Random

Okay, so I'm too sick *big surprise* to want to sit down and formulate my thoughts enough to continue on my intended debates promised in my last post. I will get back to them *I have the first one half written* just not right now. Meantime, I wanted just to babble for a while.
Christmas has come and gone, with many very nice gifts. And some not so nice ones. Our family got the flu for Christmas and my husband had a death in the extended family. Still, despite those blemishes, we had a wonderful Christmas service, a good dinner with the family, and the presents are still piled in the livingroom.
A lot has happened recently, and most of it has been pushed to the back of our minds due to Christmas. So here are just a few conservative news points as a general update.
Iraq: while the liberal media continues to slam this as a lost cause and inflame the public against our current leader one of the largest jokes in America, the WWE Raw, went and entertained the troops and said all the things the media SHOULD be saying. I watched part of it with my husband, under protest to begin with, then with shock, awe, and a touched heart as these show-boating wrestlers really portrayed an attitude that America as a whole has been lacking since WWII. In other news, while Americans, fueled by the liberals, are increasingly pessimistic about Iraq, Iraq is not. In recent polls 2/3rds of Iraqi citizens say they are better off than they were under Saddam and 82% say their lives will be better a year from now. The recent election was attended by 70% of Iraqi citizens and no major violent incidences were reported *that I have found* By the way these are not 'cooked' number by some ultra pro-war conservative office or anything. The first two statistics come from Joseph Lieberman who is, *gasp* a DEMOCRACT senator from Connecticut. The second comes from the Oregonian which leans so far to the left it would make Clinton blush. Lieberman says that the Iraq war is a war for 27 million Iraqi citizens against 10,000 terrorists. And yet the media says we're losing??? To keep things in perspective, it is a war: US Casualties of war *from greatest to least*:
Civil War: 618,222
World War II: 405,399
World War I: 116,516
Vietnam War: 58,209
Korean War: 54,246
Iraq *most recent I could find*: 2,127
Boy, kind of makes Iraq seem like a resounding success doesn't it?

Church/State: While most of our attention was turned to either blasting Christ out of Christmas or keeping Him in a very telling news bit passed under the radar. In California's Byron Union School District 12 year old students now have a 3 week course in "becoming Muslims". During this time the class is divided into Islamic city groups, take Islamic names and wear name tags with their new names on them. So far so good, we did the same thing in fifth grade for the Revolutionary war period and the Civil war period. But it doesn't end there. Their name tags have the Muslim star and crescent moon symbols, which are religious symbols. They receive materials instructing them to, and I quote, "remember Allah always". They complete the five pillars of Islamic faith, and memorized and recited the basmala, a quote from the Koran, which they also wrote and hung about the classroom. In addition they were given extra credit for fasting from something they liked during Ramadan *sp?*. One article also reported that they memorized and later recited in front of the class various prayers, although this aspect was not reported in the other sources I found. Sounds like religious indoctrination doesn't it? Several parents sued the school district objecting to their children being proselytized so obviously. And here's the real catch the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the same court that ruled to take the words "under God" out of the pledge because it was a violation of church and state, is currently hearing this case because the first court ruled IT WASN'T A VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION! Watch, I bet that ultra-liberal court will rule likewise. Talk about a double standard! Could you imagine the uprising that would happen if a public school made kids do the same towards Christianity? They'd arrest the teacher!

