In an historical landmark ruling today, the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that individuals do have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The case involved a 60 year-old security officer in Washington, D.C., who attempted to register a handgun for home security. When his request was denied, the security officer sued the city on the grounds that he believed Washington's ban on firearms to be unconstitutional. In a 5-4 ruling, the Court found that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right granted by the 2nd Amendment.
The point has been debated over the years, with opponents arguing the 2nd Amendment applies to applications of a militia or other government-managed groups. Proponents of the 2nd Amendment have countered that the right to keep and bear arms is a right of all citizens. The Court agreed in that respect, ruling that states and municipalities do not have the ability to completely ban the ownership of handguns. A the same time, they also declared that the 2nd Amendment is not without limits; that laws restricting felons or the mentally ill from owning firearms are still constitutional.
This ruling from the Supreme Court is significant in many respects. For one, it is the first time in U.S. history that the Supreme Court has addressed the 2nd Amendment. But far more important is the fact that this ruling was dissented by FOUR U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICES. If just one more had ruled against the security officer in this case, it could very well had led to the 2nd Amendment being declared irrelevant in modern society.
If anyone has any doubts as to whether or not they should vote, if anyone thinks they're going to just stay home in November and not vote for anyone in protest of either or both political parties, THINK AGAIN!! It is a function of the President of the United States to nominate successors to the Supreme Court, should a vacancy present itself during his/her term in office. It is the President who helps to shape the ideology of the Court through his nominees. With this in mind, we must also consider that Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has the most liberal voting record of anyone in Congress today, including Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton. If we, as a nation, elect Barack Obama to the presidency in November, we will also be allowing him the privilege and opportunity to shape the Supreme Court in a more liberal mindset. In history, a liberal Supreme Court is often a tool for creating new laws through the interpretation of the Constitution.
It is not now, nor was it ever, the intention of the founding fathers of this nation that the Supreme Court should create laws. It is the function of the Court to interpret the laws created by Congress and by the States relative to the Constitution. We must not allow a president into office who might see fit to use the Supreme Court in a way other than it was intended. Therefore, everyone who is eligible must register to vote, and in November, cast your vote.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
In Memoriam
FROM THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
MONDAY, JUNE 23, 2008:
George Carlin, who died Sunday at 71, leaves behind not only a series of memorable routines, but a legal legacy: His most celebrated monologue, a frantic, informed riff on those infamous seven words, led to a Supreme Court decision on broadcasting offensive language.
The counterculture hero's jokes also targeted things such as misplaced shame, religious hypocrisy and linguistic quirks — why, he once asked, do we drive on a parkway and park on a driveway?
Carlin, who had a history of heart trouble, went into St. John's Health Center in Santa Monica on Sunday afternoon complaining of chest pain and died of heart failure later that evening, said his publicist, Jeff Abraham. He had performed as recently as last weekend at the Orleans Casino and Hotel in Las Vegas.
"He was a genius and I will miss him dearly," Jack Burns, who was the other half of a comedy duo with Carlin in the early 1960s, told The Associated Press.
The actor Ben Stiller called Carlin "a hugely influential force in stand-up comedy. He had an amazing mind, and his humor was brave, and always challenging us to look at ourselves and question our belief systems, while being incredibly entertaining. He was one of the greats."
Carlin constantly breached the accepted boundaries of comedy and language, particularly with his routine on the "Seven Words" — all of which are taboo on broadcast TV to this day.
When he uttered all seven at a show in Milwaukee in 1972, he was arrested on charges of disturbing the peace, freed on $150 bail and exonerated when a Wisconsin judge dismissed the case, saying it was indecent but citing free speech and the lack of any disturbance.
The words were later played on a New York radio station, resulting in a 1978 Supreme Court ruling upholding the government's authority to sanction stations for broadcasting offensive language during hours when children might be listening.
"So my name is a footnote in American legal history, which I'm perversely kind of proud of," he told The Associated Press earlier this year.
Despite his reputation as unapologetically irreverent, Carlin was a television staple through the decades, serving as host of the "Saturday Night Live" debut in 1975 — noting on his Web site that he was "loaded on cocaine all week long" — and appearing some 130 times on "The Tonight Show."
