You know how every so often you run across something which just makes you stop and look at something in a way which is totally new and different from how you had thought of it before? It could be anything, from a sign on the street, to an ad on tv, to just something somebody says, or a picture you see. Most of the time, I suspect that none of us really take the time to really take note of such things. However, recently, like many of you, I've had almost nothing but time, so I've actually noticed a few such things that struck me in this way, and I thought I'd share some of them. Perhaps they will strike you as being worth a moment's thought, too.
As an example, I saw this Dustin cartoon a while back and was amused. Then I got to thinking about "truth in advertising" and it made me wonder...
As an example, I saw this Dustin cartoon a while back and was amused. Then I got to thinking about "truth in advertising" and it made me wonder...
After all, that IS what the ad seems to say....
Sometimes, a photographer gets to take a picture at just the right moment to create an image which is worth a lot more than just a second look. Here's one I found of the moon getting placed in the sky which I liked a lot.
Sometimes, a photographer gets to take a picture at just the right moment to create an image which is worth a lot more than just a second look. Here's one I found of the moon getting placed in the sky which I liked a lot.
The other night on the news, the President was quoted as having said that "Our testing is so much bigger and more advanced than any other country (we have done a great job on this!) that it shows more cases. Without testing, or weak testing, we would be showing almost no cases. Testing is a double-edged sword - Makes us look bad, but good to have!!!"
Now, if the reason we have the most COVID-19 cases is because "Our testing is so much bigger and more advanced than any other country...", then logically, the testing must be causing the disease. Ergo, if we stop testing then no one will get/be sick, right? Then, the question becomes why do we continue to test, when that is the source of the problem, or does that just seem too much like consulting an ostrich for the solution to our concerns? Somehow, I suspect that not looking for a problem doesn't erase its existence, no matter what the Donald says.
Of course, pictures aren't the only things which can make one go "Hmmmmm." I ran across a whole list of questions a while ago which do exactly that. Here are some examples:
How come wrong numbers are never busy?
Do people in Australia call the rest of the world 'up over'?
Does killing time damage eternity?
Why doesn't Tarzan have a beard?
Why is it called lipstick if you can still move your lips?
Why is it that night falls but day breaks?
Why is the third hand on the watch called a second hand?
Why is it that when you're driving and looking for an address, you turn down the radio?
Why is lemon juice made with artificial flavor, and dishwashing liquid made with real lemons?
Can you buy an entire chess set in a pawn-shop?
Daylight saving time - why are they saving it and where do they keep it?
Do Roman paramedics refer to IV's as '4's'?
Do you think that when they asked George Washington for ID that he just whipped out a quarter?
Have you ever imagined a world with no hypothetical situations?
How can there be self-help 'groups'?
Does Queen Elizabeth II really like to play a coin flipping game with her grandchildren called "Tails or me"? (I read somewhere that she really DOES do this, but I wonder...)
If those aren't enough to cost you some sleep, how's this.
The other night on the news, the President was quoted as having said that "Our testing is so much bigger and more advanced than any other country (we have done a great job on this!) that it shows more cases. Without testing, or weak testing, we would be showing almost no cases. Testing is a double-edged sword - Makes us look bad, but good to have!!!"
Now, if the reason we have the most COVID-19 cases is because "Our testing is so much bigger and more advanced than any other country...", then logically, the testing must be causing the disease. Ergo, if we stop testing then no one will get/be sick, right? Then, the question becomes why do we continue to test, when that is the source of the problem, or does that just seem too much like consulting an ostrich for the solution to our concerns? Somehow, I suspect that not looking for a problem doesn't erase its existence, no matter what the Donald says.
I saw this just the other day, and it DID make me stop and think for a second.