Marriage: One of the reasons conservatives have been protesting against so called 'gay marriage' and sometimes even against 'civil unions' is due to the slippery slope argument. Once you redefine marriage, and check any dictionary or historical source it is most definitely a redefinition not an 'expansion' or an 'inclusion', where do you stop? If two men can be married why can't you call three men, one man and two women, or three chimps and a teenager, a marriage? Most of the pro-gay marriage supporters worldwide have denied this, but bisexuals and polyamory *or polysexual, apparently an attempt to make multiple sexual partners at the same time a born trait of some people instead of an preference. Hey, if you can be 'born gay' or 'born transgendered' why not born polyamory?* are closely watching the gay movement for pointers for their fight. In places where the gay fight has been settled, they are starting their war. Now, we're not hearing anything much about it over here, because if the liberal media reported on it it would completely contradict all their talk about how allowing homosexuals to 'marry' won't lead down the slippery slope for marriage to mean anything and everything anyone might want it to mean. But it is happening. A few months ago, its just now being reported on, a Dutch married couple entered into a "samenlevingscontract" with a third partner, another female. The Dutch have more than one marriage arrangement, kind of a three step tango between legally and officially cohabitation as a couple, civil unions, and redefined marriage. Given this "samenlevingscontract" is the lowest step in this marriage higherachy, but the couple is legally recognized as a bound three-some. But technically 'married' or not the same type of showboating by gays in the 1980's in the Netherlands led to civil unions and then to full fledged marriage in the 1990's and beyond. In fact, according to one source "After all, Dutch same-sex marriage advocates still celebrate the foundational role of symbolic gay marriage registries in the early 1990s. Although these had absolutely no legal status, the publicity and sympathy they generated are now widely recognized as keys to the success of the Dutch campaign for legal same-sex unions and ultimately marriage. How odd, then, that American gay-marriage advocates should respond to the triple Dutch wedding with hair-splitting legal discourses, while ignoring the Dutch media frenzy and subsequent signs of cultural acceptance--for a union with far more legal substance than Holland's first symbolic gay marriages. Despite the denials of gay-marriage advocates, in both legal and cultural terms, Victor, Bianca, and Mirjam's triple union is a serious move toward legalized group marriage in the Netherlands." And its not just in la-la land across the ocean. Lawyers at top school such as Yale are already formulating how a legal argument for polygamy can make it through the courts using the homosexual precedent to push bisexuality and polyamory 'rights' to marry. Open the Pandora's box, slide down that slipery slope, and take a left turn at reason and sensibility and you will find a world where everyone's sexual wants are turned into needs, everything is allowed, and 'marriage' has as much meaning as a one-night-stand.

Ethics: Stem cells are being hailed as life savers, the virtual cure all of ails. At least the embryonic version of stem cells. In real life nearly all stem cell successful are ADULT stem cells and using EMBRYONIC stem cells have been a disaster. The problem is the embryonic stem cells belong to someone else, even if its a very small someone else who is now dead because of the 'harvesting' of said stem cells. People's immune system reject them. Sometimes drugs can be used to suppress the rejection reaction but problems still persists. The main one being that, without the normal input of the developing baby the stem cells, while they can be manipulated into nearly any type of cell, can't be turned off. The cells create horrible tumors that can't be controlled. Regardless of these set backs scientists are obsessed with this concept, probably because it gives the pro-abortion group a salve for their failing position that the embryo isn't human. If embryonic stem cells can save lives then the abortion industry had another reason to devalue the lives of the very young to nothing more than a collection of possible parts. This obsession presses them towards some way to use embryonic stem cells despite the risks. One way that they are attempting this is to clone an embryonic cell from the adult who needs treatment. While technically outlawed in the US many scientists worldwide are not only very interested by also actively attempting it. So far the only one to have well-known success is Woo Suk Hawng, a Korean scientist. He had been claiming to have 11 different stem cell lines cloned from an adult patient using donated eggs. It was hailed as the holy grail of stem cell research up till now and Woo Suk Hawng's name has been widely published. The big surprise? ALL 11 LINES WERE FAKED. None of them were genetic matches to his patients and it turns out he even lied about where he got the eggs, some were harvested from his own assistants and some were bought, which is illegal even in Korea. The holy grail has been ripped away. I wish this meant that the scientists are going to give up this horrid 'medical' tangent and focus on safe, proven adult stem cell research but, unfortunately I expect this will simply make other scientists more anxious to be the first person to first clone and then kill a human only to use the parts to harm another human, all in the name of medicine.

Well, there you go, just some random points that have caught my divided attention this holiday that I thought to share. Lets hope that this can be a happy New Year after all the things that have happened in it.

Part 1: In the Beginning

To start with I'd like to refer all first time readers to the post titled "the search for... Oh whatever" for the purpose of this post.