He produced 23 comedy albums, 14 HBO specials, three books, a few TV shows and appeared in several movies, from his own comedy specials to "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" in 1989 — a testament to his range from cerebral satire and cultural commentary to downright silliness (sometimes hitting all points in one stroke).
"Why do they lock gas station bathrooms?" he once mused. "Are they afraid someone will clean them?"
In one of his most famous routines, Carlin railed against euphemisms he said have become so widespread that no one can simply "die."
"'Older' sounds a little better than 'old,' doesn't it?," he said. "Sounds like it might even last a little longer. ... I'm getting old. And it's OK. Because thanks to our fear of death in this country I won't have to die — I'll 'pass away.' Or I'll 'expire,' like a magazine subscription. If it happens in the hospital they'll call it a 'terminal episode.' The insurance company will refer to it as 'negative patient care outcome.' And if it's the result of malpractice they'll say it was a 'therapeutic misadventure.'"
Carlin won four Grammy Awards for best spoken comedy album and was nominated for five Emmys. On Tuesday, it was announced that Carlin was being awarded the 11th annual Mark Twain Prize for American Humor, which will be presented Nov. 10 in Washington and broadcast on PBS.
"Nobody was funnier than George Carlin," said Judd Apatow, director of recent hit comedies such as "Knocked Up" and "The 40-Year-Old Virgin." "I spent half my childhood in my room listening to his records experiencing pure joy. And he was as kind as he was funny."
Carlin started his career on the traditional nightclub circuit in a coat and tie, pairing with Burns to spoof TV game shows, news and movies. Perhaps in spite of the outlaw soul, "George was fairly conservative when I met him," said Burns, describing himself as the more left-leaning of the two. It was a degree of separation that would reverse when they came upon Lenny Bruce, the original shock comic, in the 1960s.
"We were working in Chicago, and we went to see Lenny, and we were both blown away," Burns said, recalling the moment as the beginning of the end for their collaboration (though not their close friendship). "It was an epiphany for George. The comedy we were doing at the time wasn't exactly groundbreaking, and George knew then that he wanted to go in a different direction."
That direction would make Carlin as much a social commentator and philosopher as comedian, a position he would relish through the years.
"The whole problem with this idea of obscenity and indecency, and all of these things — bad language and whatever — it's all caused by one basic thing, and that is: religious superstition," Carlin told the AP in a 2004 interview. "There's an idea that the human body is somehow evil and bad and there are parts of it that are especially evil and bad, and we should be ashamed. Fear, guilt and shame are built into the attitude toward sex and the body. ... It's reflected in these prohibitions and these taboos that we have."
Carlin was born on May 12, 1937, and grew up in the Morningside Heights section of Manhattan, raised by a single mother. After dropping out of school in the ninth grade, he joined the Air Force in 1954. According to his official Web site, which is often tongue-in-cheek, he received three court-martials and numerous disciplinary punishments.
While in the Air Force he started working as an off-base disc jockey at a radio station in Shreveport, La., and after receiving a general discharge in 1957, took an announcing job at WEZE in Boston.
"Fired after three months for driving mobile news van to New York to buy pot," his Web site says.
From there he went on to a job on the night shift as a deejay at a radio station in Fort Worth, Texas. Carlin also worked variety of temporary jobs, including carnival organist and marketing director for a peanut brittle.
In 1960, he left with $300 and Burns, a Texas radio buddy, for Hollywood to pursue a nightclub career as comedy team Burns & Carlin. His first break came just months later when the duo appeared on Jack Paar's "Tonight Show."
Carlin said he hoped to emulate his childhood hero, Danny Kaye, the kindly, rubber-faced comedian who ruled over the decade Carlin grew up in — the 1950s — with a clever but gentle humor reflective of the times.
It didn't work for him, and the pair broke up by 1962.
"I was doing superficial comedy entertaining people who didn't really care: Businessmen, people in nightclubs, conservative people. And I had been doing that for the better part of 10 years when it finally dawned on me that I was in the wrong place doing the wrong things for the wrong people," Carlin reflected recently as he prepared for his 14th HBO special, "It's Bad For Ya."
