Honda introduces car designed just for women

    Good Day World!

Politicians aren’t the only ones trying to get women’s attention these days. Honda has taken a big step to attract the ladies, by producing a totally pink vehicle.

It’ll be interesting to see how well this blatant marketing strategy turns out. Whatever it takes to stimulate this economy I say…

“The auto industry has traditionally been male-dominated but Honda has rolled out a new model it to have specifically designed with women in mind.

The Fit She’s is a pretty-in-pink version of the maker’s familiar subcompact that offers a few niceties the maker believes will specifically appeal to distaff buyers, such as a windshield designed to block skin-wrinkling ultraviolet rays.

But will women actually care? While the new Honda subcompact may be the only car currently on the road specifically targeting women there’s a good reason.  Previous feminine offerings, such as the old Dodge LaFemme, met with little more than indifference and, in some cases, outright hostility.”

Read the rest of the story here

Time for me to walk on down the road…

Politics Today: Copyright case could threaten eBay and garage sales

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a case to be argued Monday, wades into a controversy over federal copyright law that could determine the legal rights of American consumers to sell thousands of used products on eBay and at garage sales and flea markets.

The legal battle involves Supap Kirtsaeng, a student from Thailand who was surprised by the high cost of academic textbooks when he arrived in the U.S. to attend college.  He asked his parents to search bookstores back home and send him much cheaper versions -- published overseas and sold at a fraction of the price -- of the same texts.

He was soon running what amounted to a small business out of his apartment, helping to pay his way through school by selling textbooks on eBay. The exact amount of his profit is unclear, but court records say it was around $100,000. The textbooks his family shipped him each bore this warning: "Exportation from or importation of this book to another region without the publisher's authorization is illegal," but Kirtsaeng wasn't bothered.  He concluded -- based on a search of articles on the Internet -- that he was in no legal jeopardy. 

The publisher of some of the books he sold, John Wiley & Sons, didn't see it that way. It sued him in federal court, and a New York jury ordered him in 2009 to pay $600,000 in damages.  When he said he had nowhere near that kind of money, he had to hand over personal property, including his computer, printer and golf clubs. A federal appeals court last year upheld the verdict.

Kirtsaeng was caught between two federal laws, and he's now asking the U.S. Supreme Court to see it his way.

One longstanding provision says when the holder of a copyright offers a work for sale, its legal interest in that specific copy evaporates as the item is sold. It's called the first-sale doctrine, and it means that if you buy the latest John Grisham novel, you can sell it on a website or give it away to the church library without violating copyright laws.

But another law prohibits importing works "acquired outside the United States ... without the authority of the owner of copyright."  Applying that statue, the federal courts ruled against Kirtsaeng, reasoning that "the first-sale doctrine does not apply to copies manufactured outside of the United States."          

A who's who of companies and groups involved in selling used merchandise is urging the Supreme Court to overturn the publisher's victory.

EBay warns that leaving the ruling intact would be a blow to "trade, consumers, secondary markets, e-commerce, small businesses, and jobs."  Goodwill Industries says the ruling would have "a catastrophic effect on the viability of the secondary market and, consequently, on Goodwill's ability to provide needed community-based services."

"There are enough copyright owners out there -- and enough crazy copyright lawsuits," says a group of book store operators in a friend of court brief. "No one should be put to the choice of violating the law and hoping they don't get caught, and losing their business."

The effect of a victory for the publisher, according to some experts in copyright law, would extend far beyond the market for books and other published materials.  It could also affect sales of thousands of used consumer electronic products made outside the U.S. that contain copyrighted software, perhaps even used cars.

Kirtsaeng's lawyer makes the same expansive claim in his Supreme Court brief.  "Even cherished American traditions, such as flea markets, garage sales, and swapping dog-eared books are vulnerable to copyright challenge" under the appeals court ruling, argues Josh Rosenkranz of New York.

But could that really be the outcome? (Read the rest of the story here)

Tis the season: Sleuth finds the truth in ghost stories

 Good Day World!

Here’s an interesting story to go with the season. A ghostly nod to Halloween, which is a mere five days away:

Paranormal investigator Joe Nickell has busted a lot of ghostly myths over the past 40 years — but the spookiest part of his job comes when he actually catches a ghost red-handed.

No, we're not talking about spirits of the dead: These "ghosts" are hotel clerks who flick the lights to keep the guests talking about the place's ghost story, or a mischievous child who plays tricks on his parents. Or maybe a camera crew catching weird-looking "orbs" floating through the frame — orbs they didn't notice until they looked at the pictures later.

"Much of what so-called ghost hunters are detecting is themselves," Nickell, the author of "The Science of Ghosts," told me this week. "If they go through a haunted house and stir up a lot of dust, they shouldn't be surprised if they get a lot of orbs in their photographs."

The orbs are actually out-of-focus reflections from a camera flash, created by dust particles floating in front of the lens. The clumping noises that ghost hunters hear often turn out to be the footsteps of crew members elsewhere in the building, or even someone on a stairway next door. And those weird readings they pick up with thermal imagers? They're typically left behind by the flesh-and-blood visitors.

Tracking down the truth behind spooky sightings is a tough job, but somebody's got to do it, Nickell said.

"It takes only a moment for someone to say that they saw something," he said, "but it can take a huge expenditure for someone to fly somewhere, and they might never re-create that one little moment."

Nickell, a former professional magician and detective, has been that someone for Skeptical Inquirer magazine and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry since the 1970s. "I've been in more haunted houses than Casper," he joked. And the truth is that there are worse jobs in the world.

"I wouldn't want anyone ever to know this, but it really is a great deal of fun to do what I do," Nickell said.

In "The Science of Ghosts," Nickell spins a series of tales about his worldwide travels. His first haunted-house investigation, in 1972, took place at Toronto's Mackenzie House, where residents reported seeing apparitions hovering over their bed, and hearing footsteps when no one else was in the house. Nickell ascribed the apparitions to "waking dreams," a phenomenon that leads people to see things when they're half-asleep or in an idle reverie. And as for those footsteps: Nickell found out that there was an iron staircase in the building next door. The strange sounds were traced to a late-night cleanup crew tromping up and down those stairs.

Nickell learned a lot from that first case. "You must go on site, and you must investigate just like any other piece of detective work," Nickell said. "You can treat the house as a sort of crime scene."

