Medical & Science
So, I’m watching random YouTube videos the other day when I see a TV opening video…I get to a list of several TV intros from different years. In 1988 and 1989, there was a series on Fox called BEYOND TOMORROW. From what I can recall, and what little I saw of the opening of the show, it’s a newsmagazine style series focusing on new technology and advances in science.
I vaguely remember the theme song…it’s fantastic stuff. The shots in the opening are pretty funny- an old word processor, a robotic hand moving a chess piece, plastic strands of DNA, satellites spinning…all stuff of the future. How far we’ve come since 1989, huh?
Check out the intro here on this video- it starts about 5:28 into this compilation of shows from 1988…
For some reason, the music gets to me. It’s one of those songs that takes me immediately back to when I was 12 years ago…not even yet in high school, watching this show. I don’t remember a thing about it, but I recall the music and I know I watched the series on several different occasions.
If you have any episodes of the show or any video at all of it, send me an email (josh thebluesite.com) and I will try to post some of it here. Good memories.
To celebrate the season 1 finale of Royal Pains, The Blue Site will be having a one day contest. This will end at 12:01 AM CT Friday (Thursday night)…one winner will win a Royal Pains prize pack as seen below!
Royal Pains, the biggest hit of the summer, wraps up season one Thursday, August 27th at 10/9c. Hank treats a woman suffering from hallucinations, Divya and Raj fret over their engagement party, and Jill’s feelings for Hank come in question. Join other fans on Facebook, Twitter, and on the Official Website.
Enter To Win*:
Royal Pains Branded Playing Cards
Royal Pains Branded Band-Aids
Royal Pains Inner Tube
Royal Pains Rattan Beach Mat
Royal Pains Travel Scrabble Game
To enter, simply comment below and tell me who your favorite Royal Pains character is. I will choose a winner at 12:01am Friday morning (central time, at which time I will close comments) and notify that person that they have won…the prize pack should go out tomorrow! Good luck, and don’t miss the season finale tonight on USA!
The first season of the hit USA Network series, Royal Pains, comes to an end this Thursday. Check out the finale teaser below:
SEASON FINALE of Royal Pains on USA Network – …
Uploaded by USANetwork – Full seasons and entire episodes online.
Don’t miss the exciting finale, Thursday USA Network, 10PM/9C.
Exit question. Who’s your favorite Royal Pains character?
The Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano said Obama’s speech at the leading Catholic university on Sunday confirmed what he had said at a recent news conference — that signing the so-called Freedom of Choice Act in the U.S. Congress wasn’t his highest legislative priority. The bill would protect a woman’s right to have a child or end a pregnancy…
The article didn’t mention the protest by dozens of U.S. Catholic bishops who denounced Notre Dame for honoring Obama because his abortion rights record clashes with fundamental church teaching.
God, the catholic church is full of ninnies. Forget all that Bible stuff, we’ll ignore core Christian values like the sanctity of life and such. These people are out of their minds. Like others have noted- if the vatican won’t stand up for a group of bishops trying to protect life, who will they stand up for, and what issue WILL they take a truly christian stand on?
Ol’ Benedict and his gang need to get their heads out of their collective asses and get real. Then again, it’s not like this is a big issue or anything, it’s just the slaughter of millions of babies because some idiot women just can’t be bothered with taking responsibility for their own actions. Selfishness is awesome, ain’t it?
“Whew, my life won’t be bothered…but you, you’re tossed into a garbage can like tonight’s table scraps! Sorry little guy, that shit’s just cramping my style!”
Barack Obama- the one thing people often say about him, seeminly more than anything else, is that he’s a mystery. You never know where he truly stands on many issues. He seems to take the position that stands to gain him more power in his very very short pursuit of the highest office in the land. This is why people from both sides of the aisle sometimes say they like him- it’s so easy to project onto him your own personal views, mainly because he’s seemingly so wishy washy on his own views, and he often refuses to take a firm stance on much of anything.
We do, however, know where Obama stands on abortion. He is radically pro-abortion, despite his insistence that we have fewer of them. In his time in the IL State Senate, we know he voted “present” several times on state bills to help infants born alive after botched abortions. Infanticide is a very radical stance, even among most liberals, but Obama had no problem, again refusing to take a firm stance with a vote. We know that his first couple of acts as president reversed federal rules in place to limit abortions and the use of stem cell lines. Thanks to Obama, your tax money goes to fund abortions overseas now, a rule put into place under George W Bush.
Obama’s radical stance on abortion is why he should have rejected Notre Dame’s offer for him to be their commencement speaker. Notre Dame is arguably the most important Catholic institution in the West. It’s a sacred place for the Catholic Church, and with Obama’s background on abortion, he should have had the decency to politely decline the offer to speak. His address to the students was a slap in the face to Catholics across the nation. Notre Dame’s administration should also be ashamed for its actions in this whole ordeal. Honoring a man whose views contradict basic Catholic teachings with an honorary degree from the nation’s premiere Catholic institution is a disgrace. It shows that some among the university’s administration easily toss basic doctrinal issues aside. One has to wonder what other core beliefs Notre Dame will ignore for political points?