Eventually Carlin ditched the buttoned-up look for his trademark beard, ponytail and all-black attire.
But even with his decidedly adult-comedy bent, Carlin never lost his childlike sense of mischief, even voicing kid-friendly projects like episodes of the TV show "Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends" and the spacey Volkswagen bus Fillmore in the 2006 Pixar hit "Cars."
Carlin's first wife, Brenda, died in 1997. Survivors include his wife Sally Wade, his daughter, Kelly Carlin McCall, and his brother, Patrick Carlin
We will miss you, George.
MONDAY, JUNE 23, 2008:
George Carlin, who died Sunday at 71, leaves behind not only a series of memorable routines, but a legal legacy: His most celebrated monologue, a frantic, informed riff on those infamous seven words, led to a Supreme Court decision on broadcasting offensive language.
The counterculture hero's jokes also targeted things such as misplaced shame, religious hypocrisy and linguistic quirks — why, he once asked, do we drive on a parkway and park on a driveway?
Carlin, who had a history of heart trouble, went into St. John's Health Center in Santa Monica on Sunday afternoon complaining of chest pain and died of heart failure later that evening, said his publicist, Jeff Abraham. He had performed as recently as last weekend at the Orleans Casino and Hotel in Las Vegas.
"He was a genius and I will miss him dearly," Jack Burns, who was the other half of a comedy duo with Carlin in the early 1960s, told The Associated Press.
The actor Ben Stiller called Carlin "a hugely influential force in stand-up comedy. He had an amazing mind, and his humor was brave, and always challenging us to look at ourselves and question our belief systems, while being incredibly entertaining. He was one of the greats."
Carlin constantly breached the accepted boundaries of comedy and language, particularly with his routine on the "Seven Words" — all of which are taboo on broadcast TV to this day.
When he uttered all seven at a show in Milwaukee in 1972, he was arrested on charges of disturbing the peace, freed on $150 bail and exonerated when a Wisconsin judge dismissed the case, saying it was indecent but citing free speech and the lack of any disturbance.
The words were later played on a New York radio station, resulting in a 1978 Supreme Court ruling upholding the government's authority to sanction stations for broadcasting offensive language during hours when children might be listening.
"So my name is a footnote in American legal history, which I'm perversely kind of proud of," he told The Associated Press earlier this year.
Despite his reputation as unapologetically irreverent, Carlin was a television staple through the decades, serving as host of the "Saturday Night Live" debut in 1975 — noting on his Web site that he was "loaded on cocaine all week long" — and appearing some 130 times on "The Tonight Show."
He produced 23 comedy albums, 14 HBO specials, three books, a few TV shows and appeared in several movies, from his own comedy specials to "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" in 1989 — a testament to his range from cerebral satire and cultural commentary to downright silliness (sometimes hitting all points in one stroke).
"Why do they lock gas station bathrooms?" he once mused. "Are they afraid someone will clean them?"
In one of his most famous routines, Carlin railed against euphemisms he said have become so widespread that no one can simply "die."
"'Older' sounds a little better than 'old,' doesn't it?," he said. "Sounds like it might even last a little longer. ... I'm getting old. And it's OK. Because thanks to our fear of death in this country I won't have to die — I'll 'pass away.' Or I'll 'expire,' like a magazine subscription. If it happens in the hospital they'll call it a 'terminal episode.' The insurance company will refer to it as 'negative patient care outcome.' And if it's the result of malpractice they'll say it was a 'therapeutic misadventure.'"
Carlin won four Grammy Awards for best spoken comedy album and was nominated for five Emmys. On Tuesday, it was announced that Carlin was being awarded the 11th annual Mark Twain Prize for American Humor, which will be presented Nov. 10 in Washington and broadcast on PBS.
"Nobody was funnier than George Carlin," said Judd Apatow, director of recent hit comedies such as "Knocked Up" and "The 40-Year-Old Virgin." "I spent half my childhood in my room listening to his records experiencing pure joy. And he was as kind as he was funny."