Other cases involved spirit photographs, such as the ones that show orbs or bright streaks. One family called Nickell in to explain a series of pictures that showed bright, hazy loops of energy in the foreground. Nickell eventually figured out that the loops were created when a flash bounced off a camera strap dangling in front of the lens. "Now we know about the camera-strap effect," Nickell said.

Nickell also takes on psychic mediums who claim to speak with the dead. In the book, he traces his encounters with TV-show medium John Edward, who uses so-called "cold reading" techniques to draw information out of a crowd. (For example, "I feel like someone with a J- or G-sounding name has recently passed. ...")

"The people who profess to be able to talk to the dead tend to be either fantasy-prone personalities, or charlatans, or possibly a bit of both," Nickell declared. "They would be harmless if they didn't mislead so many people."

Nickell totally understands why a belief in ghosts and the afterlife is so important to people. "If ghosts exist, then we don't really die, and that's huge. ... It appeals to our hearts," he said. "We don't want our loved ones to die. We have this whole culture that we're brought up with, that encourages this belief in ghosts."

Once a ghost story gets attached to a place or a situation, then almost anything that happens can be interpreted as supporting that story, he said. That's one reason why ghostbusting can be a thankless job. Another reason is that it's so hard to wrap your arms around the evidence — or, more appropriately, the lack thereof.

"No one is bringing you a ghost trapped in a bottle," Nickell said. "What they're offering is, 'I don't know.' Over and over, they're saying something like this: 'We don't know what the noise in the old house was, or the white shape in the photo. So it must be a ghost.' These are examples of what's called an argument from ignorance. You can't make an argument from a lack of knowledge. You can't say, 'I don't know, therefore I do know.'... If I could just teach people a little bit about the argument from ignorance, I think we could give the ghosts their long-needed rest."

Do you agree? Or do you have some truly spooky ghost stories to share for the Halloween season? (source)

Time for me to walk on down the road…

Shark falls from sky onto golf course

Nobody yelled "Fore!" at a Southern California golf course when a 2-foot-long shark dropped out of the sky and flopped around on the 12th tee.

The 2-pound leopard shark was apparently plucked from the ocean by a bird then dropped on San Juan Hills Golf Club, Melissa McCormack, director of club operations, said Thursday.

No one was teeing up when the shark fell Monday afternoon, although some golfers had just left the area, she said. A course marshal, who makes sure players maintain an appropriate pace, saw something moving around on the tee and went to investigate. He found the shark bleeding with puncture wounds, where it seems the bird had held it in its grasp.

The marshal put the shark in his golf cart and drove it back to the clubhouse. "He went above and beyond," McCormack said. The marshal, McCormack and employee Bryan Stizer wanted to help the small shark, so they stuck it in a bucket of water. Then somebody remembered it wasn't a fresh water animal, so they stirred up some "homemade sea water" using sea salt from the kitchen, she said.

"We knew we had to get it to the ocean as fast as possible," McCormack said. She grabbed a photo of the shark before Stizer headed to the sea. "When Brian put it in the water, it didn't move," she said, "but then it flipped and took off." It's the first time anyone could remember a shark falling from the sky at the golf course.

"We have your typical coyotes, skunks and the occasional mountain lion, but nothing like a shark," McCormack said. (source)

Study finds climate-changing methane 'rapidly destabilizing' off East Coast

      Good Day World!

The following story stunned me when I realized the magnitude of what the scientists are talking about.I don’t care what people want to call our changing earth’s issues, the fact of the matter is things are rapidly changing for the worse and we’re not helping matters spewing massive amounts of pollutants into the atmosphere.

“A changing Gulf Stream off the East Coast has destabilized frozen methane deposits trapped under nearly 4,000 square miles of seafloor, scientists reported Wednesday. And since methane is even more potent than carbon dioxide as a global warming gas, the researchers said, any large-scale release could have significant climate impacts.

Temperature changes in the Gulf Stream are "rapidly destabilizing methane hydrate along a broad swathe of the North American margin," the experts said in a study published Wednesday in the peer-reviewed journal Nature.

Using seismic records and ocean models, the team estimated that 2.5 gigatonnes of frozen methane hydrate are being destabilized and could separate into methane gas and water. It is not clear if that is happening yet, but that methane gas would have the potential to rise up through the ocean and into the atmosphere, where it would add to the greenhouse gases warming Earth.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

This is some scary stuff…

For thousands of years, permafrost has trapped Siberia's carbon-rich soil, a compost of Ice Age plant and animal remains.

But global warming is melting the permafrost and exposing the soil, causing highly flammable methane to seep out. NBC's Jim Maceda reports.

(Read the rest of the story here.)

Time for me to walk on down the road…

Veterans finally get debate mention but was it too little too late?

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The word “veteran” was uttered seven times during Monday night’s debate – each time by President Barack Obama.

Good Day World!

It’s been a couple of days since the last presidential debate and I’m still digesting what was said..and what was NOT SAID about our American veterans.

Romney apparently was advised not to say the word “veteran” by his handlers because he never uttered it in the course of the debate.

At least Obama spoke up about veteran’s needs. It was the first time either candidate said anything substantive since the campaign started.

That, in itself is troubling. I wasn’t exactly encouraged by this late minute charge for veterans since it was spurred by numerous veterans groups who talked Obama’s speech writers into finally saying something. Perhaps they convinced him veterans were an ace-in-the-hole if things started going badly. Here’s an article on the last debate:

“The word “veteran” was uttered seven times during Monday night’s debate – each time by President Barack Obama. Republican nominee Mitt Romney did not use the word although he did say: “We're blessed with terrific soldiers.”

Three times, including his closing remarks, Obama veered momentarily into economic and health concerns facing the tens of thousands of men and women returning from war and those ex-service members trying to crack into the civilian work force. He mentioned recently having lunch with a veteran in Minnesota who, due to medical-certification procedures, can’t simply transfer the skills he learned as a combat medic to become a licensed civilian nurse. And he cited work done by First Lady Michelle Obama on the “Joining Forces” initiative, through which 2,000 companies have hired or trained 125,000 veterans or military spouses.

“After a decade of war, it's time to do some nation-building here at home. And what we can now do is free up some resources to, for example, put Americans back to work, especially our veterans ...” Obama said. “Making sure that, you know, our veterans are getting the care that they need when it comes to post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury, making sure that the certifications that they need for good jobs of the future are in place.”

