
Blessings to you all for 2008!

In what sounds like a dream for millions of tired coffee drinkers, Darpa-funded scientists might have found a drug that will eliminate sleepiness.
A nasal spray containing a naturally occurring brain hormone called orexin A reversed the effects of sleep deprivation in monkeys, allowing them to perform like well-rested monkeys on cognitive tests. The discovery's first application will probably be in treatment of the severe sleep disorder narcolepsy.
The treatment is "a totally new route for increasing arousal, and the new study shows it to be relatively benign," said Jerome Siegel, a professor of psychiatry at UCLA and a co-author of the paper. "It reduces sleepiness without causing edginess."
-WiredA "universe in a test tube" that could be used to assess theories of everything has been created by physicists.
The test tube, the size of a little finger, has been cooled to a fraction of a degree above the lowest possible temperature, absolute zero, which is just over 273 degrees below the freezing point of water.
Inside the tube an isotope of helium (called helium three) forms a "superfluid", an ordered liquid where all the atoms are in the same state according to the theory that rules the subatomic domain, called quantum theory. What is remarkable is that atoms in the liquid, at temperatures within a thousandth of a degree of absolute zero, form structures that, according to the team at Lancaster University, are similar those seen in the cosmos. "In effect, we have made a universe in a test tube," says Richard Haley, who did the work with Prof George Pickett and other members of the "Ultra-low Temperature Group." The Holy Grail of physics is to establish an overarching explanation to unite all the particles and forces of the cosmos. But one of the complaints commonly levelled at a leading contender for a "theory of everything", called string theory, is that it is impossible to test. |

“Glory to God in the Highest Heaven, and on earth peace to people whom He favors.” This is the message of the angles that came to announce the birth of Jesus, the savior of the world, who was on Christmas night born in a barn of all places. It is a message of hope and wonder, and it makes a much better Christmas card than the message of John the Baptist, “Repent you brood of vipers!” Yes, one is a hallmark moment and the other is not.
But, in their own way, each is announcing something wondrous. Something so unexpected and so strange, that shepherds came to see if it was true. Was the Son of God, this Jesus really lying in a barn, or had the dried sheep meet they had eaten for supper gone bad, leaving them with a hallucination that was both astonishing and terrible to behold? Chances are good that they were betting on the bad dinner.
These shepherds in the field were as an unsavory lot 2000 years ago as they tend to be now. Oh, not bad guys mind you, but they did things in a very earthy way. They spoke with earthy language, using words that were not polite. They had an earthy aroma about them and they were known to drink too much and fight with knives. To me, sounds like business as usual on the range in
How odd indeed. Not the priests, not the city council or some other important people, but shepherds are told that God has come to earth to save us. Odder still, He is born in the barn between here and the next town over. What could you do but go find out if it was true or if it was simply dinner food digesting badly?
We all know how the story goes, the shepherds get to the barn and the whole thing turns out to be true. They are so baffled that they tell everyone that will listen what happened to them. Mary treasured the words of their story and they praised God. After all, who couldn’t?
We can be sure that none of them really had any idea what it would all mean, but one thing was for sure, God was doing something and it was something unexpected. Things were going to be different now. God was born in a barn and talking to shepherds, yes, the world was going to be in for a shock. Christ had come and right away, He was changing everything. If God favored shepherds, then things were going to be ok. Merry Christmas, for Christ has come to bless us all, and He is changing everything.


The Advent message of prepare is one that we understand far better than the message of waiting. We do so many things to prepare for Christmas that preparation for anything is something that is easily taken into our routine. However, when we hear the message of “Prepare the way of the Lord,” the mistake is made that we are to prepare by figuring out what it is that we are going to do to the said coming Lord, or perhaps what we are to do for the coming Lord. After all Jesus will need me to do something to or for him right? Wrong my friends, completely wrong.
Preparation for the coming Lord is preparing for what Jesus is going to do to you. The God in the flesh, Jesus, the coming Lord, whom John the Baptist warns us to prepare for, is coming because of what people are already doing and have done, not because of what we do for him. This truth is what we remember in Advent.
Forgiveness is coming at Christmastime and during Advent we remember that forgiveness is what we are to prepare for: being forgiven and freed from death. In
Christmas is prepared for by being ready to accept the gift of the savior to the world, God who came in the flesh to forgive all and save them from death. Advent is a solemn time because of this remembering of the consequences of sin and of being saved: death to us, and death to our savior at the very hands of the people He came to save. But the joy of Christmas is that we know that this savior is a gift for us and that on Easter morning we learn that death no longer holds us in its clutches.
Something happens when we begin to remember what happened at Christmas. Perhaps we become angry. After all we don’t want help, forgiveness or any of that! We want to prepare to do something to or for Jesus, or our family in Jesus name. Or perhaps we want to do something for the world in Jesus name, wouldn’t that be great if we could make peace in some troubled part of the world and do it for Jesus? Or would we know in our heart that we were distracting from our own guilt? Trying to make up for what we know is not right in ourselves? Or simply being a theologian of glory instead of understanding the theology of the cross. As one of my colleagues once screamed in my face while pounding her fist on the table, “Jesus doesn’t come to this church until I bake the Christmas ham.”
Ready or not here Jesus comes. Bringing a gift that is as often unwanted today as it was 2000 years ago, forgiveness. Remember, like the Scandinavian Christmas celebration reminds us, that without this gift, death awaits as a permanent condition. Remember, and be thankful, for in remembering this, peace will be with you.

