Where The Sock Really Goes

I still love the theory of time travel but unfortunately it will never happen.  And I have proof!  You have proof, you say?  Yes, it is in the absence of proof that verifies time travel is not possible.  If we were able to develop time travel in the future, wouldn't we have seen the proof by now?   The counter-argument to this proposal is time travel must be cloaked in a cloud of caution and secrecy.  To not effect us in this time, future travelers would have to visit the past in secrecy.  We would never know if we've been visited but there should still be clues though.  Little discrepancies left in plain view.  Such as the missing keys you could have sworn you left on the table but your future self came back, moved them, caused a brief hesitation in your routine to find them, which in turn prevented you from getting in a car accident that would have caused you great harm, and created a different reality.  So, the theory is, tangents would develop in the stream of time allowing two possibilities.  A world that clung to an unaltered flow of time and a world changed in an altered flow of time.  But, if a set course which allowed for a person to come back in time were to allow an alteration of set time and a flow of events, wouldn't there have been an alteration which deviated the allowance of the time travel itself?  In other words, if we change events in the past, with a visit from the future, that alters a current present, doesn't this prevent that same person from achieving the set point in time in the future that would have allowed a corrected course in a stream of events?  If time travel were possible (and we know its not because I say so) then we could only come in some passive setting such as a window into the past or future without the possibility of physical connection.  But this theory of "window" travel creates a fourth or fifth dimension of reality where we step outside reality and travel not in time but dimensions itself.  In other words, to defy physics and probability, the only answer would be to step outside of time itself and become a mere observer.  So, in my own way of thinking, time travel is not possible.  The best possibility would be the observation of time outside of time itself.  The creation of tangents of time variation created from visits within time from future or past points creates an unstable paradox that would theoretically create an unstable universe.  The answer lies outside of our reach within the current mode of thinking because we restrict ourselves to the basic reality of a set parameters as defined by physics.  We are barking up the wrong tree.  We can never travel within time in the physical sense but I do believe we could do it on the subconscious level.  And we can't really travel in time but rather observe it at the subconscious level at varying points within our own timeline.  Whatever we have physically lived through could be revisited or whatever we will live through could be seen before it happens as long as we do not leave our own timeline.  The parameters or limits of time observance are dependent upon the individual.  Mine would start upon my conception and end with my future death.  But those years are open to observation and passive interaction. I could not physically alter my life in anyway but I could observe any point of time that I've lived or will live.  But I would have to do it at a subconscious level.  But, that's just my theory and is constrained by rational thought and limited reasoning.  I do want to believe that time travel, in the physical form, is possible and would be awesome. And it would explain some missing socks that remain a mystery.  But time travel is only one explanation of where socks go.  My name is Rueuhy and I approve this blog.