Carlin started his career on the traditional nightclub circuit in a coat and tie, pairing with Burns to spoof TV game shows, news and movies. Perhaps in spite of the outlaw soul, "George was fairly conservative when I met him," said Burns, describing himself as the more left-leaning of the two. It was a degree of separation that would reverse when they came upon Lenny Bruce, the original shock comic, in the 1960s.
"We were working in Chicago, and we went to see Lenny, and we were both blown away," Burns said, recalling the moment as the beginning of the end for their collaboration (though not their close friendship). "It was an epiphany for George. The comedy we were doing at the time wasn't exactly groundbreaking, and George knew then that he wanted to go in a different direction."
That direction would make Carlin as much a social commentator and philosopher as comedian, a position he would relish through the years.
"The whole problem with this idea of obscenity and indecency, and all of these things — bad language and whatever — it's all caused by one basic thing, and that is: religious superstition," Carlin told the AP in a 2004 interview. "There's an idea that the human body is somehow evil and bad and there are parts of it that are especially evil and bad, and we should be ashamed. Fear, guilt and shame are built into the attitude toward sex and the body. ... It's reflected in these prohibitions and these taboos that we have."
Carlin was born on May 12, 1937, and grew up in the Morningside Heights section of Manhattan, raised by a single mother. After dropping out of school in the ninth grade, he joined the Air Force in 1954. According to his official Web site, which is often tongue-in-cheek, he received three court-martials and numerous disciplinary punishments.
While in the Air Force he started working as an off-base disc jockey at a radio station in Shreveport, La., and after receiving a general discharge in 1957, took an announcing job at WEZE in Boston.
"Fired after three months for driving mobile news van to New York to buy pot," his Web site says.
From there he went on to a job on the night shift as a deejay at a radio station in Fort Worth, Texas. Carlin also worked variety of temporary jobs, including carnival organist and marketing director for a peanut brittle.
In 1960, he left with $300 and Burns, a Texas radio buddy, for Hollywood to pursue a nightclub career as comedy team Burns & Carlin. His first break came just months later when the duo appeared on Jack Paar's "Tonight Show."
Carlin said he hoped to emulate his childhood hero, Danny Kaye, the kindly, rubber-faced comedian who ruled over the decade Carlin grew up in — the 1950s — with a clever but gentle humor reflective of the times.
It didn't work for him, and the pair broke up by 1962.
"I was doing superficial comedy entertaining people who didn't really care: Businessmen, people in nightclubs, conservative people. And I had been doing that for the better part of 10 years when it finally dawned on me that I was in the wrong place doing the wrong things for the wrong people," Carlin reflected recently as he prepared for his 14th HBO special, "It's Bad For Ya."
Eventually Carlin ditched the buttoned-up look for his trademark beard, ponytail and all-black attire.
But even with his decidedly adult-comedy bent, Carlin never lost his childlike sense of mischief, even voicing kid-friendly projects like episodes of the TV show "Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends" and the spacey Volkswagen bus Fillmore in the 2006 Pixar hit "Cars."
Carlin's first wife, Brenda, died in 1997. Survivors include his wife Sally Wade, his daughter, Kelly Carlin McCall, and his brother, Patrick Carlin
We will miss you, George.
High Gas Prices
With gas prices approaching $4.00 per gallon, where will it all end? And where, for that matter, does it begin? Who is responsible for these high prices?
A lot of people are convinced that the oil companies are the ones responsible, padding their pockets at the expense of drivers all across the nation. Enough people are convinced of this that Congress recently called for hearings with executives from the five biggest oil companies in the country: BP America, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell. One topic the hearings focused on was the $123 billion (that's $123,000,000,000.00 for perspective) in gross profits earned by those companies in the past year, while at the same time consumers are paying record prices for gas at the pump. The executives denied responsibility for the high prices, citing that part of the problem is that approximately 85% of America's coastal waters have been made off limits of drilling. The fact of the matter is the nine major oil companies in this country only control about five percent of the world's oil, hardly enough to significantly affect the cost of crude oil on the open market.