Those shout outs marked the first substantive attention either candidate has paid to former service members during their three debates – and they came 19 days after a leading veterans group urged the contenders to start discussing some of the home-front costs of two American wars, including a higher unemployment rate among ex-troops and battle-related anxiety symptoms linked to an alarming military suicide rate.

On the day after the final direct, verbal showdown between Romney and Obama, four veterans offered their reactions.

Paul Rieckhoff, chief executive officer and founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, a nonpartisan nonprofit with more than 200,000 members:

Q: What is the most critical issue facing military members?

A: Unemployment, but we've yet to hear either candidate address the scope of the problem – let alone smart solutions. In September, the unemployment rate for post-9/11 veterans was two percentage points above the general public at 9.7 percent, and even worse for female veterans at 19.9 percent. We must do better.

Q: Did you hear what you needed to hear about that issue?

A: In last night's debate, veteran unemployment briefly became a subject of discussion – finally.

Q: What is your takeaway from last night's debate?

A: The new veteran community needs real leadership and commitment from our next president to reverse negative trends in unemployment, suicide and (Department of Veterans Affairs) services. We haven't seen either candidate step up to the plate, so we'll keep asking the tough questions until November 6th.

Jason Thigpen, founder and president of the Student Veterans Advocacy Group and a student at the University of North Carolina Wilmington. As a U.S. Army sergeant, he earned a Purple Heart medal for combat wounds he sustained in Iraq in 2009:

Q: What is the most critical issue facing military members?

A: The budgetary cutbacks on defense spending leading to nearly a million service members losing their jobs, which will send them to the unemployment line. Additional cutbacks in veteran-appropriated budgets by way of education and medical benefits will invariably leave many with unfulfilled promises made to them for their service to our nation, while our government creates more lenient guidelines for illegal immigrants.

Q: Did you hear what you needed to hear about that issue?

A: No, but I do feel as though our efforts to raise awareness of the detrimental impacts facing our veterans, and how that affects our national economy, both now and in the future, are being heard.

Q: What is your takeaway from last night's debate?

A: While I'm not enthusiastic about the lack of bipartisan efforts from our federal legislators, (and) neither party looks appealing to me, I personally think the president has wiped the floor with Governor Romney in every debate. Although I've always considered myself a Republican, I don't feel it's in the best interest to elect Governor Romney as president. Electing Governor Romney will give Republicans control of the House, Senate, and presidency, which doesn't seem like much of a democracy to me, especially with a group of federal legislators whom can't seem to agree on much of anything except the end of a work-day or session.”

Read the rest of the article here.

It’s time for me to walk on down the road…

Report: Employers seemingly scared of PTSD risks among 'workplace warriors'

           Good Day World!

As a Vietnam veteran, I’m distressed to see that our Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are facing the same stigma we were: discrimination against veterans with PTSD. Of course back in my time no one was talking about PTSD – it was an unknown subject – but veterans who came back and had problems adjusting to civilian life quickly became stigmatized.

A small amount of these thousands of returning combat veterans became violent and “freaked out” – killing innocent civilians. The media at the time seized on the idea of “crazed killer vets” roaming America’s streets and terrorizing people.

One thing really stands out to me; back in the early 70s, after I got out of the Army, I made sure not to mention my military service on job applications, unless specifically asked. The stigma of being a “crazed vet” would have hurt my chance at getting a job. I saw it happen to too many people that I actually knew who couldn’t find jobs because they mentioned they served in Vietnam during interviews.

That’s why I was so distressed when I read this article. It’s all happening again. When the hell will we learn? Our warriors deserve better. Read about how hard it is for our veterans to get jobs compared to the rest of society.

“A think tank convened to gauge the financial well-being of “workplace warriors” says home-front job prospects remain “discouraging” for ex-service members, with many hiring managers seemingly scared off by the possibility that candidates have post-traumatic stress disorder.

For even casual watchers of the ex-military vocational plight, the larger conclusion is hardly striking: the “combat-to-corporate” path has long been paved with good intentions, but clogged by application dead ends. What’s more, the group’s downbeat assessment comes amid some rays of improvement. Last month, the unemployment rate for post-9/11 veterans finally nudged lower, to 9.7 percent, two full points below the jobless pace during than the same month in 2011, according to federal figures.

But, the experts contend, too many American companies have failed to boost their own internal ranks of former troops, ignoring the military-friendly examples set by Walmart, the Hartford, Citi and several other businesses under the "hire our heroes" mantra.

"Few employers are fully prepared to meet the needs of disabled veterans in the workplace, according to research from Cornell University and the Society for Human Resources Management," think tank members wrote.  "... Nearly 20 percent of service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan screened positive for PTSD." (That reported military-PTSD rate has decreased during the past five years, Cornell scientists have found, noting the drop is due largely to interventions by the U.S. military.)

The 2012 Workplace Warriors Think Tank, composed by business, military and health leaders, originally gathered in 2007 — before the Great Recession — to examine the same lag in ex-military hiring. Since then, the nation’s slow economic recovery has sidelined tens of thousands of veterans along with millions of other American workers. “But I’m sure, in the case of some employers, the economy is an excuse for them just to say ‘no’ to veterans,” said the report’s editor, Marcia Carruthers.

And while the think tank does see threads of tangible progress in the private sector, such as the 100,000 Jobs Mission, it added that: “The fruits of these efforts have yet to fully materialize. More needs to be done” to open opportunities for civilian soldiers and full-time military members.

In large part, that’s because just below the simple math of supply and demand, a dark group-psychology seems to be at play, Carruthers said. Battle-related mental illness — diagnosed in some returning veterans but apparently associated with all of them — is tainting many or most job-hunting veterans.

“The stigma of PTSD is at the top of the list,” said Carruthers, president and CEO of the Disability Management Employer Coalition, a nonprofit.

“These veterans are exactly the kinds of people you’d want to hire — they’re used to working as a team; they’re loyal; you give them an order and they follow through,” Carruthers said. “So some of this is related to the types of injuries we’re seeing — and, I would say, really, due to the fear of employers in terms of bringing back these people. If they were coming home with broken legs, it would be a different thing. There’s a fear factor.”