A Forest Without Trees.com

"Can't see the forest through the trees" is one of those phases that applies so eloquently to the implications of preponderances that happenstance allows.  Let that soak in a little bit and then consider that particular forest you've been in lately.  I call it the "big picture".  We've all seen it.  We get so involved with a particular problem that we "can't see the forest through the trees."   I consider life such a forest.  And I've had a few "trees" obscure my sight.  Even my work with endangered elephants in Illinois has suffered due to the overwhelming sensation of fighting the government on acquiring certain permits.  But I digress ... The whole problem with problems is how much of a problem they are at times.  We suffer minute problems such as finding our car keys (this is not something I suffer from because I'm pretty anal when it comes to remembering where they are) to finding our car in a large parking lot.  We all suffer problems.  The problems seem overwhelming at times but it is a matter of perspective, isn't it?  Most problems do not enter into the "life or death" category and many can be fixed in short order.  But it's the bump that we suffer that jars our brains and we just want a break from it all.  Lately, upon certain viewing of certain websites, I've noticed a troubling trend of the English language - it's changing dramatically.  I believe the old English we can read in such classics as Shakespeare and The King's James Bible is slightly different than the English we currently hold as the norm in our present day.  What I'm talking about is a (and excuse my French here) bastardization of our beloved language found in spelling and punctuation evident in such notable communications such as twitter and Facebook and texting, (oh my).  Have you ever spent five minutes re-reading a comment or a post on someone's account and still scratched your head because you honestly couldn't read it?   This isn't "life or death" unless you consider yourself the English language. And if you could ask the English language how if feels it's doing I believe you would find it, in some cases, lying on its death bed asking "Oh, Hast Thou suffered such travesty over thine inequity via facebook?".  But we can't really ask a language how it's doing but we see a reflection of it in our daily lives, don't we?  It's the lazy approach we've taken with all the abbreviations and shortened terms we have integrated to make our communications "faster?".  Yes, I speaketh of thou L.O.L's and ye fine LMAO's.  We've created a new language from the old English, which, by the way, I suffered to learn back in school.  Someone's tax dollars paid for a school and school teachers to teach young Rueuhy to speak and write in an acceptable manner to allow others to understand verbal and written communications from Rueuhy.  So, in the forest of communication, the trees are being chopped down mercilessly and I am having a tough time tripping over the clippings.  What used to be a few misspellings and some lack of correct punctuation has become a cornucopia of mistakes and alterations that only a handful of teenagers truly understand.  I find myself mouthing out the possibilities and then I throw my phone in disgust and yell, "Oh, they cursed wretch with such vile cruelty and malice."  Or I yell, "Crap!  What are they saying!!!???"  I just received a text, literally within the past minute, that reads "ltr wat we do in tx".  How do you defend your honor with such an insult?  Or was it a compliment?  Or is the author involved in some kind of secret mission that only allows 5 second texts compared to 10 second texts?  I just hope there isn't any torture involved on her end because I really do think my sister has lost the ability to write full words.  And now I'm gonna take a moment of silence and ponder how a language we spend years learning through 12 years of public education has suffered a slow and embarrassing death @twitter.facebook/edu.  My name is Rueuhyth and I approve this bloggeth.(!!!)

Have You Driven A Fjord Lately?

Legend tells us of a mighty beast from the mountains of Norway,  As big as a horse because, well, it's a horse.  This creature has adapted to farming and relaxes in mountains of straw.  The breed is called Fjord horse.  Interesting, no?  If you think I'm lying (and statistically 10% always think I'm lying) go ahead and google fjord horse.  You'll see links to different fjord breeders and youtube videos of fjord horses for sale.  But I digress ... What I really want to talk about is our little addiction problem.  Notice I used the term "our". Oh, I can see you squirming a little bit in that nervous way you get when someone's called you out on some simple little vice like candy bars or Vicodin.  "Rueuhy, I'm not addicted to the internet and who are you to judge me?"  That's what you're thinking isn't it? Some blogger who lives in an isolated ward in some psychiatric hospital just called you addicted to the internet and you can't stand it. In fact, I bet you already forgot to google fjord horses already, haven't you?  Because society labels addiction as a "weakness" - the inability to overcome a practice which overrides common sense for the victim in it's hold on the addicted.  "But I can quit anytime!" you yell at me in that weak voice that feels the imminent twinge of defeat coming on rapidly.  You're addicted and it's only becoming worse, isn't it?  You used to look up for longer periods of time and converse with your family. But now, if your phone has any battery left, you're on facebook or twitter or playing that game that you just played twenty minutes ago.  In fact, you will use more time and energy to find your charger if your phone is almost dead than you would to do that cleaning you "just didn't have time for this year".  So what's the solution?  How do we break the chains of servitude we suffer under in the name of technology.  Well, it's simple.  Hit the off button for starters.  (Please finish reading this first or you won't know what to do next.) Close that laptop.  Turn your phone off.  Find that list you wrote down several years ago of the things you should have accomplished already.  Go buy some cheap whiskey and go visit that friend that just got out on parole.  Do something.  Because all it takes is something like a video about cats and you'll be on here for another half hour.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP4NMoJcFd4  I tried to warn you but you know you're gonna click that link.  Oh well. My name is Rueuhy and I approve this blog.