In addition to off-shore waters, the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) is also off limits to exploration. Opponents of drilling in ANWR cite environmental concerns for wanting to keep the lands off limits to exploration. Advocates counter that only 1.5 million acres would potentially be affected by exploration, while the remaining 17.5 million acres (or 92% of ANWR) would remain permanently off limits. If oil were to be discovered, only about 2000 acres of that 1.5 million would be affected by drilling. In the end, less than one-half of one percent would be affected by drilling. In exchange for opening this small portion of ANWR to exploration and drilling, it's projected that 1.5 million barrels of oil could be recovered every day, accounting for 25% of domestic production. From a conservative estimate of 9 billion barrels available under ANWAR, that's over 16 years supply. Some estimates project there could be as much as 16 billion barrels under ANWR. That's over 29 years' supply. While neither estimate can amount to a long-term solution to our fuel problems, it would go a long way to make the situation manageable for consumers while other alternative energy sources are explored.
So is that it? Just a supply/demand issue, or is there more to it? Over the past year, we've watched the price of oil skyrocketing. In June, 2007, oil was trading for about $65 a barrel. One year later, it's trading for about $135 a barrel, an increase of 108%. Why? Well, for one thing, we need to look at the fact that the value of the American dollar has plummeted in value over the past year, due in part to the problems in sub-prime mortgage market. So, it's the sub-prime mortgage market that has caused high gas prices, right? Well, not as such. The fact of the matter is that there is a great deal of confusion as to just how many subprime mortgages are in foreclosure. This has led to a great deal of insecurity in the banking industry, as banks, both large and small, are facing losing billion of dollars as a result of these foreclosures. This turmoil in the banking industry has, in turn, led to insecurity in the American dollar and a nosedive in its value. When the dollar falls in value, it buys less, thereby taking more dollars to buy. Add to this, speculators in the market betting on the price of crude going up and up. When it does, you can bet that they're making money off of this whole deal.
So now, we have several concepts being blamed for the high pump prices – executives padding their pockets at the expense of the consumers; simple supply/demand economics; a weakened American dollar; stock market speculation. Are any of these the true, underlying problem? What's the solution?
One proposed solution involves nationalization of the gas companies. Essentially, let's put the federal government in charge of the recovery, processing, and delivery of oil to fuel stations. Personally, I'm not big on this solution. The federal government does a few things well. Allocation of resources to the people who need them in a timely matter isn't one of them. With all of the bureaucracy already running rampant through the federal government, it's obvious all the average consumer would get from nationalization of the oil companies would be higher prices, brought on by additional costs and taxes rolled into the price of a gallon of gas, and longer lines, as gas stations run low on supplies while they wait for trucks to get around to replenishing their tanks.
So what will it take to change the course of fuel prices? Time, for one thing. It will take time for the banking markets to recover from the issues in the subprime mortgage market, allowing the value of the dollar to increase. Conservation of resources is another piece to this puzzle. As prices have risen, people have altered their driving habits: combining errands to save gas, accelerating from stops more steadily, driving more slowly as most cars run most efficiently at around 55 mph. While we're doing these things, the fuel companies are already researching new technologies to make cars that run on alternative fuels or different types of engines. Some of these include hydrogen power, fuel cell engines which emit exhausts consisting only of water vapor, and even a compressed air engine technology which pushes the pistons with bursts of compressed air rather than exploding fuel.
While there has been much talk about using ethanol mixed into gasoline or pure ethanol as fuel, this idea has recently fallen into disfavor as it's being discovered that the ethanol isn't particularly more efficient than gasoline to begin with. Additionally, it takes even more energy to produce the ethanol. In the end, ethanol actually brings a significant inefficiency to the equation.
One idea getting a lot of talk these days involves a "Manhattan Project"-style effort in the area of alternative fuels research. Using the same efforts that were used to develop the atomic weapons of World War II, scientists could research different ideas, possibly even one day developing the successor to the internal combustion engine.
So what do you think? What do you see as the cause or the solution? Give us your comments and ideas.