The fact that many of the students chanted, “yes we can” is, in itself, a disgrace to the university as well. Apparently, young people are out to prove the stereotype- to hell with rules, I’ll make them up as I go along. Forget what the Bible teaches, we can ignore the parts we don’t like as long as it makes us feel good. This do-whatever attitude is at the root of our nation’s moral breakdown. Embracing a president whose values completely contradict the very basic values that all life is sacred will, no doubt, lead to the downfall of Notre Dame as a premiere Catholic institution, and as well it should. When even many of the administrators toss aside doctrine on a whim, you know there are serious foundational problems. Obama should have had the decency to thank Notre Dame for its offer and politely said, “no.” Unfortunately, that’s just not the kind of man our new president is.
Stupid of the day. The FDA has sent a warning letter to General Mills, saying that the claims that Cheerios can lower cholesterol by 10 points in a month makes the food a drug, and no drugs can be sold without the proper FDA drug application. They have given the company 15 days to explain how it will change the advertising.
They’re not disputing the claims that it helps lower cholesterol (the science seems to be on Cheerios’ side), but it’s all about making health claims. A food product maker is apparently not allowed to make truthful claims about its products!
This is what happens when government gets so big and so powerful, you get career idiots in there, living off of large sums of taxpayer dollars in posh offices, totally clueless as to how the real world works. This is why we fight for smaller government. It makes people go mad when they have too much power. This is the sort of thing you hear and you just have to ask yourself, “what on earth are these fools thinking?”
So, The California Supreme Court has 3 possibly sane justices and 4 bat shit crazy justices. In their infinite wisdom, they decided it’s now legal for people to sue those who come to their aid in an emergency. The ruling is the result of a suit brought by the world’s biggest idiot (and possibly the devil in human form), Alexandra Van Horn who sued her friend after they were both involved in a high speed car accident. The friend says she thought she saw smoke and had a feeling the car would catch fire. So, she pulled Van Horn from the vehicle. Van Horn’s (scumbag) lawyers argue that the friend yanked Van Horn out of the car like a rag doll. Van Horn is now paralyzed– from all the information I could find, she’s probably in this state because of the crash itself, but of course her whores for attorneys want the dough, and they argue the friend caused the paralysis.
Let’s hope karma is real…here’s hoping the next crash Van Horn is in causes serious injury, someone hears about the case and decides not to help her for fear that this bitch will sue them like the piece of shit she is, the car explodes and she burns to a crisp. I’m sorry, but wouldn’t that be the ultimate irony?
Van Horn– perhaps you need to look into acquiring a life? And maybe a soul while you’re at it?
CA Supreme Court– maybe you idiots can get your heads out of your asses with inane legal rulings like this? As if your state isn’t enough of a national embarassment already, you go and pull shit like this.
This world is going to hell in a handbasket in a hurry.
This link here shows us why lawyers cannot be trusted, and why most of them need to be taken out back behind the shed and put down like ol yeller. How these dirtballs sleep at night is a mystery.
UPDATE: I found more information on this story, and it seems it was two cars. Van Horn in one and the friend in the second car. 4 co-workers…they went back to one of their houses to smoke pot on Halloween then went out to a bar. I take it back– I hope they all die for being so f’ing stupid. Here’s a question– were the drivers arrested for driving while intoxicated? Are young people (and people in general) really this stupid? If there’s one thing I truly despise, it’s a pot smoker. Dear Lord, it’s scary to be surrounded by idiots on all sides.
Katie Couric, in the interview segment with Sarah Palin that aired tonight, asked her about her stand on abortion. She posed the question “if a 15 year old is raped by her father, you believe it should be illegal for her to get an abortion…why?”
On the face of it, it’s a horrific thought alone, and you sort of have to take a second. But then you remember why you’re pro-life to begin with. You think it’s barbaric to kill soon-to-be-born children for any reason. Why? Well, isn’t a child born of a rape of incest still a child to be loved and protected, respected and given the chance at life? Would you make a child born of a rape sit in the corner, refuse to love it, abuse it perhaps? Of course not. You’d show it as much love as any other child. So, why should we turn to the culture of death, ending a life unlived because of a horrific incident? Why is the baby punished?
One could argue the mother is being punished by having to carry to term a baby that is a reminder of the rape or incest. So, we offer adoption maybe. Does the “punishment” of carrying a life to term outweight the right to life that is guaranteed in the Constitution? Of course, the pro-abortion crowd’s only argument there has to be that an unborn child isn’t a person yet, as every person is guaranteed a right to life by the Constitution. Obfuscation is the name of the game there, so any argument related to it is worthless when someone willfully ignores a clear definition (that being “life”).
I don’t see any reason to draw a line there. A child is a child. We would hope to love each child the same. The situation is unfortunate and worse than that…but should the horrific nature of the situation be enough to allow us to end an innocent life?