In the beginning, something happened. In the hypothesis of macro-evolution that something was *most commonly* the Big Bang. Somewhere just short of 15 billion years ago by this hypothesis matter erupted from nothing and exploded outwards into the nothingness of space and populated the know universe with stars, galaxies, planets, and assorted debris. Somewhere around 4.6 billion years ago earth solidified in more or less its current orbit. Somewhere around 3 billion years ago life emerged.
For people, both lay and scientists, there are two commonly held beliefs on what was before the Big Bang. The first is that this is a cyclical process that has always happened and will always happen. The second is that nothing existed before that moment and some 'unknown agent' acted upon nothingness to cause the Big Bang. Since the second allows for some 'unknown agent' it is generally rejected by the naturalistic evolutionist crowd as it requires a force outside of nature. I will be dealing with the first and likely the most popular belief.
First off, it fails logically. Specifically it uses the false logic of ad infinitum to place the answer further away from the question without actually answering the question. For those that say the universe has always existed, shall always exist, and the Big Bang we know of is simply the latest Big Bang in a string of Big Bangs that has happened into infinity still does not answer the fundamental question of "where did the matter come from?" And the question must be answered. According to the Law of Conservation of Matter matter can neither be created nor destroyed. *E=MCsquared is the exception but that only allows for the destruction of matter for the creation of energy* The First Law of Thermodynamics says that energy cannot be destroyed and the second law states that the total balance of enthropy in any closed system increases until all usable energy has been used. These three laws taken together are a devastating blow to an eternal natural universe. Energy can not be destroyed, nor can it be 'wound back up' that is, made to be usable after it has already been depleted. The universe is headed towards what is called heat death. Eventually, although it is a very long eventually, all usable energy in the universe will have been used and everything will reach 0 Kelvin and even on the subatomic level movement will cease. Even if all matter in the universe is destroyed to convert it to energy heat death will eventually happen as the total balance between matter and energy remains balanced. This is called the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy. Logically not only does the universe have an end it also had a beginning. Even if everything in the universe is 'wound up' there will still be a point in time that one can not go backwards into, that time itself came into being along with all of the possible matter and energy contained within the universe. There is no naturalistic explanation for this first moment when everything came into being as it requires, scientifically, some cause OUTSIDE of the system to have created it. Newtons Third Law states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Logically the reverse is true, for every reaction there is an equal and opposite action. This is called Initial Cause and was best and really first described by Leonard Susskind. Newton's law works both ways and you can no more violate it backwards as forwards. Which leads logically and scientifically to some sort of outside force that first acted upon the universe to cause it to come into being. This is usually called the "Cosmic Genome" but in actuality a force outside of the universe *this plane of existence* that has the power to create is, in essence, a deity.
I will skip the birth of the earth since evolutionists themselves can not agree on when or how that happened. Most sources will admit that the creation of the solar system and notably the earth through naturalistic means is not yet explained. Instead I will move forward to the supposed appearing of life about 3 billion years ago by leading evolutionary standards.
According to main stream evolutionists the first self-reproducing cell arrived by chance from dead matter. The first and most obvious problem with this is called the Law of Biogenesis. Louis Pasteur is most commonly seen as the father of this law although several scientists of his day contributed to it. It is his quote that echoed still in the halls of the scholars "Omne vivum e vivo" or, for you who didn't waste college credits on dead languages, "every living thing arises from a preexisting living thing." Since this flatly contradicts an evolutionary, naturalistic origin of life recently scientists have tried to say that this law only applies after life is already in existence, and wouldn't be valid for an initial lifeless earth. There is no logical reason for this objection and such an exception has never been proven or even successfully hypothesized. Its called abiogenesis and it is the belief that under the right circumstances life can spontaneously arise. No life has ever been seen to arise from non-living matter, despite very detailed attempts to produce such a process in the laboratory. Of those that tried Stanley Miller in 1953 probably came closest and certainly is the most well known. Hailed as a breakthrough it was actually a very carefully controlled failure. In life amino acids are either left or right handed and life only uses the left handed amino acids to build enzymes, the right handed ones being deadly to life. It takes about 400 amino acids to build an enzyme and the simplest free living cell has about 482 genes to code for those enzymes. In Miller's, and other's experiments, both left and right hand amino acids were combined and those that did bind together bound in dipeptides *pairs* with a few binding in tripeptides *threes*. The experiments only created some of the amino acids needed for life and no enzymes were formed. Also they were not self regulating, breaking down almost as soon as they were formed, some within seconds when exposed to high heat. And, finally, the experiment had to be terminated as the build up of useless right handed amino acids and gases deadly to the amino acids had blocked the further production of even those tiny dipeptides. Neither life nor anything like it was created. Not only that but a carefully controlled experiment, even if eventually successful, would only prove that intelligence can create life. In the face of their failure to figure out or reproduce how life could spontaneously generate from non-life evolutionists usually resort to time and