A lot of people are convinced that the oil companies are the ones responsible, padding their pockets at the expense of drivers all across the nation. Enough people are convinced of this that Congress recently called for hearings with executives from the five biggest oil companies in the country: BP America, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell. One topic the hearings focused on was the $123 billion (that's $123,000,000,000.00 for perspective) in gross profits earned by those companies in the past year, while at the same time consumers are paying record prices for gas at the pump. The executives denied responsibility for the high prices, citing that part of the problem is that approximately 85% of America's coastal waters have been made off limits of drilling. The fact of the matter is the nine major oil companies in this country only control about five percent of the world's oil, hardly enough to significantly affect the cost of crude oil on the open market.
In addition to off-shore waters, the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) is also off limits to exploration. Opponents of drilling in ANWR cite environmental concerns for wanting to keep the lands off limits to exploration. Advocates counter that only 1.5 million acres would potentially be affected by exploration, while the remaining 17.5 million acres (or 92% of ANWR) would remain permanently off limits. If oil were to be discovered, only about 2000 acres of that 1.5 million would be affected by drilling. In the end, less than one-half of one percent would be affected by drilling. In exchange for opening this small portion of ANWR to exploration and drilling, it's projected that 1.5 million barrels of oil could be recovered every day, accounting for 25% of domestic production. From a conservative estimate of 9 billion barrels available under ANWAR, that's over 16 years supply. Some estimates project there could be as much as 16 billion barrels under ANWR. That's over 29 years' supply. While neither estimate can amount to a long-term solution to our fuel problems, it would go a long way to make the situation manageable for consumers while other alternative energy sources are explored.
So is that it? Just a supply/demand issue, or is there more to it? Over the past year, we've watched the price of oil skyrocketing. In June, 2007, oil was trading for about $65 a barrel. One year later, it's trading for about $135 a barrel, an increase of 108%. Why? Well, for one thing, we need to look at the fact that the value of the American dollar has plummeted in value over the past year, due in part to the problems in sub-prime mortgage market. So, it's the sub-prime mortgage market that has caused high gas prices, right? Well, not as such. The fact of the matter is that there is a great deal of confusion as to just how many subprime mortgages are in foreclosure. This has led to a great deal of insecurity in the banking industry, as banks, both large and small, are facing losing billion of dollars as a result of these foreclosures. This turmoil in the banking industry has, in turn, led to insecurity in the American dollar and a nosedive in its value. When the dollar falls in value, it buys less, thereby taking more dollars to buy. Add to this, speculators in the market betting on the price of crude going up and up. When it does, you can bet that they're making money off of this whole deal.
So now, we have several concepts being blamed for the high pump prices – executives padding their pockets at the expense of the consumers; simple supply/demand economics; a weakened American dollar; stock market speculation. Are any of these the true, underlying problem? What's the solution?
One proposed solution involves nationalization of the gas companies. Essentially, let's put the federal government in charge of the recovery, processing, and delivery of oil to fuel stations. Personally, I'm not big on this solution. The federal government does a few things well. Allocation of resources to the people who need them in a timely matter isn't one of them. With all of the bureaucracy already running rampant through the federal government, it's obvious all the average consumer would get from nationalization of the oil companies would be higher prices, brought on by additional costs and taxes rolled into the price of a gallon of gas, and longer lines, as gas stations run low on supplies while they wait for trucks to get around to replenishing their tanks.
So what will it take to change the course of fuel prices? Time, for one thing. It will take time for the banking markets to recover from the issues in the subprime mortgage market, allowing the value of the dollar to increase. Conservation of resources is another piece to this puzzle. As prices have risen, people have altered their driving habits: combining errands to save gas, accelerating from stops more steadily, driving more slowly as most cars run most efficiently at around 55 mph. While we're doing these things, the fuel companies are already researching new technologies to make cars that run on alternative fuels or different types of engines. Some of these include hydrogen power, fuel cell engines which emit exhausts consisting only of water vapor, and even a compressed air engine technology which pushes the pistons with bursts of compressed air rather than exploding fuel.