Among veteran-friendly companies with representatives on the think tank are insurance provider MetLife and technology consultant Booz Allen Hamilton. While some large U.S. companies are clearing space to bring veterans in house, it’s the “smaller organizations that often struggle,” Carruthers said.

“They don’t have many employees, and not many of their people have been deployed. They also may not have HR departments that are aggressively seeking diversity,” she added. “So it’s more the smaller organizations that are just not as aware of this issue — or that don’t feel they have the resources. But it’s small business that definitely make up our economy.” (article source)

Time for me to walk on down the road…

This week’s Top 10 Learnist Boards Popular with Teachers – Guess who has the number #1 Board?

It’s election time. This week’s Top 10 Learnist Boards will provide some resources to learn more about or teach the election. They were particularly tough to choose this week because there is so much political material on Learnist, much created by experts.

Of particular interest this week are “parent boards” and “paired boards.” A parent board is a board that embeds other boards—this week’s example is the parent board on the 2012 Presidential and VP Debates by Crystal Morgan. As a teacher, I find these to be extremely useful in curating information from separate boards and organizing it in one board for my students. It allows me to credit the boards’ authors and synthesize the material I want for my students. Paired boards are boards on the same topic from different perspectives or authors. I use these in class all the time to ask students to identify and analyze points of view, which is a skill addressed in the Common Core State Standards.

1. Presidential Election 2012

Retired newspaper editor Dave Stancliff created this board on the 2012 elections. It covers the candidates and several issues contested in the Presidential election.

2. The Electoral College

Amelia Hamilton discusses the reasons behind the creation of the electoral college and how it affects the United States’ presidential election.

3. Youth Activism

In this board, activist Jack Ori shows examples of youth activism, showing the issues young voters hold closest to their hearts.

4. 2012 Presidential and VP Debates

Crystal Morgan compiled this parent board—a collection of boards housed under one board. This contains all the boards from all the debates, including boards from many perspectives. (Note: 3 of the Learnings are by Dave Stancliff)

5. Decoding the Rhetoric

GOP political strategist Dina Fraioli helps educate us on what the candidates are really saying—with so much by way of stumping, spin, rhetoric and regurgitation, it’s tough to know what it all means—Dina sorts it out.

6. Politics in the Age of Social Media

Activist Jack Ori shows the impact of social media on elections in an age where we can interact with the parties and candidates on the issues that matter most to us in real time.

7. Voting Against Your Own Economic Self-Interest

Jake Becker stirs up some controversy in this board by positing the question “Why do voters vote in ways that do not benefit them?” The comment section shows the full potential of Learnist—the comments are alive on this one, showing that part of the learning is to spark the debate and conversation on tough topics.

8. Religion’s Role in the 2012 Presidential Election

Dave Stancliff analyzes the role of religion in current and past elections, providing information on areas where God and Politics intersect in the minds of voters.

9. The Vice-Presidential Debates: A Conservative View

Life-long Republican and author of the children’s book One Nation Under God: A Book for Little Patriots Amelia Hamilton takes the conservative approach to the debates.

10. Biden vs. Ryan Debate: A Liberal View

Dave Stancliff takes the opposing view when creating his VP debate board—this is one of the great things about using Learnist—the experts curate the materials, but the learner can find many perspectives on the same issue.

Source – Edudemic  View all of Dave’s Boards here.

Here are some interesting, but true facts, that you may or may not have known…

                   Good Day World!

Let’s warm up with some unusual facts to get things going:

1. The Statue of Liberty's index finger is eight feet long.
2. Rain has never been recorded in some parts of the Atacama Desert in Chile.
3. A 75 year old person will have slept about 23 years.
4. Boeing 747's wing span is longer than the Wright brother's first flight. The Wright brother's invented the airplane.
5. There are as many chickens on earth as there are humans.
6. One type of hummingbird weighs less than a penny.
7. The word "set" has the most number of definitions in the English language; 192 Slugs have four noses.
8. Sharks can live up to 100 years.
9. Mosquitos are more attracted to the color blue than any other color.
10. Kangaroos can't walk backwards.

11. About 75 acres of pizza are eaten in in the U.S. everyday.
12. The largest recorded snowflake was 15 Inch wide and 8 Inch thick. It fell in Montana in 1887.
13. The tip of a bullwhip moves so fast that the sound it makes is actually a tiny sonic boom.
14. Former president Bill Clinton only sent 2 emails in his entire 8 year presidency.
15. Koalas and humans are the only animals that have finger prints.
16. There are 200,000,000 insects for every one human.
17. It takes more calories to eat a piece of celery than the celery had in it to begin with.
18. The world's largest Montessori school is in India, with 26,312 students in 2002.
19. Octopus have three hearts.

20. If you ate too many carrots, you would turn orange.
21. The average person spends two weeks waiting for a traffic light to change.
22. 1 in 2,000,000,000 people will live to be 116 or old.
23. The body has 2-3 million sweat glands.

24. Sperm whales have the biggest brains; 20 lbs.
25. Tiger shark embroyos fight each other in their mother's womb. The survivor is born.
26. Most cats are left pawed.

27. 250 people have fallen off the Leaning Tower of Pisa.

28. A Blue whale's tongue weighs more than an elephant.

29. You use 14 muscles to smile and 43 to frown. Keep Smiling!

30. Bamboo can grow up to 3 ft in 24 hours.

31. An eyeball weighs about 1 ounce.

Time for me to walk on down the road…

AS IT STANDS: Death, mortality and having a good day

 

  By Dave Stancliff/For the Times-Standard  
  Do you treat each day like it might be your last?
  I asked myself that question when my Mother (Margaret Jane Stancliff) died unexpectedly on October 3rd.
Or, like most people, are you too busy to even think that today might be your last hours of life? 
The California Healthcare Foundation released a study (2/12) titled, “Snapshot - Final Chapter: Californians’ Attitudes and Experiences with Death or Dying.” The study reveals 41 percent of Californians’ say they have “too many other things to think about right now” instead of talking about death. (http://www.PDF download.org ).

