Everyone is concerned about kids killing themselves, but why is it happening?
Some people blame violence in movies, on television, and in video games.
I blame video games for a completely different reason: they reward suicide.
"What? Video games reward suicide? In what universe?"
Watch a kid play a video game for a while. If he or she gets off to a bad start, what's the next step?
Kill yourself.
They actually call it "killing myself". Sometimes they do it multiple times in a row to end the game so they can start over.
When the going gets tough... kill yourself and start over.
We need some psychologists to look into this.
Some people blame violence in movies, on television, and in video games.
I blame video games for a completely different reason: they reward suicide.
"What? Video games reward suicide? In what universe?"
Watch a kid play a video game for a while. If he or she gets off to a bad start, what's the next step?
Kill yourself.
They actually call it "killing myself". Sometimes they do it multiple times in a row to end the game so they can start over.
When the going gets tough... kill yourself and start over.
We need some psychologists to look into this.
Sure, we keep hearing about how fluorocarbons are destroying the ozone layer. We've been hearing it for years.
Now, I'm not saying the ozone layer isn't important. It's like a swimsuit cover up that keeps the dangerous UV rays from striking us. It's a good thing. But why is it wearing away? Because of refrigerants and paint propellants? Please. Those things are down here, and the ozone layer is way up there.
Think about that cover up for a minute. What if it gets snagged on a beach chair? it's going to get a hole in it. And if you keep poking holes in it, it's going to wear out.
So what are the sources of the poking? Rocket launches. And in fact the number of rocket launches have been going down in the last few decades, and the ozone thickness has stabilized.
Source: http://www.mnp.nl/mnc/i-en-0218.html
Source: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11916&page=43
So let's stop poking holes in our coverup, and stay on the ground where God intended us to be.
Now, I'm not saying the ozone layer isn't important. It's like a swimsuit cover up that keeps the dangerous UV rays from striking us. It's a good thing. But why is it wearing away? Because of refrigerants and paint propellants? Please. Those things are down here, and the ozone layer is way up there.
Think about that cover up for a minute. What if it gets snagged on a beach chair? it's going to get a hole in it. And if you keep poking holes in it, it's going to wear out.
So what are the sources of the poking? Rocket launches. And in fact the number of rocket launches have been going down in the last few decades, and the ozone thickness has stabilized.
Source: http://www.mnp.nl/mnc/i-en-0218.html
Source: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11916&page=43
So let's stop poking holes in our coverup, and stay on the ground where God intended us to be.
There is much debate over how homosexuality occurs. Is it in the genes, or a process in gestation? Or is it due to the way a child is raised?
I think there's a third source of influence which is largely ignored: Opposition.
We know that, around puberty, kids start to break away from their parents. They begin to challenge their boundaries, and to recreate themselves as individuals. Often, they will adopt behaviors at odds not only with their parents, but also with society at large. We see this in clothing choices, hair styles, and music.
At the same time, kids are developing their sexual identities. Do kids develop sexuality in response to outside pressures?
Over the past couple of decades, the outcry against homosexuality has been on the rise. At the same time, the number of adolescents identifying as homosexual has also increased. This correlation needs to be examined.
There have been allegations that homosexuals recruit young people. This may turn out to be very far from the truth.
It may be that the anti-gay people are driving youngsters to be gay.
The best prevention may actually be to ignore homosexuality altogether.
I think there's a third source of influence which is largely ignored: Opposition.
We know that, around puberty, kids start to break away from their parents. They begin to challenge their boundaries, and to recreate themselves as individuals. Often, they will adopt behaviors at odds not only with their parents, but also with society at large. We see this in clothing choices, hair styles, and music.
At the same time, kids are developing their sexual identities. Do kids develop sexuality in response to outside pressures?
Over the past couple of decades, the outcry against homosexuality has been on the rise. At the same time, the number of adolescents identifying as homosexual has also increased. This correlation needs to be examined.
There have been allegations that homosexuals recruit young people. This may turn out to be very far from the truth.
It may be that the anti-gay people are driving youngsters to be gay.
The best prevention may actually be to ignore homosexuality altogether.
For years, house paint had lead in it. Exterior paint, interior paint,
it all had lead. Then we found out that lead was getting inside
children and harming their brains. Well, that was bad, so in 1978 the
United States banned lead paint.
But what have we lost?