Elementary, My Dear Watson, Is Just The Beginnng

First of all, I would like to apologize at the beginning of this post because it may appear dry.  I tried adding water and everything but all that did was ruin the laptop.  The reason I say dry is the topic for today - education.  Go ahead, moan a little.  Get it out of your system.  Speaking of systems, something has to be done with the education system in this country.  "What?!!!", you might say.  Yes, it's been proven that our education system is broken and needs to be fixed.  "Show us your proof, Mr. Rueuhy!!" is the collective scream arising from teacher's unions.  Well, the proof is pretty evident.  Look at how many children start kindergarten and how many graduate.  "Well, there's always going to be fallout in any war, Mr. Rueuhy, and the war is one that we've fought since the Boston Latin School opened in 1635.  Some kids just can't be taught."  "Whoa!  Wait a minute, are you going to actually argue with the Rueuhy and state your case is based on the principle that some kids just can't learn so there will be a substantial amount who will fail?" said me (Mr. Rueuhy) in that uppity voice I get right after my second cup of coffee.  "Yes, Mr. Uppity, there are kids that just can't learn and don't even try.  We continually try to teach them but it's obvious that they can't be taught."  So, the argument boils down to the children.  Children, some at least, are too stupid to learn?  That's really what our education system says.  So, I ask, "What about the children?"  For the past few months, maybe even years, I've always had this nagging sensation in the left rear quadrant of my brain - it just keeps bugging me.  If our money can't buy an education system that works, why not spend it on feeding the poor creatures that can't be taught rather than trying to use a failing model that clearly doesn't work?  Yes, that's right.  I propose the solution is to feed and house them rather than bother with an education.  On the first day of school the parents can sign a waiver to all future entitlements such as food stamps and welfare for the new student if the new student doesn't care enough to graduate with a high school diploma.  This way, there is an incentive for the child to learn.  Imagine that first day the young adult shows up at the state agency to enroll themselves in the welfare system and Betty Thomas says, "I'm sorry. You're not even eligible 'cause your parents signed a paper twelve years ago."   Obviously this is a stupid idea and one that would quickly die before it was even brought up for discussion in the House of Representationatives.  No, the solution is even more radical and daring.  Why not figure out how each child learns and tailor an education system around them rather than force feed an education on a child in a way that they can't learn.  (You might have to read that last sentence twice to get what I'm saying.)  Each child is born as an individual.  We do not actually have a testing procedure in place that actually figures out how a child learns, we just force feed the information to each child and then fail them accordingly.  Imagine this, in the first few years of a child's life we figure out how they learn and fine tune each education program to the individual rather than force every child to try to learn in a way that he or she can't learn.  There would be some major revisions to our present public school system but maybe there would be a 95% success rate rather than 50% or whatever the current rate is considered.  If a child learns through visual application such as videos than use videos.  If a child learns through an audio format than teach them that way.  If a child needs a mixture than use a 75% visual and 25% audio.  If a child can only learn through physical application than teach them that way.  The old format of a teacher standing in front of a class room and droning on for an hour is just not cutting it.  If a program is set up for each child, based on testing that child on how he/she processes information rather than just force feeding the same rigid techniques, perhaps every child would feel like they could succeed rather than school being a failing proposition after 1st grade.  Some children overcome the hindrances the present system throws at them and do succeed with the status quot.  Many fall through the cracks and become statistics.  I've met a few high school failures who are intelligent and can learn but found out they were worthless because they failed at performing successfully in the public education system.  Am I the only one that sees a problem with the "how" and the amount of money that gets pumped into a failing system?  Should we start questioning a program of rigid, and often times inflexible procedure, and say "It's just not working and we need a different approach?" or do we keep throwing more money at a system that doesn't work for a majority of students.  I see it as putting gas in a car with a seized up engine.  It just doesn't make sense.  We can continue to test the children to see how well they are failing or we could test them to see how they actually learn and create an atmosphere of success rather than failure.  My name is Uppity Rueuhy and I approve this blog.