chance. Saying that if enough time is given non-living matter will eventually come together in the correct order to produce self replicating life. And here they run into another problem. Even if one assumes that the possibility for life has existed since the 'big bang' in every moment in every place in the universe the often quoted figure, from famous mathematician Frederick Hoyle, for the probability of a single cell arriving by chance is 10 to the power of 57800. To put that into perspective there are only 10 to the power of 80 electrons in the whole universe. Mathematically and statistically speaking that means it CAN NOT HAPPEN. Evolutionists come back with the thought that theoretically a cell does not have to form, just some sort of self replicating organism that can change into a cell. They usually talk in terms of bacteria or viri. While this is impossible anyway since both bacteria and viri need living cells as hosts to survive it is the most common solution presented. According to Harold J Morowitz, Professor of Biophysics at Yale University, one of the smallest bacterium, a form of E Coli, has 3-4 million base pairs giving it a mathematical likelihood of arising by chance of 10 to the -100,000,000,000. Again, statistically and mathematically speaking this is impossible. Given this evolutionists hypothesize that the first bacteria or cell would be of a far more simplistic sense than those we see today. This runs straight into two hurdles, the first being fossils. While they have plenty of fossils of cells and mircoorganisms none have ever been found that are fundamentally different or more simplistic than we have today. On the contrary, fossilized cells and mircoorganims are the same as those found today, with very little change. The second wall is called Irreducible Complexity and was best described, in my opinion, by Michael Behe in his book Darwin's Black Box. Although an evolutionist and atheist himself Behe points out several cellular and microscopic systems that are irreducibly complex, meaning they can not function without all steps already in place. There are things in nature, from the microscopic to the massive, which by no means could have evolved since any possible step between the initial hypothetical protosystem and the current system would have been non functioning and ultimately deadly. Michael Behe deals with irreducibly complex systems in the 'simplest' of organisms. Please note, Behe himself is an evolutionists and does believe in molecule to man evolution, he simply does not believe in goo to molecule evolution, acknowledging that those first steps must have been created. Unfortunately having done a very good job at disproving the first step in evolution Behe goes on to suggest panspermia, that is that life was seeding to earth by some alien lifeform. He acknowledges that this does not answer the ultimate question of a beginning to the cycle but says he is unwilling to entertain the notion of special creation so panspermia is the only option left to him.
Unfortunately much of the evolutionist community is like that. Having stared in the face of the impossible and having rejected the supernatural as unthinkable evolutionists must put more and more faith in their belief and shout louder and louder to drown out reason. This is not my opinion, but their's, and to show that I end this segment with a few choice quotes from evolutionists. Please note these are not some backwards scientists, but professors and even noble prize winners.
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is
spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural
creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation
that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120
years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one
possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will
not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God,
therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically
impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."
(Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the
University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for
more than 40 years have completely failed.....It is not even possible
to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts...The
idea of an evolution rests on pure belief."
(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of
Lund University)
"The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to
prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do."
(Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech
before the American Chemical Society.)
"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look
into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We
all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter
on this planet. It is just that life's complexity is so great, it is
hard for us to imagine that it did."
(Dr. Harold Urey, Nobel Prize winner)
"I suppose the reason we leaped at the origin of species was because
the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores."
(Sir Julian Huxley, President of the United Nation's Educational,
Scientific, Cultural Organization (UNESCO).)
"If I knew of any Evolutionary transitional's, fossil or living, I
would certainly have included them in my book, 'Evolution' "
(Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the
British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)
"For over 20 years I thought I was working on evolution....But there
was not one thing I knew about it... So for the last few weeks I've
tried putting a simple question to various people, the question is, "Can
you tell me any one thing that is true?" I tried that question on the
Geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only
answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary
Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, A very prestigious body
of Evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and
eventually one person said, "Yes, I do know one thing, it ought not to
be taught in High School"....over the past few years....you have
experienced a shift from Evolution as knowledge to evolution as
faith...Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey
anti-knowledge."
(Dr. Collin Patterson evolutionist, address at the American Museum of
Natural History, New York City, Nov. 1981)
"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any
evolutionary theory I know."
(Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover
2(5):34-37 (1981)
"Evolution is a fairy tale for adults."
(Dr. Paul LeMoine, one of the most prestigious scientists in the
world)