I try to get the most out of every day. It’s not easy. Giving in to the negativity that surrounds me everyday is easier than trying to be positive about what I see and hear. It takes more muscles to smile, but the end result can light up the world around me for a moment.
I don’t adhere to any one ideology, philosophy, or religion when it comes to how I approach each day. Instead, I motivate myself in many ways. I look for stories about people who do take each day as a gift in their lives.
Memories of friends and loved ones who passed too soon urge me to slow down and smell the proverbial flowers. I sometimes imagine it is my last day on earth and how I should spend it.
This helps me shake off the lethargy of living, and look at hours and days as more precious than any amount of gold or material things. It helps me refocus when I get thrown off track, something that happens to the happiest of us.

 It’s not a perfect world and that’s okay. It shouldn’t affect your day. If you’re healthy and can get about and do various activities, you should take advantage of that as a way to enrich your life and to give each day more meaning.
Millions of people are handicapped in one way or another. Their stories of survival and later thriving energizes me to the core. I often look at their daily challenges and their bravery in making the best of their conditions, as a way of motivation.
 An epiphany sometimes comes after experiencing the loss of a loved one. You realize there’s no guarantee you won’t die today, or tomorrow. The sky is suddenly bluer. The birds songs inspirational. The grass is greener, and the world has taken on a new luster.
My opinion on how important today is - as opposed to yesterday or tomorrow - comes from a lifetime of experience. I’ve done years of research on subjects ranging from the power of positive thinking, to oriental religions and disciplines to maximize my days.

  I learned a long time ago, there will be bad days in my life and it is up to me to cope with them. That’s life. That’s reality. Bad things happen to all of us, regardless of how rich or poor, or how religious we are.
  Because every person’s circumstances are different, having a nice day can have a broad definition. Someone working in a lumber mill for eight hours who comes home to a good hearty hot meal, would probably say they had a good day.
  They made money and were productive. Someone re-learning how to walk after an accident who manages to take a few extra steps one day, would call that a good day. A child who was able to eat a full meal one day, would consider that a good day if he/she was among the starving children of the world.
  I admit that decades ago, when I heard people use the line, “Have a good day,” I thought that was a shallow statement. A mental picture of a round yellow happy face accompanied the thought.

Funny how things change. Now when someone says “Have a good day,” I enjoy hearing it and quickly wish the same for the speaker. Somewhere along the line I managed to become less skeptical of everything in life.
As we all know, life is an ever evolving situation. We can choose to grow and bloom, or wither on the vine of negativity. It does come down to personal choice, despite what life hands us.

  As It Stands, there’s nothing wrong with thinking about death and your mortality as one way to have a better day.

The 20 Weirdest Religious Beliefs: Test your knowledge of which strange belief belongs to which religion

                   Good Day World!

 We find it easy to dismiss the fantastical beliefs of people in other times and places, but those that we’ve been exposed to since childhood seem not so far out.

 Virgin birth? Water turning into wine? A fig tree shriveling on the spot? Dead people getting up out of their graves and walking around?

 All of the following beliefs are found in respected religions today. They have been long taught by religions that either are considered part of the American mainstream or are home grown, made in the U.S.A., produced here and exported. Some of these beliefs are ensconced in sacred texts. Others are simply traditional. All, at one time or another, have had the sanction of the highest church authorities, and many still do.

How many of them can you match up with a familiar religious tradition? (The answers are at the bottom.)

1.      The foreskin of [a holy one] may lie safeguarded in reliquaries made of gold and crystal and inlayed with gems--or it may have ascended into the heavens all by itself. ( 2)

2.      A race of giants once roamed the earth, the result of women and demi-gods interbreeding. (1, 6). They lived at the same time as fire breathing dragons. ( 1)

3.      Evil spirits can take control of pigs. ( 1)

4.      A talking donkey scolded a prophet. ( 1, 3 )

5.      A righteous man can control his wife’s access to eternal paradise. ( 6)

6.      Brown skin is a punishment for disobeying God. ( 6)

7.      A prophet once traveled between two cities on a miniature flying horse with the face of a woman and the tail of a peacock. ( 4)

8.      [The Holy One] forbids a cat or dog receiving a blood transfusion and forbids blood meal being used as garden fertilizer. ( 7)

9.      Sacred underwear protects believers from spiritual contamination and, according to some adherents, from fire and speeding bullets ( 6)

10.  When certain rites are performed beforehand, bread turns into human flesh after it is chewed and swallowed. ( 2)

11.  Invisible supernatural beings reveal themselves in mundane objects like oozing paint or cooking food. ( 2)

12.  In the end times, [the Holy One’s] chosen people will be gathered together in Jackson County, Missouri. ( 6)

13.  Believers can drink poison or get bit by snakes without being harmed. ( 1)

14.  Sprinkling water on a newborn, if done correctly, can keep the baby from eons of suffering should he or she die prematurely. ( 2)

15.  Waving a chicken over your head can take away your sins. ( 3)

16.  [A holy one] climbed a mountain and could see the whole earth from the mountain peak. ( 1, 2 )

17.  Putting a dirty milk glass and a plate from a roast beef sandwich in the same dishwasher can contaminate your soul. ( 3)

18.  There will be an afterlife in which exactly 144,000 people get to live eternally in Paradise. ( 8)

19.  Each human being contains many alien spirits that were trapped in volcanos by hydrogen bombs. ( 5)

20.  [A supernatural being] cares tremendously what you do with your penis. 1,2,3,4,6,7,8.

Key:  1-Evangelical or “Bible Believing” Christianity, 2-Catholic Christianity, 3-Judaism, 4-Islam, 5-Scientology, 6-Mormonism 7-Christian Science 8-Jehovah’s Witness

Each of these beliefs is remarkable in its own way. But the composite goes beyond remarkable to revealing. What it reveals is an underlying belief that is something like this:

The process that produced this world and human life is best unveiled not by the scientific method but by the musings of iron age herdsmen (1,2,3,4,7,8) or science fiction writers (5), or con artists (6) whose theories are best judged by examining only assertions that cannot be falsified.

Underlying that belief is a sort of rational swiss cheese that is going to keep cognitive scientists investigating and  arguing for decades.

We humans are astoundingly  susceptible to handed down nonsense. Human children are dependent on their parents for a decade or even two, which is why nature made children credulous. When parents say,  eat your peas, they’re good for you,  kids may argue about the  eat your peas part but they don’t usually question the factual assertion about nutrition. When parents say Noah put all of the animals into the ark,  it is the rare child who asks,  Why didn’t the lion eat the guinea pigs?

