So, I created this thread to share 'Oh My's"... No one subject, but a cornucopia of subjects that got you to stop and say, Oh My! or "What The Hell" or did I hear correctly?
I will kick it off by sharing the legalization of human composting. Yes, you heard correctly.
California Has Legalized Human Composting
By 2027, Golden State residents will have the choice to turn their bodies into nutrient-rich compost
"California has joined a growing number of states that allow residents to compost their bodies after death. A new law, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sunday, directs California officials to develop regulations for the practice known as natural organic reduction by 2027.
Washington became the first state in the nation to legalize human composting in 2019, followed by Colorado and Oregon in 2021. Vermont legalized the practice in June 2022.
Human composting typically involves putting a body into a steel vessel, then covering it with organic materials like straw, wood chips and alfalfa. Microbes break down the corpse and the plant matter, transforming the various components into nutrient-rich soil in roughly 30 days. Staffers at special human composting funeral homes then remove the compost from the vessel and allow it to cure for two to six weeks. Family members can then use the human compost like any other type of compost, such as by mixing it into a flower bed, or they can donate it to be spread in conservation areas."
"Each body produces about one cubic yard of compost, according to Recompose, a funeral home that specializes in human composting headquartered in Seattle. The soil “returns the nutrients from our bodies to the natural world” and “restores forests, sequesters carbon and nourishes new life,” per the Recompose website.
“Natural organic reduction is safe and sustainable, allowing our bodies to return to the land after we die,” says Katrina Spade, Recompose’s CEO, in a statement, as reported by the Sacramento Bee’s Stephen Hobbs.
Advocates tout human composting as a more environmentally friendly alternative to cremation, which accounts for more than half of all body dispositions in the United States and is expected to become even more popular over the next few years, according to the Cremation Association of North America.
By some estimates, the cremation process—which involves burning, dissolving or otherwise processing human remains into ashes and bone fragments—releases an average of 534.6 pounds of carbon dioxide into the air per body, which translates to about 360,000 metric tons of this greenhouse gas emitted in the U.S. each year, per National Geographic’s Becky Little.
Burials, too, can be harmful to the environment, as the chemicals used to embalm a body can leach out into the soil. As Molly Taft reports for Gizmodo, about 5.3 million gallons of fluids like formaldehyde, methanol and ethanol are buried each year. Caskets and burial vaults are also resource-intensive, requiring 30 million board feet of wood and nearly 2 million tons of concrete, steel and other materials yearly, per Tech Insider’s Julia Calderone."
“Wildfires, extreme drought, record heat waves remind us that climate change is real and we must do everything we can to reduce methane and CO2 emissions,” Cristina Garcia, the California lawmaker who drafted the Golden State’s human composting bill, tweeted on Monday.
Still, not everyone loves the idea of turning their loved ones into dirt. The California Catholic Conference opposed the bill, writing in a June letter that human composting “reduces the human body to simply a disposable commodity,” as reported by Catholic News Agency’s Jonah McKeown.
In New York, where a human composting bill has been proposed, the New York State Catholic Conference expressed similar opposition, writing that the process fails to “protect and preserve basic human dignity and respect.
“We believe there are a great many New Yorkers who would be uncomfortable at best with this proposed composting/fertilizing method, which is more appropriate for vegetable trimmings and eggshells than for human bodies,” per the organization."
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-ne … by%202027.
Now You Can Compost Human Bodies Too
https://contentdev.sierraclub.org/sierr … bodies-too
Sounds like a productive idea. I'd go for it.
GA
Good to hear. I was hoping that others here on HP's would share an Oh My. I was just kicking the thread off with my, Oh my of the day. At any rate thanks for sharing.
"So, I created this thread to share 'Oh My's"... No one subject, but a cornucopia of subjects that got you to stop and say, Oh My! or "What The Hell" or did I hear correctly? "
I thought of your thread when I read this.
https://hubpages.com/relationships/Solo … rry-Myself
Oh my.
OH MY ! Now, this is a great example of an oh my...
Sologamy on TV
"Have you ever thought of marrying yourself? Sologamy (marrying yourself) is being practiced all around the world. It’s a true celebration that includes the engagement ring (most sologamists are women), a white wedding gown, flowers, bridesmaids, a wedding band, guests, a banquet, wedding cake, and an officiant. Sologamy isn’t illegal, and neither is it legally binding. No contract is signed, and one can be a sologamist whether one chooses to remain single for life, has a partner, or gets married in the future."
I mean it would certainly be a great way to have a huge bash. Hey, not sure how fun of a honeymoon one would have... But, then again a solo honeymoon might be tons of fun.
It doesn't have to be "solo." Since they are married to themselves it wouldn't be adultery or an affair. They could have a wild sex orgy for a honeymoon and still be faithful. Unless being 'faithful' when you are married to yourself means you can only satisfy yourself . . .
GA
I don't think that I have anything to top this. It all sounds sort of ghoulish to me.
The Temptation's 70s song BALL OF CONFUSION comes to mind. Also KOOL AND THE GANG song WHO'S GONNA TAKE THE WEIGHT comes to mind. Well, I am watching the world discombobulating bit by bit. It isn't pretty at all, in fact, it is hellish in scope & I am not even religious in the traditional sense but a New Ager. Neptune is in Pisces & everything is coming out of the woodwork so to speak. There is going to be a thorough cleansing of the universe. where hopefully sanity & enlightenment will reign supreme.
Hey, I thought about the same song... Where the hell do we all end up? Like all respect for anything is now gone out the window. Could you really imagine going to pick up your loved one in compost form? Someone that you cherished now ground to be mixed with other garden soil --- horseshit..