Here is some of the most ridiculous stuff:
And as for religion, I’d love to know precisely how the Good Lord conveyed to her so clearly his intention to destroy the environment (global warming, she thinks, is not the work of human hands, so it must be the work of You Know Who), the lives of untold thousands of soldiers and innocent bystanders (He is apparently rooting for this, too, she says), and, incidentally, a lot of polar bears and wolves, not to mention all the people who will be shot with the guns that she thinks other people ought to have. An even wider and more sinister will to impose her religious views on other people surfaced in her determination to legislate against abortion even in cases of rape and in her attempts to ban books, including books on evolution, and to fire the librarian who stood against her.
I will be tossing Newsweek and The Washington Post aside for magazines and newspapers that hire sane writers to editorialize the issues of the day.
They also clearly see no value in fact-based writing, as FactCheck.org blasted the bogus claims of Palin banning books. I guess this blowhard Doniger was too busy proclaiming Palin not a woman for not supporting the murder of babies (feminist monsters think that if you want to save soon-to-be-born babies you’re not a true woman) to check her facts…
She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a “What if?” question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin’s first term.
I will fisk completely later on…
The Washington Post has an article today regarding an evolutionary psychology explanation as to why Amerians are usually more interested in “fluff” rather than “substance.”
As they set up the scenario:
Scandal A: A prominent politician gets caught sleeping with a campaign aide and plunges himself into an ugly paternity dispute — all while his cancer-stricken wife is fighting for her life.
Scandal B: A prominent politician’s signature health-care plan turns out to have been put together badly, and he is forced to confess that the plan will cost taxpayers billions more than expected.
It’s a no-brainer which scandal is likely to catch — and keep — our attention. The interesting question as the presidential election heads into the homestretch is why we care more about some stories that do not affect us directly, even as we tune out other stories that do.
That’s interesting, except it doesn’t hold true at all. Scenario A is considered fluff and something that doesn’t affect us personally, while B is considered substance. They are both clearly substantive issues. It definitely affects us personally in what sort of person John Edwards is. His character clearly plays a pivotal role in sort of overall leader he is, the decisions he would make, etc. If he’d so easily cheat on his cancer-stricken wife, imagine what sort of decisions he’d make in the highest office in the land!
One explanation is that cultural mores attune us to certain stories — we live in an era where gossipy scandals rule. To test this, psychologist Hank Davis at the University of Guelph in Ontario examined hundreds of sensational stories on the front pages of newspapers in eight countries over a 300-year period, from 1701 to 2001.
Remarkably, he concluded that the themes of sensational news were identical not only across the centuries but also in diverse geographic locales — from the United States to Bangladesh, from Canada to Mauritius. The stories that editors put on the front pages of newspapers — presumably stories that interested readers — included headlines such as “Crocodiles Tear Apart Thai Suicide Woman.”
The stories were sometimes about important things and sometimes not, but they nearly always involved the kind of themes that people who are part of small groups like to know about one another: lying and cheating, altruism and heroism, loyalty and disloyalty.
Davis and other evolutionary psychologists argue that the reason John Edwards‘s adultery has more zing in our heads than a dry policy dispute that could cost taxpayers billions of dollars is that the human brain evolved in a period where there were significant survival advantages to finding out the secrets of others. Since humans lived in small groups, the things you learned about other people’s character could tell you whom to trust when you were in a tight spot.
“We are continuing to navigate through the modern world with a Stone Age mind,” Davis said.
In the Pleistocene era, he added, there was no survival value in being able to decipher a health-care initiative, but there was significant value in information about “who needs a favor, who is in a position to offer one, who is trustworthy, who is a liar, who is available sexually, who is under the protection of a jealous partner, who is likely to abandon a family, who poses a threat to us.”
Bologna. This theory assumes that the reason we’d rather discuss Edwards and his issue is because we love gossip and the stupid human brain hasn’t evolved to discuss important issues. That assumption seems completely wrong. I think the more likely assumption would be that people tend to discuss issues they can more easily understand, easily relate to others, and that are similar to things that have happened in their own lives.
Clearly, health care plans are massive, complicated, hard to understand, and hard to relate to others. This is almost definitely the reason that people would rather discuss Edwards cheating on his wife, as opposed to a complicated health care plan that is so obtuse that even those who originally put it together it don’t fully understand it. As for infidelity, it’s something most of us have had some contact with on some level. How many of us have created a health care plan for the nation? How many of us could even follow a health care plan that someone else created?
This theory also assumes that the human brain is relatively simple in the sense that it’s built to deal with problems that only arose 100, 000 years ago. Who says the human brain hasn’t changed since then? If this is true, and it has not changed since then, why would ANY of us create health care plans, let alone discuss, or want to discuss, them? Are those who find health care plans fascinating less evolved or more evolved than the rest of us?
I think both scenarios above are full of substance, and neither are fluff. Character is important even if we never come into contact with the president personally. Why they think that because we’ll never meet the president in person that character is somehow unimportant, I’ve no idea…it doesn’t stand to reason though. Character is vital either way. John Kerry’s activities in Vietnam aren’t fluff, they played a key role in how we thought he would make decisions, how he worked with others, and if he was trustworthy or not- not only on a personal level one-on-one, but to all of us who would need to trust him as our leader in tough times.
Darwinism can explain everything, it seems. It just seems the explanations make no sense at all.