I see the Trump campaign is insisting that one agree to waive the right to sue it if one goes to a rally and gets COVID-19, in spite of its announced plans to disregard COVID safety precautions as "unnecessary." I recently saw a discussion online by a lawyer relating to how such "waivers" are, basically, unenforceable and suggesting that theatres, for example, are wasting time and energy in considering using them to "open" theatres. So, I have to assume that this requirement is just typical "bullying" on Trump's part. It provides him with an excuse to try to use legal tactics to delay your suit until you either die or give up because it would cost too much to win. After all, he does have a record of using such tactics.
I also see there is some controversy regarding the fact that "some" people wish to rename military installations which had been named for Confederate generals. Apparently in response to this Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., wants to rename ALL military bases for Medal of Honor recipients because just changing those named for Confederate generals "picks on the South unfairly."
While I have no problem with naming bases for Medal of Honor winners, perhaps someone should point out to Sen. Kennedy that the Constitution (in Article III, Section 3) states, “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”1 This would appear to make it quite clear that these generals committed treason. After all, leading troops against Federal forces would appear to be "..levying War against" the United States. Somehow, it only seems reasonable that they shouldn't be rewarded by naming US military bases after them. Or is that too subtle a concept for him to understand? 1Excerpt From: United States. “The Constitution of the United States of America.” iBooks. https://books.apple.com/us/book/the-constitution-of-the-united-states-of-america/id985765595
Perhaps we should name a base in honor of General Benedict Arnold, that outstanding Revolutionary War general from Connecticut who joined the British Army and led soldiers against the very troops which he had previously commanded for the rebellious colonials of George Washington? Should we have a Fort Benedict Arnold located in, say, Louisiana? Would that make Sen. Kennedy happy?
I'm very fond of the cartoon Non Sequitur, but I rarely post the Sunday strips, because they are pretty big. I couldn't resist this one, however.
I also see there is some controversy regarding the fact that "some" people wish to rename military installations which had been named for Confederate generals. Apparently in response to this Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., wants to rename ALL military bases for Medal of Honor recipients because just changing those named for Confederate generals "picks on the South unfairly."
While I have no problem with naming bases for Medal of Honor winners, perhaps someone should point out to Sen. Kennedy that the Constitution (in Article III, Section 3) states, “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”1 This would appear to make it quite clear that these generals committed treason. After all, leading troops against Federal forces would appear to be "..levying War against" the United States. Somehow, it only seems reasonable that they shouldn't be rewarded by naming US military bases after them. Or is that too subtle a concept for him to understand? 1Excerpt From: United States. “The Constitution of the United States of America.” iBooks. https://books.apple.com/us/book/the-constitution-of-the-united-states-of-america/id985765595
Perhaps we should name a base in honor of General Benedict Arnold, that outstanding Revolutionary War general from Connecticut who joined the British Army and led soldiers against the very troops which he had previously commanded for the rebellious colonials of George Washington? Should we have a Fort Benedict Arnold located in, say, Louisiana? Would that make Sen. Kennedy happy?
I'm very fond of the cartoon Non Sequitur, but I rarely post the Sunday strips, because they are pretty big. I couldn't resist this one, however.
I suppose that now is the time to admit that reading has been my main method of dealing with the COVID lockdown. I HAVE been out a few times, but they have been rare and almost exclusively to go to medical appointments, etc. After all, there's more than COVID that can affect one's health.
On the other hand, I've also been watching too much news, and given what's being reported, that's probably not good for us (me, anyway). Still, I have mixed emotions about this Pearls Before Swine strip.
On the other hand, I've also been watching too much news, and given what's being reported, that's probably not good for us (me, anyway). Still, I have mixed emotions about this Pearls Before Swine strip.
This son of a librarian isn't sure whether he should laugh, or cry at that.
Oh, well, that's probably enough for now. If there are things which you have noticed which have made you go "hmmmmmm," I'd love it if you'd send them to me.
I'll be back in a couple of weeks. In the meantime,
LLAP,
Dr. B
Oh, well, that's probably enough for now. If there are things which you have noticed which have made you go "hmmmmmm," I'd love it if you'd send them to me.
I'll be back in a couple of weeks. In the meantime,
LLAP,
Dr. B
RSS Feed