Advent has rolled around again. Once again this year I am forced to endure the same tired messages and sermons that I hear every year at advent. They all go something along the lines of “We are a people waiting alone in darkness and fear…” or “Don’t rush advent, wait for the coming savior …” or my all time favorite, “Naughty, naughty, you are commercializing Christmas!”
Let’s look at the facts. No one is waiting for anything except the next holiday sale at Sears, Target, or wherever. We only fear nothing from our shopping season and we most certainly rush-rush-rush, the same way we do for every event the rest of the year. Christmas is already so commercial that there is not one thing that anyone could do to make it more so. After all, Christmas items went on sale roughly at the time of Halloween.
So what is it that I propose that we do to change the world? Simply stated, we do nothing. The world is much the same now as it was over 2,000 years ago. People are coming and going, so absorbed in their own things that they cared practically nothing for what was happening in the lives of others. The government was doing something stupid that was making the lives of its citizens difficult. Poor people were doing their best to survive while those with money lived extravagantly. This is the world now and this is the same world that the Savior was born into.
What then is left? Remember. Remember the state of this world, then and now. Remember that this world needed a savior so badly that God sent one into the mess with nowhere to be born in a world that barely noticed. Born in a barn with ox and burro, to animals who are notorious for relieving themselves when and wherever they see fit. Slobbering all over their trough, where the Son of God would be laid down after his birth.
Remembering during this time of year that the Son of God was born in a barn; born to die, in order that a world of people who care more about the next sale at the mall than the spirit of the season. Remember that the Son of God died because he did the one thing that people could not tolerate: forgave them. Remember that you are already forgiven for the failings in your life and humanity. Remember, and be thankful, for in remembering this, peace will be with you.


![]() | You scored as Odin, You are Odin. You are the leader of the Norse Gods. You are the wisest and always fight evil. You sacrificed your eye for knowledge, as well as hanging for 9 days with a spear in your side. You are the God of Philosophy and Poetry. You will lead the Gods into Ragnorak (the end of the world)
|
You Are Batman |
![]() Billionaire playboy by day. Saving the world by night. And you're not even a true superhero. Just someone with a lot of expensive toys! |



