Staying Focused on What's Important in Life

via The Miami Herald

BEIJING -- Among all the protests, pollution concerns and talk of boycotts surrounding the Beijing Olympics, a more basic problem has arisen for organizers: the toilets.
At the more than 30 test events held by organizers, the presence of squat toilets at many of the new and renovated venues has drawn frequent complaints.

"We have asked the venues to improve on this, to increase the number to sit-down toilets," Yao Hui, deputy director of venue management for the Beijing organizers, said Wednesday. "Many people have raised the question of toilets."

Am I sensing a theme here? That's right, us Floridians are concerned about our asses (and the asses of those who may visit our state or go with us to China).

Floridians: looking out for asses everywhere.

Blogging

So I learned yesterday that, apparently, there is blogging etiquette. Here I was assuming that bloggers just blog (strange verb, isn't it?) all willy-nilly, silly me. I will never use "willy-nilly" and "silly" in the same sentence again. Ever. I promise.
But I digress,
There are countless writings (mostly on BLOGS, go figure) about blog etiquette. (HT: the ward-o-matic) So I think I've learned a thing or two. I learned about Tipping One's Metaphorical Blog-Hat. I learned about linking to the main page of quoted publications. I learned that it's bad juju to mindlessly beg for people to link to you. I learned that it's worse juju to steal bandwidth from other sites. I learned that "People like links about monkeys, robots, sexual perversion, and any combination thereof. " (HT: Ten Tips For A Firmer, Slimmer, Sexier Weblog). I learned about the spirit of blogging. I learned that to contribute to the collective community of the Blogosphere, one should have a blogroll (via wikipedia.org "Blogosphere is a collective term encompassing all blogs and their interconnections. It is the perception that blogs exist together as a connected community (or as a collection of connected communities) or as a social network.") And from these tidbits I felt compelled to, first laugh at the amazing complexity of things that we as humans invent to keep ourselves busy, and second, that blog etiquette exists for a reason. So I guess I can be more blog-polite.

And for your viewing pleasure:

Hi Monkey!
Your Friendly Neighborhood Robot Store

Being Popular

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/03/the_world_according_to_obama.asp

"The World According to Obama

It’s interesting how Democrats harp on foreign policy explanations for anti-Americanism while disregarding the role domestic policy plays. In the world according to Obama, America is hated because we’re in Iraq:

"The fact that the continuation of a presence in Iraq as Sen. McCain has suggested is exactly what, I think, will fan the flames of anti-American sentiment and make it more difficult for us to create a long-term and sustainable peace in the world," Obama said today at a campaign stop at The Little Dooey, a barbeque restaurant in Columbus, Miss.

Never mind that farm subsidies--as in the policy Obama defended vociferously while pandering to Iowans a few months back--leave the poorest people in the world starving and without jobs."

There has pretty much been "anti-American sentiment" since before the United States existed, and still people think we're going to eliminate that? Maybe I'm a skeptic (actually, I know I'm a skeptic) but for some reason I don't see anyone liking us anymore if we leave Iraq or stay there for "another hundred years" (a phrase popularized by criticism of John McCain). History shows that we're just not very popular on the playground.
Additionally, is it only me that thinks the leap from farm subsidies to "the poorest people in the world starving and without jobs" is a little large? I think I need a pole to make it across that gap (though I am pretty short and don't run very fast). Perhaps our lack of popularity on the global playground has more to do with the fact that we think we should be very popular, important and necessary and less to do with individual actions. Maybe "America" just has a bad attitude.

Protecting Our Asses

"A proposed law currently making its way through the Florida legislature might help you with what can be an embarrassing problem. Here’s the bottom line, the bill would be a mandate that all eating establishment must have enough toilet paper when you go into the restroom. The only problem is the bill doesn’t dictate how much toilet paper is “enough.” State Senator Victor Crist, a Republican from Tampa, felt the problem was so important, a law must be passed to protect the backsides of anyone in Florida. The measure will also try to regulate the cleanliness of restrooms in eating establishments."

I'm not quite sure what to say here. I'm not sure if the bigger problem is that the Florida State Legislature has nothing BETTER to do than this or that there is apparently a shortage (or poor distribution/organization of) toilet paper in the state of Florida. Who knew? Is this problem unique to Floridians? Do we use so much more toilet paper per capita that "eating establishments" actually RUN OUT without knowing? Where does the toilet paper go? Is the average Floridian ass larger than, say, the average Connecticut ass? What about Boston asses?These are all fine questions for the Legislature to answer though I wish they would answer them on their own time, perhaps with some field research.

Trans Fat

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/03/boston_health_r.html?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed7


In 1920 they banned alcohol (and invented stock-car racing).
In 2008 they banned trans fat (and invented underground oil-running).
In 2012 they banned tap water (and started a revolution).

What if the people of Boston like their french fries fatty? But of course we must protect people from themselves! The city of Boston does know, better than you, what's good for you.

Defending Our Civil Liberties

Over two hundred years after ratification, people have still qualms with the Bill of Rights. We cling to those amendments and rights that we feel apply to our sensibilities and us and reject and criticize those that do not. We pick and chose which parts we can use to back up our own arguments and our opposition does the same. Those who advocate the integration of religion into the classroom say it is a matter of free speech while those who fight to keep God out of our classrooms say it infringes upon the freedom of religion (or the implied freedom to not be religious). Citizens who own guns claim it is their constitutional right to do so, while people who advocate stronger gun control laws claim that the Second Amendment has no modern application as we no longer maintain a “well regulated Militia” that is “necessary to the security of a free State.” The ultimate irony here is that without a Bill of Rights we’d have no guaranteed right to debate our guaranteed rights.

James Madison felt that the safeguard of individual liberty must lie with the people. He wrote, on the security of liberty, “ . . . whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution, respecting it must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government.” He and others saw the Bill of Rights as a tool that could promote understanding and awareness of the rights of citizens and thus enable them to protect those liberties. The Bill of Rights gives us endless justification through different interpretations (and the implied right the interpret) to feel and think the way that we want to, to judge for ourselves what our rights should be and for every citizen to advocate change as they see fit.

Many groups of people have embarked, as of late, on crusades to limit the rights of fellow citizens (pro-life/anti-abortion groups and those against gay marriage, for example) because they do not agree with decisions that may be made my others. To get caught up with change that limits the rights of others though would be a mistake. Movements to further amend the Constitution in ways that may negate previous amendments or are written to take away rights (even those not explicitly granted anywhere) are dangerous to the overall integrity of the amendment process and thus to all the rights that are already secured. With the increasing size of our government, we should stand together and our attention should move to preserving the Bill of Rights to protect and expand our civil liberties. The loss of any amendment, despite any personal feelings about it, could lead to the loss of another. Getting rid of an amendment that you don’t agree with or pushing for an amendment that limits someone else may lead to that someone else doing the same in return.

Focus for any change should be in the affirmative, not the negative. We should be trying to expand our personal liberties not hinder the rights of others. We should be asking: "what can I get?" not "what can I take away?" The ultimate question about the Bill of Rights is this: Though it is your right to disagree, speak freely, petition or assemble and therefore make motions for change, which is more important: all the rights that you are entitled to or restricting the rights of others who may, in turn, retaliate?