Even as adults, we simply can’t afford to research everything we hear and read, and so, unless something isn’t working for us, we tend to accept what we are told by trusted authority figures. We go with the flow. Religion exploits this tendency by, among other things, establishing hierarchy and by ensuring that believers are in a certain mindset when they encounter religious ideas. A friend once gave me a button that said,  Don’t pray in my school and I won’t think in your church . I didn’t really want to wear a button that said “I’m an arrogant jerk,” but the reality is that even the best of churches aren’t optimized for critical thinking. Quite the opposite. The pacing, the music, the lighting—all are designed for assent and emotion, for a right brain aesthetic experience, for the dominance of what Nobel prize winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman  has called System 1 thinking, meaning intuition and gut feel rather than rational, slow, linear analysis.

Some of our ancestors were doing the best they could to understand the world around them but had a very limited set of tools at their disposal. It would appear that others were simply making stuff up. Mormonism and Scientology appear to fall in the latter camp.  But when it comes to religious credulity, the difference matters surprisingly little. For example, Mormonism is more easily debunked than most other religions, both because of its recency and because it makes so many historically or  scientifically wild claims , and yet it is also one of the fastest growing religions in the world proportional to its membership. Wild claims matter less than whether a religion has  certain viral characteristics .  (Story source)

- Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington and the founder of Wisdom Commons. She is the author of "Trusting Doubt: A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light" and "Deas and Other Imaginings." Her articles can be found at Awaypoint.Wordpress.com.

Meet the Eleven Main Enemies of Marijuana Legalization

In 1990, Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl Gates told a Senate committee that people who smoked pot occasionally “ought to be taken out and shot.” That kind of fanaticism, which dominated the debate on drugs 20 years ago, seems to have faded. Today’s politicians are more likely to dismiss cannabis concerns as “not serious” than to rail against the demons of dope—but the powers that be are still bent on keeping pot illegal. U.S. cops bust an average of almost 100 people every hour for pot, and an array of think tanks and nonprofit groups continues to pump out prohibitionist propaganda.

Here are 11 of the worst—the most powerful and the most vehement.

                     1. DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart

A holdover from the Bush administration, Leonhart was formally appointed to head the Drug Enforcement Administration by Barack Obama in 2010. The antiprohibitionist movement strongly opposed her, citing the DEA’s raids on medical-marijuana growers in California—including one on a 69-year-old woman who had been the first grower to register with the Mendocino County Sheriff. 

As the DEA’s acting director in January 2009, she overruled a DEA administrative-law judge’s recommendation and denied the University of Massachusetts a license to cultivate marijuana for FDA-approved research. “This single act has blocked privately funded medical marijuana research in this country,” NORML head Allen St. Pierre said in July 2010.

Leonhart often carries hardline views to absurd extremes. In 2011, asked about the drug-cartel carnage in Mexico, she told the Washington Post that “It may seem contradictory, but the unfortunate level of violence is a sign of success in the fight against drugs,” because the cartels were fighting each other “like caged animals.” In June 2012, asked by Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) if crack, heroin and methamphetamine were worse for your health than marijuana, she repeatedly answered, “I believe all illegal drugs are bad.” Asked if opioid painkillers like OxyContin were more addictive than marijuana, she answered, “All illegal drugs in Schedule I are addictive.” GO HERE TO READ THE REST

Ocelots, pro baseball pitcher and pipeline builder tangled up in lawsuit

       Good Day Humboldt County!

How did a pro baseball pitcher (Josh Beckett of the L.A. Dodgers), ocelots and a natural gas pipeline builder make it into the same news headline?

They’re all part of a lawsuit filed by Beckett after the company used eminent domain to clear land on his 7,000-acre hunting ranch in south Texas.

Beckett alleges the company, Eagle Ford Midstream, violated the Endangered Species Act by clearing land that was habitat for the ocelot, of which only 100 are thought to be left in the wild in the U.S.On Wednesday, two Beckett companies filed a restraining order against Eagle Ford from continuing work inside the ranch. That followed a lawsuit filed Tuesday that states "multiple big cat tracks" were photographed there as recently as June and that Beckett saw ocelots as recently as last November, MySanAntonio.com reported.

Eagle Ford engaged in "willful destruction" by clearing land after a notice of intent to sue was filed in August, according to the lawsuit by Beckett Ventures Inc and Hall of Fame Land Ventures LP. Beckett also claimed Eagle Ford was urged to choose a shorter, direct path rather than the diagonal swath that was cleared. Ocelots are protected in Texas and at the federal level. A company found to have destroyed habitat could face fines and be forced to do mitigation work.

Eagle Ford did not immediately respond to NBC News' request for comment, but it filed a response with the court Wednesday, arguing that hunting on the ranch posed a greater threat than their pipeline. Beckett owns the Herradura Ranch in LaSalle County and runs a hunting lodge out of the premises. "The Herradura has offered superb dove, quail and trophy whitetail (deer) for over a decade," its website states.

Eagle Ford, in its court response, alleged that "the protection of the ocelot was merely a sham to leverage additional money from (Eagle Ford) in exchange for an easement." A state court earlier this month denied Beckett's similar request to halt the project, the company added.

It also noted that e-mails it received from Beckett's lawyers in April made no mention of ocelots and instead requested an alternative route because of the impact on an irrigation system and the ranch's hunting business.

Eagle Ford's environmental consultant earlier determined the land "does not exhibit the necessary density, coverage or structure generally described for potential ocelot habitat," adding that the nearest known population of ocelots was 120 miles away in Kennedy County.

Based on that information, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined no further action was required. Nocturnal wild cats that can weigh up to 30 pounds, ocelots prefer dense shrub habitat. While abundant in Central and South America, ocelots in the U.S. have been reduced to an estimated 100 in Texas and Arizona.

A key ocelot habitat in Texas has been the Lower Rio Grande Valley, but "more than 95 percent of the dense thorn scrub habitat (there) ... has been converted to agriculture, rangelands, or urban land uses," the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service noted in its plan to help the species recover.

