Amazing beat box girl
OK, I didn't even know what "beat box" meant until now, but this young woman is incredible. Check out her 2 minute video.
Noteworthy entries.
OK, I didn't even know what "beat box" meant until now, but this young woman is incredible. Check out her 2 minute video.
Reading through my back issues of the Economist, I came across this article from March. According to a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association religious people seem curiously unwilling and unready to die. According to the study, by Andrea Phelps and her colleagues at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, religious people seem to use their faith simply to cope with the pain and degradation involved in treatment, and that they are more willing to experiment with more aggressive treatments, even though such treatment rarely makes much difference to the outcome or their life expectancy.
Dr Phelps and her team followed the last months of 345 cancer patients. The participants were not asked directly how religious they were but, rather, about how they used any religious belief they had to cope with difficult situations by, for example, “seeking God’s love and care”. The score from this questionnaire was compared with their requests for such things as the use of mechanical ventilation to keep them alive and resuscitation to bring them back from the dead.According to the study, three times as many 'religious' people requested aggressive life extension measures (mechanical ventilation and resuscitation) versus the least religious. I would expect that the religious would be happy to eventually 'meet their maker' - but I suppose this is yet another aspect of the cognitive dissonance we find among religion and it's adherents.
ASSIMULATED PRESS 2009 As the police were hauling Principal Soeht away in handcuffs, a reporter shouted one last question: “Why did you drown hundreds of students in the basement of Tarara Elementary School?” Soeht stared angrily at the reporter and replied, “Because almost all of those children were badly behaved…
ASSIMULATED PRESS Regency, Alabama - A prominent business owner is being charged in the poisoning and near death of his two children. Alabama Child Protective Services was notified when the children of prominent Regency land developer Ian Oda were brought into Eden County General Hospital convulsing and showing other signs of poisoning. When questioned about what had happened, Mr. Oda explained that the children, Alex 7 and Elizabeth 6, had ingested poisoned food that he had warned them not to eat. “I told them the rules and they disobeyed me. This is their fault.” Police and CPS agents were dispatched to the Oda home where they found an elaborate fenced-in playground which had been built specifically for the children. Neighbors reported that they had seen the children enjoying themselves and running naked around the playground for several days before the incident. Food, snacks and beverages were scattered throughout the area. However, some of the treats had been laced with strychnine and piled all together at the base of a large apple tree. Further complicating matters was the news that a former employee of Mr. Oda had been seen talking to the children shortly before they arrived at the hospital. Mr. Levi Natas had been overheard telling Elizabeth that the poisoned snacks were actually the tastiest snacks of all and that their father was hoarding them for himself. Mr. Natas had worked for Mr. Oda's company for many years but had a falling out and been let go under contentious circumstances in 2004. Mr. Natas then started his own rival company in Regency and has been notorious for trying to undermine many of Mr. Oda’s construction projects. When questioned about the incident Mr. Oda said, “Oh yes, I saw Mr. Natas talking to Elizabeth. I saw everything. My living room window overlooks the playground. But the children knew the rules. That was the only pile of snacks I had asked them not to eat.” Mr. Oda faces charges of reckless endangerment. Although the children have recovered, Mr. Oda stated to police that they are no longer welcome in his home, will never be allowed back into the playground, and that their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will also never be allowed to play there. In a prepared statement which Mr. Oda dictated to one of his assistants while the assistant was asleep, he proclaimed, “I have an employee that can clean up this mess. I promise I will send him. But it may take a few thousand years before I get around to it.”
The next time someone says to you that religion is under attack by the courts in the schools because of the separation clause, consider this high school history teacher who has been found guilty of insulting Christians in class.
James Corbett, a 20-year teacher at Capistrano Valley High School, was found guilty of referring to Creationism as “religious, superstitious nonsense” during a 2007 classroom lecture, denigrating his former Advanced Placement European history student, Chad Farnan.
The problem with this is that, basically, Mr. Corbett only told the truth, and appears to have talked almost exclusively about Creationism, not Christianity. The judge made the immediate connection between the two, however. U.S. District Court Judge James Selna's claim that he can find "no secular purpose" in Corbett's statements is either thick-witted or disingenuous---it would seem to be a teacher's job to point out to students something that is, well, idiocy. However, I expect an appeal on this, because it is also clear that the judge in question has something of a bias here. But it's instructive---rather than take the idea of Creationism as what it has lately been packaged, namely Intelligent Design, and examine it as a claim of "science" as its advocates insist it is, Selna understands immediately that this is a bogus proposition. That, in fact, Intelligent Design is a religious idea in a new wrapper. Corbett's dismissal of Creationism can only then be an attack on religion. Which, by the letter of the law, is a violation of the separation clause. Those who advocate against secularism and insist religious ideas have no defense in this modern state should look at this as an example---not in their favor, because it still won't allow for the introduction of religion into public schools---of the fact, oft-stated, that the Constitution requires even-handed exclusions. Secularists can't even say nasty things about a bogus idea that has only association relevance to religion. You can't even bring it up to say it's wrong. Personally, I do think this is a bit idiotic, but---what's that old phrase---it is fair to a fault.