The search for... Oh whatever

Truth, its a fundamental necessity in life, without knowledge of basic day to day truths our lives would be, well, they'd be likely over. We learn them as we grow, fire is hot, water is wet, usually followed closely by we can't breath water, gravity exists, food is necessary, and mother's don't like it when you bring snakes into the house. Then we go to school and learn more truths: 2+2=4, Asquared+Bsquared=Csquared, biology means 'the study of life', and cafeteria food isn't generally eatable. Somewhere along the lines, hopefully, we learn more basic, meaningful truths of life like love, respect, obedience, and loyalty. The point is, truth is to be sought, not sought because it gives us something to do but because it exists and without it we are meaningless, pointless, and well, wrong.
The search for truth drug western civilization out of the mess of the middle ages and into the Era of Enlightenment, pushed us into the Scientific Era, carried us breathlessly into the Industrial Revolution, and finally settled us into this modern era of convinces and general good living. Most people have jobs, most people can afford food, electricity, education, and medicine, and even the lowest of modern society live better than most of the population did in the middle ages.
Note I used the terms 'western civilization' and 'modern society' this is not a global concept, just like search for objective truth is not a global concept. It takes a very precise footing for science, which is in its best and purest form the search for objective truth, to spring to life and flourish. It takes a belief in the existence of objective truth. Science didn't bloom in the great Oriental regions because as a civilization China, Japan, Korea, et all do not believe objective truth can be achieved. *I am speaking historically here* It didn't flourish in India as that subcontinent does not traditionally believe that objective truth exists. Most of Africa believed in the whims of their gods, not a stable operating force, the same for the ancient Greeks and Romans, who came so very close but were ultimately defeated.
Only in the great halls of Europe and later America did the Scientific Method find a foothold. The Scientific Method was discovered by Sir Francis Bacon, an Englishman, and its states simply that one must Observe some segment of the universe, create a Hypothesis, create a Test that is capable of Proving or Disproving your hypothesis, Test the hypothesis and Update the hypothesis as needed by the outcome of the test. Its simple, clear cut, and always produces results. It also tells us something about objective truth, its testable. Its provable. Its able to be known. This is upheld by the Second Law of Logic, called the Law of non-contradiction, which states "something can not be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same respect." In laymen terms it means two opposites cannot both be right. Its a fundamental law.
So why are people abandoning true science and objective truth like its going out of style? Why do people insist on saying 'we can agree to disagree', 'we're both right', or 'there is no right or wrong'? These philosophies come from lands that rejected science. Many of these lands still, in this modern era, struggle to pull themselves up out of a third world condition simply because they still hold the basic belief that truth can not be known or does not exist. Why do we have what seems like a whole generation of people that suddenly don't care to learn the truth and even go so far as to refuse its existence? How could any logical, intelligent person tell another when faced with an opposing side 'I don't want to hear your proof', 'I don't care', 'just because you're right doesn't mean I'm not right too', or 'you have your beliefs, I have mine'. Beliefs? Who said anything about what you believe?? I believe black shouldn't be a mourning color, that's a belief. I'd be more than happy to debate with you, see your side, and even agree to disagree about that belief. In opposition, that an in-utero baby is a living human being, is tested, proven, and objective fact. Now, if you want to believe that fact doesn't have any barring on whether or not that baby human should have the right to life that is your right and an