Something that bothers me is what I call an "SFB" which I'll define in a moment. In a nutshell, an SFB is a type of person who doesn't want to cooperate with you and comes down with a bad case of the stupids to confound you. The first case of an SFB that I can recall is a guidance counselor I had in High School. She disliked my family for some reason and seemed to work overtime to screw up my older brother who was trying to apply for college. When my turn finally came around, I was summoned into her office where she greeted me cheerily as if we were long lost friends. I said to her frankly, "Look, let's not kid each other, you have no use for me and my family, and I frankly have no use for you. I am going to work through the principal instead of you."
She looked at me coyly and said, "Well, I don't know what you mean." She knew exactly what I meant, she just came down with a bad case of the stupids to cloak her dislike of me. I've come across this same type of scenario time and again as I got older, especially from government bureaucrats and people participating in nonprofit volunteer groups. They just look at you seemingly dumbfounded and say, "Gee, I don't know what you mean," or "Whatever gave you that idea?" This really bugs me. Instead of saying, "Look, I'm having a bad day, why don't you go away until I'm in the mood," or "Quit bothering me and talk to someone else." Even when you articulate your problem carefully, they pretend ignorance instead of trying to help you.
This SFB phenomenon is really disturbing in business, particularly in a Customer Service situation. Instead of looking for ways to help you, people look for ways to confound you so that you will take your problem elsewhere. I think this is why voice mail was invented, so people can pick and chose who they want to talk to.
I recognize there are times where it is necessary to practice tact and diplomacy when dealing with people, but pretending to be brainless is certainly not a good practice particularly when interacting with people on a regular basis is an inherent part of your job.
As I've mentioned in the past, I have a letter carrier who delivers mail to my office only when he is in the mood (which seems to be twice a week). When I confronted him about why he wasn't delivering our mail regularly, he became an SFB and feigned ignorance about what I was talking about. Even when I complained to his superior at the post office, he also became an SFB and pretended not to understand what I was talking about. I guess being an SFB is contagious.
So what exactly is an SFB? Actually, it's quite simple; it's three little letters representing: Shit for Brains.
Such is my Pet Peeve of the Week.
Copyright © 2007 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.
This could be one of the most significant cases of the decade, or possibly the century.The city of Washington’s appeal (District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290) seeking to revive its flat ban on private possession of handguns is expected to be heard in March — slightly more than a year after the D.C. Circuit Court ruled that the Second Amendment right is a personal one, at least to have a gun for self-defense in one’s own home. (The Court took no action on Tuesday on a conditional cross-petition, Parker, et al., v. District of Columbia, 07-335, an appeal by five District residents seeking to join in the case. The absence of any action may mean that the Court has decided not to hear that case. If that is so, it will be indicated in an order next Monday. The Court also may simply be holding the case until it decides the Heller case.)
The Justices chose to write out for themselves the constitutional question they will undertake to answer in Heller. Both sides had urged the Court to hear the city’s case, but they had disagreed over how to frame the Second Amendment issue.
Here is the way the Court phrased the granted issue:
“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”
The first listed section bars registration of pistols if not registered before Sept. 24, 1976; the second bars carrying an unlicensed pistol, and the third requires that any gun kept at home must be unloaded and disassembled or bound by a lock, such as one that prevents the trigger from operating.
The Court did not mention any other issues that it might address as questions of its jurisdiction to reach the ultimate question: did the one individual who was found to have a right to sue — Dick Anthony Heller, a D.C. resident — have a right to challenge all three of the sections of the local law cited in the Court’s order, and, is the District of Columbia, as a federal enclave, even covered by the Second Amendment. While neither of those issues is posed in the grant order, the Court may have to be satisfied that the answer to both is affirmative before it would move on to the substantive question about the scope of any right protected by the Amendment.
The D.C. Circuit ruled that the Amendment does apply to the District because of its federal status, subject to all provisions of the Constitution. At this point, therefore, it appears that the Court’s review may not reach a major question — does the Second Amendment also protect individual rights against state and local government gun control laws? But a ruling by the Court recognizing an individual right to have a gun almost surely would lead to new test cases on whether to extend the Amendment’s guarantee so that it applied to state and local laws, too. The Court last confronted that issue in Presser v. illinois, in 1886, finding that the Amendment was not binding on the states.
Some observers who read the Court’s order closely may suggest that the Court is already inclined toward an “individual rights” interpretation of the Second Amendment. That is because the order asks whether the three provisions of the D.C. gun control law violate “the Second Amendment rights of individuals.” But that phrasing may reveal very little about whether the Amendment embraces an individual right to have a gun for private use. Only individuals, of course, would be serving in the militia, and there is no doubt that the Second Amendment provides those individuals a right to have a gun for that type of service. The question the Court will be deciding is, if there are individuals who want to keep pistols for use at home, does the Second Amendment guarantee them that right. Just because the Second Amendment protects some individual right does not settle the nature of that right.
One of the interesting subsets of the question the Court will be confronting is whether the 1939 case of U.S. v. Miller is a precedent for what the Second Amendment means — individual or collective right. If that decision did find in favor of a collective right, the current Court would have to decide whether this was a binding precedent, or whether it should be overruled. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., has already taken a stand on that question. At his nomination hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he said that “the Miller case sidestepped” the issue of whether the Amendment protected a collective or an individual right. He added: “An argument was made back in 1939 that this provides only a collective right, and the Court didn’t address that….So people try to read into the tea leaves about Miller and what would come out on this issue, but that’s still very much an open issue.”
The local law at issue in Heller has been discussed widely as a sweeping ban on private possession or use of handguns. But the Court order granting review took it a step further: the one section that will be at issue that goes beyond handguns is the provision that requires that any gun kept at home be unloaded and disassembled, or at least be locked. Thus, that provision also applies to rifles and shotguns kept at home, in terms of whether those weapons would remain “functional” in time of emergency if that provision were upheld. That part of the order appeared to widen the inquiry in a way that the local residents who challenged the law had wanted.
Additional grants on Tuesday:
The Court also granted review on Tuesday of the question of whether federal labor law bars a state from forbidding a company that receives state funds from using any of those funds to speak out on issues in bargaining with a labor union. That case is U.S. Chamber of Commerce, et al., v. Brown, et al. (06-939). The U.S. Solicitor General, asked by the government for its views on the case, urged that review be granted. At least 16 states have laws or are considering laws like the one in California at issue in the case.
The Court also said on Tuesday that it will hear an appeal by Alabama’s governor, Bob Riley, in a voting rights case — but will not necessarily decide the merits of the appeal. The Court postponed the question of its jurisdiction until its hearing on the case of Riley v. Kennedy, et al. (07-77). That means the Justices will, indeed, hear oral argument, but will focus part of that argument on whether the case is properly before them. The other side in the case contended in its response that the state officials waited too long to file their appeal, thus depriving the Court of jurisdiction.
The merits issue raised by the governor is whether rulings by state Supreme Courts on the meaning of state or local election law do bring about the kind of changes in voting rights that must first get federal clearance before going into effect — for those states and local jurisdictions that are covered by the pre-clearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act’s Section 5.
These other two cases, like Heller, are likely to be scheduled for argument in the March sitting that begins on Mar. 17.
Source:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/court-agrees-to-rule-on-gun-case/


Against my better judgment, I let someone talk me into taking one of those silly online tests about when I will die. It asks you all kinds of questions about your stress level and general outlook, eating, smoking, weight etc.

EDIT: Dear readers upset by the tag post; please disregard this. You are under no obligation to tag anyone or make a blog or anything of the sort. There is no need to call me and ask what this is about, it is simply an internet game.