Look at this graph of breast cancer incidence (source: Susan G. Komen for the Cure NYC):
Note that, after 1978, breast cancer incidence rose dramatically.
Coincidence?
I'm not so sure.
Remember that lead is used to shield against radiation. There is a lot of radiation out there - from nuclear tests (and attacks), nuclear power plant meltdowns, solar radiation, cosmic rays, and high tension power lines. As we stopped using lead paint on and in our homes, and gradually removed the lead paint that was there, we removed the shielding that protected women from the mutating effects of radiation.
Lead paint, of course, dries and flakes off, creating an inhalation problem for small children - not to mention the fact that they put everything in their mouths. So returning to lead paint is not a solution.
What we should do, however, is to line all of our buildings with lead within the walls. Women who are outside should wear lead-lined brassieres.
For the life and health of women, let's bring lead back.
But what have we lost?
Look at this graph of breast cancer incidence (source: Susan G. Komen for the Cure NYC):
Note that, after 1978, breast cancer incidence rose dramatically.
Coincidence?
I'm not so sure.
Remember that lead is used to shield against radiation. There is a lot of radiation out there - from nuclear tests (and attacks), nuclear power plant meltdowns, solar radiation, cosmic rays, and high tension power lines. As we stopped using lead paint on and in our homes, and gradually removed the lead paint that was there, we removed the shielding that protected women from the mutating effects of radiation.
Lead paint, of course, dries and flakes off, creating an inhalation problem for small children - not to mention the fact that they put everything in their mouths. So returning to lead paint is not a solution.
What we should do, however, is to line all of our buildings with lead within the walls. Women who are outside should wear lead-lined brassieres.
For the life and health of women, let's bring lead back.
There are some people who are, as a group, producing 10,000 tons of
greenhouse gas per hour - in the United States alone. And that's just
among the ones who produce this gas in institutions - there are many
more who do so outside or in their own homes!
Burning 670 dietetic calories (kilocalories in chemistry) produces 36 moles, or 264.06 grams, of the greenhouse gas Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This works out to roughly 0.4 grams per dietetic calorie. According to the International Health, Racquet, and Sportsclub association (IHRS), as of January 1, 2007 there were 42,700,000 health club members. Each calorie burned by those total members equals 17,080 kilograms, 37,655 pounds, or nearly 19 tons of CO2. If the average visit works out to 500 calories, these people, in aggregate, are emitting ten thousand tons of CO2 per visit.
Yes, it is those who exercise who are at fault for a major portion of global warming, and we must lay the responsibility at their cross-trainer-clad feet. The apparently don't care about the earth's temperature, as they seem to like to sweat.
Until health clubs can be fitted with devices to scrub and sequester the CO2 produced by these physical performance polluters, we must close these carbon contributers. Likewise, those who exercise at home must be stopped, and those who generate greenhouse gases on the street arrested.
I'll be watching for this.
At home.
In front of the television - watching COPS.
Burning 670 dietetic calories (kilocalories in chemistry) produces 36 moles, or 264.06 grams, of the greenhouse gas Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This works out to roughly 0.4 grams per dietetic calorie. According to the International Health, Racquet, and Sportsclub association (IHRS), as of January 1, 2007 there were 42,700,000 health club members. Each calorie burned by those total members equals 17,080 kilograms, 37,655 pounds, or nearly 19 tons of CO2. If the average visit works out to 500 calories, these people, in aggregate, are emitting ten thousand tons of CO2 per visit.
Yes, it is those who exercise who are at fault for a major portion of global warming, and we must lay the responsibility at their cross-trainer-clad feet. The apparently don't care about the earth's temperature, as they seem to like to sweat.
Until health clubs can be fitted with devices to scrub and sequester the CO2 produced by these physical performance polluters, we must close these carbon contributers. Likewise, those who exercise at home must be stopped, and those who generate greenhouse gases on the street arrested.
I'll be watching for this.
At home.
In front of the television - watching COPS.
Plausible Pontification's mission is to be the first to comment on a story.
Why is first important?
Being the first to do something is the only record the future can't take away.
Why wait for the news to happen before commenting on it, when we can be first in opinion? Plausible Pontification is opinion on the stories no one is reporting, but could be true.
Why is first important?
Being the first to do something is the only record the future can't take away.
Why wait for the news to happen before commenting on it, when we can be first in opinion? Plausible Pontification is opinion on the stories no one is reporting, but could be true.