opinion, and its a debatable point that two people can have different opinions, depending upon their underlying beliefs. It does absolutely no good to say 'that's just your belief' when a FACT is presented. Not only does it make you sound like an idiot it makes any further discussion ABOUT ANYTHING utterly pointless as you've proven you care not for logic, fact, or even simple common sense. If you refuse to 'believe' one fact you've laid the foundation to ignore any you wish to. Now, that doesn't make any logical sense, jumping off an overpass is going to result in a splat regardless of your 'belief' in gravity, and it makes no sense as a personal belief, for any belief system that contradicts truth if flawed and cannot be true itself. So, why the obsession?
The obsession with making truth into belief and making all beliefs 'valid' regardless of their nature, contradictions, or flaws is directly linked to mainline science ignoring objective truth and following beliefs. Foul you cry? Not at all, just because something calls itself 'science' doesn't mean it is. Words have definitions for a reason, and when something not A is called A people get confused. Science was founded on the fact that the observable world can be known and and understood by the process put forth in the Scientific Method. Mainstream Science today, at least the part that gets the most attention, does not follow the Scientific Method and instead tries to force discoveries into a pre-existing belief. If they cannot manipulate the discoveries the discoveries, which are physical fact, are dismissed instead of dismissing the 'theory' that has been disproved. This obvious belief espoused as objective truth has degraded the very definition of truth till it has become the sad cousin of opinion.
This false science that has torn down real science and the real search for truth is, of course, the Theory of Evolution. It has paired with the religions of Naturalism and Humanism and has toppled that perfect search for truth that brought us the Law of Biogenesis, the Theory of Gravity, the Theory of Relativity, and the Law of Genetics. In fact, even labeling it the "Theory of Evolution" is a misnomer as, according to the Scientific Method it is at best a hypothesis. The problem is not that such a hypothesis exists, but that is has not only failed numerous tests but also that it has someone managed to attain the coveted standing of Scientific Theory despite its faults.
Its not complex, its not difficult, its easy. Logic always is. If A and non-A can not both be true at the same time in the same sense then evolution can not both be false and true. So, a simple question then, what could prove evolution false? First, lets define the term evolution. Evolution can mean many things, its most basic meaning is 'change over time' that form of evolution is proven fact, things DO change over time. Few argue that. What the Hypothesis of Evolution is referring to, and I am objecting to on the basis of objective fact, is what is called 'molecule to man' evolution or 'upwards evolution'. This is the belief that change over time moves in an upward directions producing increasingly complex structures, organisms, and systems. Its called a lot of names but the closest to a Scientific name it seems to have is Macro-Evolution and it is this that we will be dealing with.
Its also pretty easy to disprove. To make the best use of space I will be writing a number of posts over the next while dealing point by point with various requirements of the Macro-Evolution hypothesis and tests that can be used, or truths already known, to falsify each requirement. I will deal with no beliefs, only facts. It is this 'theory' that has led Western man down the path of 'all paths' instead of seeking to better ourselves in the search for true knowledge. If this shining box of belief is toppled off the pillar of truth we can perhaps go back to a mindset where people sit down and debate until one or the other has been convinced of the truth, where people seek true because they know it can be known and it MUST be known. For that reason showing evolution for exactly what it is, and is not, is ever so important. I do not undertake this in jest, but with all seriousness of faith in the truth and in the necessity of knowing truth.