Other problems facing the Texas and Arizona population, the service added, include inbreeding, border fences separating the natural range that goes into Mexico, and ocelots becoming roadkill. (source)

Wasteful spending of your tax dollars: Martian menus, the “non-profit” NFL, and a $132 million do-nothing Congress

Think Congress does not have much to show for itself this year? Think again. A new report from Senator Tom Coburn's office highlights dozens of examples of government waste in 2012. Included for the first time on this list: Congress. The very people looking into government waste find they themselves are wasteful. Coburn's report estimates $132 million of taxpayers' money was wasted on "the most unproductive and unpopular Congress in modern history."

"The waste is unbelievable," says Coburn. "We're bankrupt, this country is bankrupt, and people just don't want to admit it."

Loopholes are part of the problem. The National Football League, for example, pulled in more than $9 billion last year, yet is technically a "non-profit" organization, costing the federal government tens of millions of dollars every year in lost revenue.

"We have some of the biggest corporations in America paying no taxes whatsoever, you know something is wrong with the code," says the Republican senator. Millions of dollars have also been spent on questionable items, like $325,000 on a squirrel robot, realistic enough to fool a rattlesnake, and developed with a National Science Foundation grant; $40,000 to produce a video game where players can virtually enjoy a pond in Massachusetts; and $516,000 to create a video game called "Prom Week," which simulates the interaction of teenagers surrounding the biggest social night in high school.

The spending approaches intergalactic proportions -- sort of. NASA has no plans for a manned mission to Mars, but is spending nearly a $1 million a year researching what kind of food astronauts could eat if they ever get there. "What was once a great country has been mortgaged and bankrupted by the egos and ethics of career politicians," says Coburn, who adds the only way to change the system is to vote out all the incumbents.

"If you want to change the trajectory of our country, if you want to get rid of the hundreds of billions of dollars of waste every year, you have to change who is there." For more examples of government waste, including another highly-subsidized, yet rarely-used airport, check out this week's Spinners and Winners. (source)

As It Stands presents Stupid Laws in Swing States – today we’ll visit Ohio

      Good Day Humboldt County!

Just for fun, let’s look at some stupid laws in Ohio as it’s in the news a lot this week.

President Obama and Gov. Romney are busy kissing babies and shaking hands in the state right now hoping to get undecided voters to vote for them.

Everyone is talking about how important the Swing States are in this year’s presidential election, but I’m taking the opportunity to share some stupid laws from these states…just because:

In Ohio, if you ignore an orator on Decoration day to such an extent as to publicly play croquet or pitch horseshoes within one mile of the speaker’s stand, you can be fined $25. Full text of the law.

It is illegal for more than five women to live in a house. Full text of the law.

No one may be arrested on Sunday or on the Fourth of July. Full text of the law.

                                                                  CITY LAWS IN OHIO

In Akron - No person shall solicit sex from another of the same gender if it offends the second person. Full text of the law.

In Bexley - Ordinance number 223, of 09/09/19 prohibits the installation and usage of in outhouses.

In Canton - If one loses their pet tiger, they must notify the authorities within one hour.  Full text of the law. and, Power Wheels cars may not be driven down the street. Full text of the law.     

In Cleveland - Women are forbidden from wearing patent leather shoes, lest men see reflections of their underwear and, It’s illegal to catch mice without a hunting license!

There’s more stupid laws in Ohio here

Time for me to walk on down the road…

'The Simpsons,' make list of 25 most powerful TV shows of the last 25 years

Television fans, there's a great new list out that gives props to the medium for having the power to sway elections, create catchphrases and change the way we think.

Mental Floss' list of "25 Most Powerful TV Shows of the Last 25 Years" makes the claim that more than the Bible or Shakespeare, "The Simpsons" has changed the way we speak. D'oh!

The long-running cartoon takes the No. 3 spot on the list, which cites University of Pennsylvania linguistics professor Mark Liberman, who credited the show in research in 2005 by saying, "'The Simpsons' has apparently taken over from Shakespeare and the Bible as our culture’s greatest source of idioms, catchphrases, and sundry other textual allusions."and sundry other textual allusions." The list gives "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" (No. 11) credit for spawning an entire academic discipline, Buffy Studies; "Sex and the City" (No. 15) boosted the pregnancy rate, according to a RAND Institute study that reported girls between 12 and 17 who watched that and other shows with "high sexual content" were more than twice as likely to become pregnant. And the show that "rewired kids' brains"? That goes to No. 8 on the list, "SpongeBob SquarePants." Rest of the story here

Taking a BLOG BREAK…death in the family

I’ll be back at a future date.

My Mother passed away today.

Follow tonight’s Presidential Debate with Dave at Learnist

Join me at Learnist from 6:00 p.m. PST - (9:00 p.m. ET) to watch/ listen to the Presidential Debate LIVE tonight.

Click the above link and scroll down to the last (#9) “Learning” on the Board, and you’ll find the ALL the resources you need to keep track of the first of four debates between President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney.

Shocking Bipartisan Senate Report: Homeland Security 'Fusion' Centers Spy on Citizens, Produce 'Shoddy' Work

                          Good Day Humboldt County!

                  Here’s something to think about today: 

 The Department of Homeland Security has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on a network of 77 so-called “fusion” intelligence centers that have collected personal information on some U.S. citizens — including detailing the “reading habits” of American Muslims — while producing “shoddy” reports and making no contribution to thwarting any terrorist plots,  a new Senate report states.

The “ fusion centers,” created under President George W. Bush and expanded under President Barack Obama, consist of  special   teams of  federal , state and local officials collecting and analyzing  intelligence on suspicious activities throughout the country.  They have been hailed by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano as “one of the centerpieces”  of the nation’s counterterrorism efforts. But a bipartisan report by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released Tuesday concludes that the centers “often produced irrelevant” and "useless” intelligence reports. “There were times when it was, ‘What a bunch of crap is coming through,’” one senior Homeland Security official is quoted as saying .

A spokesman for Napolitano immediately blasted the report as “out of date, inaccurate and misleading.” Another Homeland Security official, who spoke with NBC News on condition of anonymity, said the department has made improvements to the fusion centers and that the skills of officials working in them are “evolving and maturing.”