While there has been much talk about using ethanol mixed into gasoline or pure ethanol as fuel, this idea has recently fallen into disfavor as it's being discovered that the ethanol isn't particularly more efficient than gasoline to begin with. Additionally, it takes even more energy to produce the ethanol. In the end, ethanol actually brings a significant inefficiency to the equation.
One idea getting a lot of talk these days involves a "Manhattan Project"-style effort in the area of alternative fuels research. Using the same efforts that were used to develop the atomic weapons of World War II, scientists could research different ideas, possibly even one day developing the successor to the internal combustion engine.
So what do you think? What do you see as the cause or the solution? Give us your comments and ideas.
Physics of Hell
The following is an actual question given on a University of Washington chemistry mid-term. The answer by one student was so 'profound' that the professor shared it with colleagues via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well.
Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following:
First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving.
As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially.
Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added. This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.
So which is it? If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa, (Cheerleader Captain and Class Valedictorian) during my Freshman year that, 'it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you', and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night and again this morning, then number 2 must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over.
The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct, leaving only Heaven, and thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, Teresa kept shouting 'Oh my God!!!'
THIS STUDENT RECEIVED THE ONLY 'A.'
Who said that science is boring? This will dispel that idea for all time.
Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following:
First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving.
As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially.
Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added. This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.
So which is it? If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa, (Cheerleader Captain and Class Valedictorian) during my Freshman year that, 'it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you', and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night and again this morning, then number 2 must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over.
The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct, leaving only Heaven, and thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, Teresa kept shouting 'Oh my God!!!'
THIS STUDENT RECEIVED THE ONLY 'A.'
Who said that science is boring? This will dispel that idea for all time.
Iowa Floods
I'm sure several of you having be watching and reading in the news about the Iowa floods. Or then again, maybe you haven't.
While listening to WNOX's "The Phil Show", a caller made an interesting observation. Interestingly enough, it doesn't seem like the Iowa floods are getting near the media attention that the floods as a result of Hurricane Katrina did several years ago. The question is why?
We're not seeing pictures of people stranded all over town. No videos of people being rescued from their rooftops. No calls to blame President George W. Bush for failure to respond to these poor forgotten souls. Why do you suppose that is?
Is it because these people don't make good fodder for the liberal media to exploit? Is it because instead of sitting on their lazy rear-ends expecting the government to provide everything for them, including a ride out of town to the destination of their choice?
So what are we seeing? We're seeing towns being devestated by 25-30 foot floods and townspeople working their butts off to protect what's theirs on their own. Filling literally hundreds of thousands of sandbags to protect their libraries, city hall, businesses, and homes. In spite of all of this, we still don't really see the pleas for prayers and assistance and donations that came with Katrina in New Orleans. Personally speaking, I think these people in Iowa are far more deserving of assistance than the Katrina "victims". I don't have a problem helping people who are willing to help themselves.
So, now, it's your turn. What do you think of the floods in Iowa? Why don't you think the media is covering this story in the same way as Katrina was?
While listening to WNOX's "The Phil Show", a caller made an interesting observation. Interestingly enough, it doesn't seem like the Iowa floods are getting near the media attention that the floods as a result of Hurricane Katrina did several years ago. The question is why?
We're not seeing pictures of people stranded all over town. No videos of people being rescued from their rooftops. No calls to blame President George W. Bush for failure to respond to these poor forgotten souls. Why do you suppose that is?
Is it because these people don't make good fodder for the liberal media to exploit? Is it because instead of sitting on their lazy rear-ends expecting the government to provide everything for them, including a ride out of town to the destination of their choice?
So what are we seeing? We're seeing towns being devestated by 25-30 foot floods and townspeople working their butts off to protect what's theirs on their own. Filling literally hundreds of thousands of sandbags to protect their libraries, city hall, businesses, and homes. In spite of all of this, we still don't really see the pleas for prayers and assistance and donations that came with Katrina in New Orleans. Personally speaking, I think these people in Iowa are far more deserving of assistance than the Katrina "victims". I don't have a problem helping people who are willing to help themselves.
So, now, it's your turn. What do you think of the floods in Iowa? Why don't you think the media is covering this story in the same way as Katrina was?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