Monsters

So this is a cry out to whoever might read this, all of the two people who are likely to. Hey, maybe I'll get lucky and someone will do a search for 'monsters' and find it. Anyway, this is one of those random jaunts into alternate realities. I go in search of....
MONSTERS
okay, so I can come up with languages, cultures, maps, races, species, etc at the drop of a hat, but I'm completely stuck on these monsters. Usually because I don't find much use for them in my stories/worlds. But I'm in the middle of creating this world for a homespun RPG and find I need more monsters than I have in my collection of past works. Don't ask me why rpgs need such a preponderance of monsters but they sure seem to. I've flipped through Monster Manuals before, on rare occassions, but I don't want to pledgerize directly or anything. It is possible this might be published some day after all. So, what is your favorite monster? Favorite monster characteristic or concept? Anway, leave a comment if you have one and ask someone else and leave their comment, if you're feeling generous. If you're someone I know *hi Ben, hi lynn* I'll even let you know what monster I come up with via your comments!
Thanks.

Sick days

Okay, so I'm rewriting this because this stupid computer just ate my work, but that's another rant.

So I'm home sick, again. What it is about our culture ignoring the fact that people get sick? All thought history some people have been 'sickly'. In this day and age there is no such thing as sickly. All you need is more vitamins, better meals, more sanitary environments, ect. Unless you have a major problem along the lines of cancer, heart disease, or AIDs, being sick a lot is at best wimpy and at worse hypercondria. I'm sickly. I'm not a wimp, most of my sicknesses include high fevers. I'm not a hypochondriac, most of my sicknesses have included doctors, prescriptions, and obvious physical symptoms. Until I was about 15 I had 3-4 cases of strep throat a winter, 4-5 cases of the stomach flu, at least 1 case of the flu, usually 2 cases of a fever virus, and a general cold from early September to late March, sometimes April. After 15ish I stopped getting strep, finally, and my cases of the stomach flu went down. I haven't had a fever virus *just a high fever with no other symptoms for those of you who are healthier* since I was 16. But I still am plagued by colds, flues, sinus infections, random sicknesses, and the occasion stomach virus. For most of my 23 years I have had a flu shot, I always get the flu anyway. The past few years I haven't bothered to get one, why waste a flu shot on someone who is going to get the flu regardless when it could go to someone it might actually help? Heck, I even got the mumps. People don't get the mumps anymore, we had to get the encyclopedia out! I'm just sickly, and finally my doctor just admitted it saying that 'regardless of what we do some people just have poor immune systems.' Finally, some honesty. My parents still won't believe it, my mother just says 'you've got to get over being so sick' like she wasn't there when I was growing up being constantly sick regardless of what she did. I've taken vitamins, I've eaten well, I've washed my hands, my blankets, my pillowcase, I've downed handfulls of vitaims with a glass of orange juice, sucked on zinc tablets, and taken iron pills prescribed by a doctor to try to lessen my monthly bout with anemia *didn't work*. Nothing works. My point is why does this society ignore the fact that people get sick and in fact encourage the spread of illness. All through elementary and grade school I got sick because normally healthy kids would drag themselves to school on the one day they were really sick so they could get their attendance awards. They could have stayed home for one day and I wouldn't have been sick for two weeks. But the schools reward perfect attendance, regardless of weather or not the students are sick. In high school, even though they didn't give attendance awards anymore, students came to school obviously sick, and even ignored teacher's requests to go home, because they didn't want their parents to keep them from hanging out with their friends after school. Heaven forbid they miss whatever popular kids did after school for one day to get some sleep at home instead of spewing their germs all over school for kids like me to catch! Now I'm at work, and people show up sick because they either need the attendance bonus they receive for perfect attendance, or they don't have enough sick/vacation time to pay for a day off. During November I was very ill, which resulted in several days off from work, some of which were unpaid. And despite a verbal agreement with management I was given a written warning, withheld my bonus for the month *which I hit despite being out so much* and placed on probation. Thankfully this time I not only was sent home by management, apparently throwing up at work is sufficient to be sent home, but was also given a promise by upper management *technically he is the vice-president but its a fairly small company* that I would not be fired. Yippy for me. Until next time. While I don't know where I got this current sickness from, the sickness I had during November was caught from a coworker who was sick for a total of 3 days. I was sick for nearly a month with a cold/sinus infection/cough/situational asthma mess, well, actually I still have the cold so it has now been over a month. All likely to have been avoided if the sick employee had stayed home for a day or two. There was also another person in the office that caught it at the same time, she also ended up with a sinus infections. Thankfully for her she avoided the perpetual cough that kept me home from work, she also had a more normal run for the sickness, a total of 2 weeks before she was fully better. And for coming to work sick and causing several other employees to be sick *at least two others caught the cold but, like her, were minorly sick for only a few days* resulting in at least 5 sick days between myself and the other worker, this woman will be rewarded by the company with an attendance bonus.
This world is so insane, they reward behavior that causes sickness and then punishes those that dare to be sick! I plan on being a stay at home mom, a housewife. And its a good thing, because to last through the winter with a company take a lot of understanding. I'm constantly stressed that the next coworker who comes to work sick, or the store clerk who won't go home will be the one who knocks me off my feet for the next two weeks. I can't expect even the most considerate workplace to not fire me if I call in with a 102 temp and vomiting or extreme cough for two weeks, not how their handbooks are currently written. If I ever own a business my employee manual for sick leave will read as follows: employees who come to work visibly, audibly, or otherwise discernibly sick will be asked to leave the office until well. Sick pay will be provided. Any employee who calls in sick will be required to submit a doctor's note to be excused from work. Any copayment or expense derived from the required doctor's visit will be reimbursed by the company upon receipt of the doctor's note. Sick pay will be provided assuming a doctor's note stating the illness is remitted. Three unauthorized sick days will result in disciplinary action.
I am willing to bet that my employees would be happier, healthier, and less stressed. I also bet I'd pay out for less sick days than the average employer. And such a policy would allow for those of us that are 'sickly' to be more productive members of society. Can you imagine how much better life would be, and how much healthier we'd all be from kindergarten up if people just stayed home in bed when they were sick instead of spreading it? In this civilized world we come into contact with more people on a day to day basis that most people a hundred years ago would come into contact with in a month. Traditional knowledge said people got in bed and had chicken soup when they were sick, sometimes shops closed for a couple of days. Sometimes people had to wait an extra day to get a package or had to help a neighbor with chores. Life somehow continued at this slower pace. Life would be better if we all remembered we're humans, not perpetual motion machines, and that life doesn't need to run at Mach 5 all the time.

