Remora Stingray's journal

Welcome to my journal!  Just a few notes:

I found that I didn't really use this journal for chronicling events in my life, therefore I didn't post all that often. I do, however, have a bunch of soapboxes and love discussing topics in general. So that's the route this journal is currently taking. All topics are up for discussion. My initial posts are not meant to be an end all to the topic, simply a point to start if you want to discuss or debate.  If not, that's fine too.

I am perfectly aware that I am not taking the high-road on this by any means. I just hope I'm not taking the lowest.

I think Donald Trump would do himself a favor if he discontinued using the phrase "[so and so] is a loser."  Here are my reasons:

• It invokes the idea of a playground mentality. I would not have a problem with a young child justifying things this way, but I would assume someone who's had more experience and time for their brain to develop would not use this as a real argument point or the ending of an argument.
• It's not very descriptive. It, to me at least, seems like a blanket statement that can be used for anything at anytime. I don't see how it could hold much merit that way.
• It's doesn't really define anything. Everyone wins and everyone loses that has any length of time in their life. People lose a lot and they gain/win a lot. It's part of how life works. Everyone has different strengths and weaknesses. Winning and losing are often times a matter perspective. Which leads to...
• It seems very much an opinion that's being stated as if it were fact. Again, it's his perspective.
• His statement is often quoted time and again without most (if any) of his arguments as to why he feels that way. It's happened over and over. I don't know why anyone would assume that if he continued with the same that somehow the result would be different.

This isn't an attack on his character. While I don't agree with many of things he says, I do think that Donald Trump is a very intelligent man with useful knowledge to impart. This is just a statement about one phrase he tends to use and my own perspective of that phrase.

I thoroughly enjoyed the last book and the entire series.

What I really wanted to say however is that I will miss the international reading day(s) that the series caused every time one of the later books was released. There's just something to be said about millions of people curling up with books reading them all near the same time. Add to that the image of children (in this case, often with their parents next to them doing the same) diving into 700 page books learning that reading can be both very satisfying and enjoyable is something that I hope authors in the future work to strive for.

Here is a news article for reference.

Okay, they are using this story as a reason to add more cameras throughout the United States. My problem with this is that London uses their application much differently than the US does. London has their cameras out on the streets monitoring what happens outside. The majority of camera use in the US is used indoors. My guess is that most of these are in gas stations, some pawn shops, and other places where robbers have targeted for violent crimes for some years. Most of the other cases of security cameras I've heard the most about are in dressing rooms, bathrooms, and hotel guest rooms; places that camera use is extremely voyeuristic.  If they were to be used correctly I personally wouldn't have a problem with it. I just don't see that happening however. I doubt it would be government controlled and only in public areas. I bet the increase would be by businesses in inappropriate places taking away privacy and doing very little, if anything at all, for public safety. I just see it as being horribly misused as it often is now.

As always, this is just my opinion and that won't buy even a soda.



For those that like additional reading:
Notbored.org's journal views (with references)
If I can find even a single study on the use of security cameras (i.e. percentage used public vs. commercial and common locations) I will put it here.

I wonder if there should be groups to defend against and speak out against public people who try to slant religion to what they want. Many of times those ideas actually go against the religion that is being used as an excuse to support it. I can only see the continued twisting of religion as a way to breed more intolerance to both the subjects of twisters as well as intolerance to the victimized religion. (For the purpose of this statement, Agnosticism and Atheism count as well since they have beliefs about whether people would know about afterlife or if it exists or not -- and I have seen them victimized by people wanting to impose things on others, just like people have done with beliefs that are more widely recognized as religions.)

Anyway...

plot=good

end of message

In my opinion:

When you only compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges, you lose a lot of higher thinking opportunities. Sometimes you also fail to see common threads through various problems and often lose sight of the bigger picture entirely.


Anyway, whatever.

Okay, I just read this, so I'm still collecting my thoughts. It's a bit of a wtf moment (please excuse my language and use of internet dialect here).

Wow, I really just don't know what to say. I'm still trying to wrap my brain around it. I know some people will say it's justified, but it could also be a case where the reaction is out of proportion to the initial problem. I guess a lot of that depends on the philosophical stance.

Anyway, I would really love to hear what other people think.

This is something that really annoys me. We've seen so much in the news about the food supply from e-coli in spinach, to salmonella in peanut butter, to melamine in pet food (and even in low doses of human consumed meat including pork, chicken, and fish).  I guess it wouldn't irritate me so much if the government didn't seem to be taking an oh well what can you do? mentality. That kind of mentality implies that they will do nothing instead of actually trying to solve the problem.  By the way, no one except the victims and their families (who are victims too) have suffered any consequences in the 2006 spinach e-coli case.  This, to me, just tells businesses that they don't have to have any accountability for their actions or lack thereof.  The FDA has put in voluntary guidelines for growers, but again they are voluntary not mandatory. Many companies will only raise their own requirements if it becomes part of the marketing scheme as a way to compete with other companies (a good reason to avoid monopolies -- but that's another soapbox altogether). In Dole's defense, they did come up with a new tracking system after last year's fiasco. 

Another rant for another day that is related: the news really irritated me when the said that pet owners could likely only sue for the original price of their pets (who are family members) when one guy tried to sue for so much money for a pair of pants. This comparison brings up so many soapboxes in themselves, I think I'll leave it for another day.

Today CNN talked a little about the assassination of JFK. They talked a little about how there could have been a second gunman.

Anyway, here's some web stuff I dug up:
Wikipedia link
A Site Dedicated to it

Keep in mind I didn't really go through the second site too much.

The Kennedy assassination was also featured in a Doctor Who novel and echoed in the first episode of the new series.  (... and yes, I enjoy conspiracy theories and such whether I agree with them or not.)