Remember When Yelling Shotgun Was For The Front Seat?

So, as is my usual custom, I visited the local paper in print this morning.  Some interesting stuff and some boring stuff.  But then I get to the back page.  Left hand column, top - In a Page One story Wednesday about the shootings at the Washington Navy Yard, the Journal Courier erroneously reported that the gunman, Aaron Alexis, carried an AR-15.  That information was based on federal law enforcement officials who were relying on initial descriptions from the scene and was included in official internal FBI reports summarizing the shooting.  However, additional investigation by law enforcement concluded that Alexis carried a shotgun, took at least one handgun from an officer at the scene, did not have or use an AR-15.  Now, the question arises on the difference between an automatic rifle and a shotgun, right?  They must be pretty similar if someone confuses a shotgun for an AR-15.  I have never personally seen an AR-15 but I'm pretty sure most people have seen automatic rifles in movies and on tv, correct? And most, I believe, have seen a shotgun or two in those formats as well.  So, just to clarify - a shotgun looks like this:

And an AR-15 looks like this:

Now, to the untrained eye, a gun could look like a gun.  They each have a barrel and a shoulder rest.  They each have a trigger.  And there are other similarities.  Now, in another area of all that is, I would like to reflect on horses and dogs.  Now a horse is a horse, of course, of course, and a dog is a dog.  Both consume food and travel on four legs.  They can run, jump, and mate with other animals of the same species. I won't post pictures because I believe most of you know the difference. Is it possible that a small horse could be confused with a dog?  Possible.  Could a large dog be confused with a horse?  Another possibility. I guess the point I'm trying to make is this - can humans, under pressure and under duress, make a mistake between the two different types of firearms?  Has the media made such a point of the gun debate, that flares up with each new tragedy involving firearms, that people now confuse every firearm with a long barrel as an assault rifle?  That's the question.  And it seems pretty specific to me.  So, either there really was an assault rifle involved and the story is being retold as a cover-up (which I doubt) or someone convinced themselves they saw an assault rifle instead of a shotgun.  At a military installation.  It just doesn't seem like that easy of a mistake to make, even with a crisis situation such as that which took place there.  I have never been involved in a shooting so I cannot, I repeat, cannot place myself as an authority on what a person would, or should experience.  But it does seem like a huge mistake to record, doesn't it?  Senator Dianne Feinstein of California was quick to bring up the debate on assault rifles within a day or two of this tragedy.  So begins the national debate on shotguns.  I guess.  My name is Rueuhy and I approve this blog.

Why Can't We Get A Cat Into Space?