wrongful....life?

So yesterday I set up this blog, but didn't write anything as I was waiting for something particularly abhorant to hit me. It did, this morning as I was reading my emails I came across something that truly proves just how horrendous this world is. WARNING RANT AHEAD: In many places women can now sue for 'wrongful life' or 'wrongful birth'. You heard right "WRONGFUL LIFE"! The article that first keyed me into this practice involved a woman in Scotland that is suing her hospital for failing to abort one of her twin daughters. The child is now four years old and the woman is suing for the 'financial burden' of her unwanted child. In the abortion industry a live birth is called "the dreaded complication". Not injuring the mother, not tearing a living being apart piece by piece, not even killing the mother gets this distinction, no, only a live birth falls under this moniker. Despite what anyone could think of abortion, and don't misunderstand that comment I am fully against it, how could anyone even consider suing for wrongful birth? Anyone ever heard of adoption? Look, lady, if you don't want the kid, there are plenty of people who do. If for no other reason this is why abortion is so horrible. There are so many people who wish for a child, who would be more than happy to take this woman's unwanted get. Everytime someone has an abortion, and certianly everytime someone does something as brainless as sue for a live birth they tell everyone who has been adopted that they are better off dead. After all, isn't that what this boils down to? Instead of giving up a child for adoption as people had done for ages, people would rather kill the child. God forbid they fail in their attempted murder of their own offspring people now have the ability to sue for support and damages. This woman's kid of four years old! If she doesn't want her why didn't she give her daughter up for adoption? Can you imagine being that poor little girl? The mother currently has said she has no idea what she will tell her daughter but "maybe when she is nine or ten I will sit her down and explain it to her." What horror to imagine that conversation. Instead of letting an adoptive mother explain to a ten year old 'you grew in mom's heart not her stomach and you are our true and loved daughter' that woman would rather sit down and tell her daughter that 'I killed your twin sister and tried to kill you but the doctor messed up and that's why mommy gets a check every month to help raise you because its really their fault and responsibility that you are alive.' And people wonder why suicide is happening at younger and younger ages! My husband and I both work and raising a child right now would be difficult, but with all my heart I would welcome and love this child and any other who's biological parents have decided that death is preferable to life. This precious child is four years old and her mother STILL wants her dead, makes it clear how close we are to infantacide doesn't it? And do not mistake this for some insanity across the sea, these cases have happened in Canada and even here in the US! In the words of a California pro-abortion speaker unwanted pregnacies are, after all "a disease, the recommended treatment for which is abortion." So sure, why not sue your doctor for failing to 'cure' you, for allowing this 'disease' to run its course and produce a babe in arms?