News reports Mario wrote, “Supposedly, the singer went into cardiac arrest ...” Hilton wrote in his blog, before stating, “We are dubious!!”

“Either he’s lying or making himself sick,” the blog continued. Then it urged those who had purchased tickets for Jackson’s series of concerts in London to “get your money back!”

Jackson fans were not amused. “That guy (Mario) is seriously sick in the head. He does more harm that good and he needs to get off the internet now,” wrote one blogger, in a fairly typical response.

Some people will do anything (like pirate someone's name, be insulted by someone's opinion, taunt a celebrity, and figure everyone else is as manipulative as yourself when it comes to publicity) to extend their fifteen minutes of fame and Mario's time is up.

Since Mario is a big heel do you think he might reinvent himself as Jim Shue?

Celebrity Deaths

Unfortunate timing for Farrah Fawcett and Ed McMahon to depart the stage.

Seeing Farrah's Story last month helped to demystify a legend. I sometimes forget that behind the fame and fortune is a human being with struggles, pains and fears trying to see their way through this adventure called life.

The essence of life is it begins with potential and you try to use that potential to leave the world a better place because of your existence. That universal struggle is what makes us human.

Ed McMahon was a great entertainer as Johnny Carson's foil and should also be remembered as the first host of Star Search in the early '80's.

With the 24 hour cable news coverage of the death of Michael Jackson there will be little about his life that will be unknowable. I don't want to diminish his contributions to music and entertainment but I wonder why such extensive coverage? If his life hadn't taken such an odd turn with the surgeries, skin condition, germophobia, child abuse lawsuits, surrogate motherhood for his children, etc. would we have seen endless news coverage of his death?

Was his life like the auto accident on the highway that everyone has to slow down and look at?

Last Survivor of the Titanic

The last survivor of the Titanic disaster died at age 97 on Sunday. Millvina Dean was just two months old when the ship sank in the North Atlantic. She survived along with her mother and brother, but her father died in the sinking.

If you have ever seen a documentary on the Titanic you have probably seen Millvina.





Ninety-seven years have passed since that dark cold night in April.

More Media Bias?

"GOP senators sidestep harsh criticism of Sotomayor

By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer Philip Elliott, Associated Press Writer – 18 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Leading GOP senators on Sunday offered more subtle criticism of the first Hispanic nominated to the Supreme Court, but passed up the chance to stifle racially charged critiques of Sonia Sotomayor by some fellow Republicans.

The party out of power in Washington is struggling to develop a unified political strategy to oppose the Supreme Court nominee. "

But further in the article the following quotes are reported:

"I definitely think we need to have the respectful tone and we need to look at the record," said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Republican from Hispanic-heavy Texas. "We need to have the responsibilities that have been put on us by the Constitution taken very seriously."

"She brings a form of bigotry or racism to the court," Limbaugh said on his radio program last week.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Sunday refused to criticize that remark, although he said it doesn't represent his view.

"I think that she is a person who believes that her background can influence her decision. That's what troubles me," said Sessions, R-Ala. Although he would prefer that they not call Sotomayor a racist, he said, "people have a free right to speak and say what they want and make the analogies that they want."

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., also a member of the Judiciary Committee, said that he doesn't think Sotomayor is a racist. However, Graham, who is white, said she should apologize for comments that suggest "all the hardship she has gone through makes her better than me."

Sen. Jon Kyl, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate and a Judiciary member, declined to call Sotomayor a racist.

"I'm not going to get drawn into characterizations before I have even met her," Kyl said.

Short of saying that anyone that uses the word racist when describing Judge Sotomayor should be arrested what more can five Republican Senators do 'to stifle racially charged critiques'?

Should the Senators even be trying to stifle free speech?

With 59 Democrat votes in the Senate (60 if the Minnesota election is settled in favor of Al Franken) I don't think there is any doubt that Judge Sotomayor will be the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. To suggest that the Republican party is trying to oppose the nomination as stated in the second paragraph is ridiculous. President Obama will have his nominee confirmed, but it is the role of the Senate to 'advise and consent' not just roll over and say 'Yes, Sir'.

Abortion Doctor Murdered

Dr. George Tiller, described by the Associated Press as a prominent late-term abortion provider, was murdered today. Dr. Tiller is known for being a large contributor to HHS Secretary Sebelius when she was governor of Kansas, and he is also known for being acquitted earlier this year on 19 violations of Kansas law related to abortions he provided.

Although I am on the opposite side of the abortion debate from Dr. Tiller, I find it to be a sad day in Kansas. Murder is not a justifiable crime. May his family find peace.

TGIF

Where did the phrase TGIF come from? Wikipedia says it was started by an Akron, Ohio disc jockey in the early 1970s.

Using my critical thinking skills, and wikipedia's lack of citation, I tend to doubt that as the source.

There is a 1978 disco theme movie by the name Thank God Its Friday that won an Academy Award for Best Song in 1979. (Donna Summer perf0rming Last Dance). Not a movie I remember.





Enjoy the weekend!!

.

First Amendment

The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The first ten amendments to the Constitution are also known as the "Bill of Rights" and refer to the rights of the people not the rights of the government. The founders of this country had just fought a war to throw off the tyranny of the King of England and wanted to ensure that the government being established did not end up being as oppressive as the one discarded.

The House of Representatives has passed legislation (HR 1913) to increase the penalty for a violent crime if it was motivated by hate. I don't understand how Congress can legislate away 'hate'. I understand things people say can be offensive. I have been offended at times and have probably also been offensive, but how can Congress label one set of values (and thoughts) as hateful and illegal and still be within the first amendment? Is punishing motives in addition to actions a form of thought control? Is it more acceptable to beat someone up as long as it is done with love?

I have always thought that the freedom of speech leads by a natural extension to a diversity of ideas, thoughts, and expressions. Just because there is diversity, not every thought will be of value or even for the betterment of society as a whole, but the founders wanted to provide an outlet for minority opinion that could not be suppressed by the majority. This would include speech that would be offensive to the majority of the people.

If the government begins to criminalize some speech as hateful, we have lost freedom and will loose diversity. If you think diversity is bad, then hate speech legislation is good way to limit diversity. I am ok with it as long as everyone thinks like me. (NOT!)

What is your opinion?

.