It was all over my blinkfeed.  Persian cat to be shot into space by Iran.  The concept seems simple enough.  Build a rocket.  Fill it with a toilet (for water) and several large bulk bags of Meow Mix. The scientists will have to cut the bags open and then there's the matter of who's gonna clean the litter boxes when the cat splashes down.  Now, for some of you, you're thinking - "Oh, another fantasy story by Rueuhy."  But this one is true.  Iran hopes to send their best nominee for space exploration (sources do not know the name of the actual cat) and chose the feline after extensive testing.  PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) was furious.  "Iran's archaic experiment... is a throwback to the primitive techniques of the 1950s," the animal rights group's spokesman Ben Williamson said.  Not everyone felt the same.  Ben Nelson, the spokesman for Bob Barker at the DJ&T Foundation, had this to say - "If pet owners can't take the time or money to have their pets spayed or neutered, we see this a step in the right direction. Pet populations have to be held to a minimum and we see this as a reliable alternative."  There was a mixed reaction from other foundations and countries as well.  Janice Fellhower, the assistant to the press secretary for Tony Abbott, the newly appointed Prime Minister of Australia, had this to say - "Australia remains a proud and industrious country.  Efforts are underway to launch our own cat into space and we will send an Abyssinian of the finest line of felines as a symbol of the greatness of Australia."  The wife of Kim Jong-un, Ri Sol-ju, at a press conference in Pyongyong, speaking to a reporter, had this to say.  "This move by Iran can be seen for its immaturity and evasiveness on the world scene.  Everyone knows Persian cats hate to travel.  We see this as another declaration of war on North Korea and they just made the list."  Others, in a more friendly and enlightened mood by Iran, found the news to be cute and adorable.  Jim Bob Cyrus, the cousin of Billy Ray Cyrus, overheard Miley Ray Cyrus tell her hairdresser and choreographer the following - "I love kittens.  They're even cuter than I am.  But they can't dance.  They really can't dance at all.  But Persians are really no better than other breeds.  They're just so ... strange."  And finally, at the White House, at the latest press conference on the subject of the White House's lack of press conferences, Jay Carney had this to say -  "The Iranian's ability to launch Persian cats at long range is seen as a threat and we are looking into all aspects of the repercussions such a launch would mean for relations between the United States and Iran.  If they choose to launch Persian cats the United States will reply with a retaliatory launch or our own.  We have notified the United Nations of our position on this threat and we are commencing drone surveillance on all animal shelters within the Iranian borders.  We will not be found asleep at our post on this one.  We will do whatever is required to combat this latest threat from within this region.  We have cats of our own."  No replies were made in connection to the press conference from Iranian officials.  My name is Rueuhy and I approve this blog.

Death Comes Unexpectedly

Funerals.  We don't like to think about them, do we?  Death and all that.  But we have to.  At some point you really have to sit down and ponder your end.  If you're like me you like having a say in the affairs of your life so it only makes sense to try to figure out that last party, don't you think?  Most just casually leave it to their loved ones to figure out, with a referral from us, as to the mode of departure.  "I want to be buried in a casket." says Johnny.  "I want cremation." says Judy.  But what about the rest of it.  Don't you have a song or some poem?  Is it really your funeral if someone else makes all those decisions?  How many times have we seen the final goodbye marked with questions?  "I guess Martha was wrong when she said she wouldn't be caught dead wearing those colors."  We choose the house we live in, the car we drive, even the city we live in but yet we don't want to think about death so many of us make no arrangements beforehand.  "I'm sure my wife will want to make all those decisions for me when she wants nothing more to do than crawl into a ball and lay in bed."  It really doesn't have to be complicated.  A simple checklist made out beforehand and given to a trusted relative would probably suffice.  Do you have a favorite song that everyone hated but meant the world to you?  Make them suffer through it one last time.  Do you want your favorite band to perform?  Is there a color scheme you'd prefer?  Or even a favorite flower you would like your urn to be surrounded by?  Is a cheap casket good enough or do you prefer stainless steel?  I've thought off and on about this for a few years and someday I will sit down and devise a list of what I'd prefer because it just seems odd to leave those details up to strangers in your life.  Now, for me personally, my wife would be the one to make those decisions.  But what of the man or woman who has no spouse or children?  Does the brother or sister make those choices?  Who really, emotionally, should have that responsibility thrust upon them at the worst possible time?  They're grieving and now they have to choose a funeral home and who will say some last words?  For most of us we have no idea when that moment will come.  We have no forewarning.  "Death comes unexpectedly."  (Said the reverend Paul Ford, a.k.a. Karl Malden from the Disney classic Pollyanna)  Some of us, in the most saddest of ways, do know when that time will arrive.  And they probably do have arrangements made beforehand.  But for a lot of us we deny the certainty and convince ourselves we have many years left.  But we don't know - really.  We give out hints in some discarded discussion but we don't really write it out for the future.  Because then it becomes a certainty.  So our demise gets an extension in our mind's probability.  But the truth is, you just don't really know.  So, take a moment, grab a pen and get started on your end.  You could die by the time you finish.  My name is Rueuhy and I approve this blog.