While dismissing the value of much of the fusion centers’ work, the Senate panel  found  evidence of what  it called  “troubling” reports by some  centers that may have violated the civil liberties and privacy of U.S. citizens.  The evidence cited in the report could fuel a continuing controversy over claims that the FBI and some local police departments, notably New York City’s, have spied on American Muslims without a justifiable law enforcement reason for doing so. Among the examples in the report:

• One fusion center drafted a report on a list of reading suggestions prepared by a Muslim community group, titled “Ten Book Recommendations for Every Muslim.” The report noted that four of the authors were listed in a terrorism database, but a Homeland Security reviewer in Washington chastised the fusion center,  saying, “We cannot report on books and other writings” simply because the authors are  in a terrorism database. “The writings themselves are protected by the First Amendment unless you can establish that something in the writing indicates planning or advocates violent or other criminal activity.”
• 
• A fusion center in California prepared a report about a speaker at a Muslim center in Santa Cruz who was giving a daylong motivational talk—and a lecture on “positive parenting.” No link to terrorism was alleged. 
• Another fusion center drafted a  report on a U.S. citizen speaking at a local mosque that speculated that --  since the speaker had been listed in a terrorism data base — he may have been  attempting “to conduct fundraising and recruiting” for a foreign terrorist group.

“The number of things that scare me about this report are almost too many to write into this (form),” a Homeland Security reviewer wrote after analyzing the report. The reviewer noted that “the nature of this event is constitutionally protected activity (public speaking, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion.)”

The Senate panel found 40 reports -- including the three listed above -- that were drafted at fusion centers by Homeland Security officials, then later “nixed” by officials in Washington after reviewers “raised concerns the documents potentially endangered the civil liberties or legal privacy protections of the U.S. persons they mentioned.”

Despite being scrapped, however, the Senate report concluded that “these reports should not have been drafted at all.” It also noted that the reports were stored at Homeland Security headquarters in Washington, D.C., for  a year or more after they had been  canceled —a potential violation of the U.S. Privacy Act, which prohibits federal agencies from storing information on U.S. citizens’ First Amendment-protected activities if there is no valid reason to do so.

The report said the retention of these reports also appears to contradict Homeland Security’s own guidelines, which state that once a determination is made that a document should not be retained, “The U.S  person identifying information is to be destroyed immediately.”

The investigation was led by the Republican staff of the subcommittee but the 107-page report was approved by chairman Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich and ranking minority Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.  It stated that much basic information about the fusion centers – including exactly how much they cost the federal government — was difficult to obtain. Although the fusion centers are overseen by Homeland Security, they are funded primarily through grants to local governments by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Although Homeland Security “was unable to provide an accurate tally,” the panel estimated the federal dollars spent on the centers between 2003 and 2011 at between $289 million and $1.4 billion.

The panel’s criticism of the fusion centers was shared in part by Michael Leiter, the former director of the National National Counter-Terrorism Center and now an NBC analyst. “Since 9/11, the growth of state and local fusion centers has been exponential and regrettably in many instances it has produced an ill-planned mishmash rather than a true national system that is well-integrated with existing organizations like the FBI-led Joint Terrorism Task Forces,” Leiter wrote in an email when asked about the report. 

In its response to the Senate panel , Homeland Security said that the canceled reports could still be retained “for administrative purposes such as audit and oversight.” The report cited multiple examples of what it called fusion center reports that had little if any value to counterterrorism efforts.

One fusion center report cited described how a certain model car had folding rear seats to the trunk, a feature that it said could be useful to human traffickers. This prompted a Homeland Security reviewer to note that such folding rear seats are “featured on MANY different  makes and model of vehicles” and “there is nothing of any intelligence value in this report.” (Read the rest of the story here)

Time for me to walk on down the road…

Future Technology: 3-D printed gun project derailed by legal woes

             Good Day Humboldt County!

This rapidly developing “printing technology” would have left Flash Gordon in shock.

It sure blows my mind. Actually printing solid objects. This new story points out this technology is going to bring a lot of legal challenges…soon.

It kinda creeps me out thinking about untold thousands of people printing up guns for themselves. I foresee a big problem with that. See what you think.

“After raising thousands of dollars to develop a free, 3-D-printable handgun, a group calling itself Defense Distributed has had to put its plans on hold, after the company providing their printing hardware refused to do business with them. It's an early episode in what is likely to be a long controversy.

Defense Distributed is a loosely organized group that intends to explore the possibility of creating weapons entirely using 3-D printed parts — and providing the files to do so freely online. They are unrelated to another recent project that partially built an assault rifle that way, but the concept is similar.

The group originally tried to raise money to develop the Wiki Weapon, as they call it, on the crowd-funding website IndieGoGo. The site pulled the plug, however, before the $20,000 the group was hoping to collect was pledged. Undeterred, Defense Distributed solicited donations in the Bitcoin virtual currency, and soon achieved their funding goal.

With the money, they leased a powerful 3-D printer from a company called Stratasys. But before they even had a chance to take the device out of its box, Stratasys caught wind of what its hardware was going to be used for and canceled the contract, sending someone to pick up the printer immediately.

Defense Distributed's Cody Wilson had expected some controversy, but the cancellation by Stratasys caught him by surprise. Speaking to Wired's Danger Room blog, he emphasized that what the group is doing is legal, since manufacture of weapons is not prohibited as long as they are not for sale or trade. This permits enthusiasts and artisans to create such things freely, but for anything more than personal use a license is required — a license Wilson doesn't have.

Stratasys may have erred on the side of caution (it commented to Wired that the company would not "knowingly allow its printers to be used for illegal purposes"), but it may also have been motivated by the equally understandable desire not to be associated with a potentially controversial project.

But as Wilson points out, the cat is out of the bag: The design and testing of a 3-D printed gun is inevitable given that the cost of doing it has dropped, and there is almost certainly a market for such devices. Defense Distributed is doing it openly and, they believe, legitimately — but others could easily do the same without bothering about the red tape. In the meantime, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is investigating, though they told Wilson they consider printed weapons a grey area at present.

The question of creating weapons at home, especially sophisticated and deadly ones like an automatic handgun, is bound to be a controversial one. The ability to bypass firearms regulations, not to mention the social and civil implications of cheap, ubiquitous and anonymous guns, will be a serious issue in the coming years, and Defense Distributed intends to be at the center of it.

More information about the Wiki Weapon and Defense Distributed's plans and rationale can be found at their website. Readers concerned with the legality and justification of producing printable weapons may find some answers in the FAQ. Devin Coldewey is a contributing writer for NBC News Digital. His personal website is coldewey.cc.

Time for me to walk on down the road…