I found it ghoulish too. I mean could it turn into a money-making business selling the homeless and unclaimed bodies compost per pound, due to an easy way for cities to cut down costs of disposing of the unclaimed? (being sarcastic here)
I could not imagine doing this to a loved one. Hey, different mindsets are what make the world go around. I sure and the hell would not want to end up rotting in compost. Times are changing my friend.
The future may mean that the rituals we have regarding death and the reverence we have over the dear departed ones may have to disappear as space is at a premium and graveyards take up a lot of space.
I would want to be cryogenically frozen and revived centuries hence, where a Dr. Crusher can revive me and cure me of the deleterious effects of geriatricism that put me there in the first place, but alas, that seems a bit far fetched.
Benjamin Franklin, a futurist, had mentioned a desire to be preserved in a cask of Madeira and revived a century into the future from his standpoint to observe progress in science and technology.
Death is the universe's only true constant and is the biggest hassle.
I intend to be cremated. This has inspired yet another thread.
If I could maintain my health, yes, I would want to live forever.
But again, there is the Twilight Zone Story, "Long Live Walter Jameson" that cast doubts over the desirability of eternal life...
"Forever" is a long time. How many times would you want to repeat an experience before it becomes blase? A thousand? 10 thousand?
There are an Infinite amount of experiences which I have not had the opportunity to avail myself of as of yet. Life is short and by the the time you finally figure out what's going on, it is time to check out. Like you say, forever is a long time but I wouldn't mind attempting to bridge that gap between our current life span and forever.
As there are not an infinite number of atoms in the universe there is not an infinite number of experiences. Where did you get that idea?
If you build a house on every square foot of space on earth, and live in each one for a thousand years, then do the same for Mars, Venus and every other planet in the system, then repeat it for every planet in our galaxy...if you do that you have just sent the nerve impulse to lift your foot in the first step of your journey to infinity. Or at least that's a reasonable comparison given the limitations of the human mind.
Yet you think that there are enough, varied, experiences to keep you occupied for even that first step. I disagree.
Well there are a hell of a lot more life experiences available than can be accommodated within my relatively puny life span, that is for sure.
----------
"As there are not an infinite number of atoms in the universe there is not an infinite number of experiences."
But can you live long enough to even attempt to count them?
-------
Well, we agree to disagree, the sun will supernova in 5 billion years. Between now and then as an immortal, I have the time to experiment as to just how many experiences there are. And, Who knows, in 5 billion years, I may well figure out how the beat the rap.
Yes, there is finality, yet, I will have plenty of time to determine for myself where that point is. I decide, it is not decided for me by the sheer frailty of my physical body and the capacity of my mind to continue accomodate additional stimulus.
Wait. Your concept of "forever" is only 5 billion years until the sun dies (it won't go supernova, only swell to a red giant and then shrink and slowly go out)? That isn't a pimple on the behind of "forever"!
You are right, the "supernova" will take a bit longer. Regardless, the Earth as we know it will become uninhabitable. In that time, I will have to find an alternate Earth like Exoplanet to replace it. And, it is not like I don't have the time to figure out how.
At 5 billion years, I am just catching my breath.
Meanwhile, my curiosity will span the breadth and depths of the known universe and who can find any number that can define it?
Since the government here does not allow composting, which I would prefer, I have asked for my body to be dumped into an irrigation ditch to feed the caimans and fish, Unfortunately they will not allow this either,
Why does the government feel that it has to interfere?
Would your corpse present any public Heath problems just being dumped in an irrigation ditch, just asking?
Maybe in a heavily populated place like Bangladesh. I live in the Atlantic rain forest though, the exact opposite of high density.
I can remember not being able to bury our cat in the yard due to an ordinance. Now I can use Mom and Dad, and my Husband to grow petunias.
Wow, we sure have evolved ---
It is preferable to throw your body's chemicals into the air to be breathed in by others to using them to raise flowers?
It's all in how you word it, isn't it?
I see what you're saying. But, my first thought, and this is where we wanted to end up?
I truly see how we ended up here, but would I say I am proud of society at this point? No
"I would want to be cryogenically frozen and revived centuries hence, where a Dr. Crusher can revive me and cure me of the deleterious effects of geriatricism that put me there in the first place, but alas, that seems a bit far fetched."
This thought is wonderful, it is positive, and it is envisioning something positive. It is a healthy logical thought.
Composting bodies takes little brainpower, it takes little technology a steel horse trough, and some compost garbage --- weeeeee what a grand invention, what a grand solution.
Hey, we can toss on the abortion clinic refuse.
I meant to comment to you on this, I must have missed it.
My idea is preposterous as there is no proven way to preserve human biological cells beyond the point of death. As with all of our science and medical technology, we really do not know what life is. Even in the 24th century, dead is still dead.
The dead body is just a husk of its former self, an empty container. We just have an endless amount of ceremony and religious dogma to assuage our guilt as still being among the living.
The only thing that you can take with you and share with others was your good reputation.
Not ghoulish but satanic if you ask me. What has this world come to? This has gone WAY TOO FAR. Not even respect for the dead. C'mon now. What next- OMG/OGF- cannibalism of corpses?
You mentioned you have children. Would you choose to let them rot to put in your garden?
I "wont let them rot". Do you know what happens to people you bury, right?
What about burning bodies and get the remains to decor your mantel? I dont need an answer.
Like I said, a great idea. Hopefully it will get more popular.
I would prefer to have my children become a maracujá flower or even a tree in the forest and not just rot 6 feet under, and certainly would not want to see their ashes on my mantelpiece.
We can only hope that our governments allow this everywhere.
Looked about for some 'Oh My's arriving at a few with many I am still pondering.
U.S is twelfth for obesity at 36.2% (Report updated 2020). I thought of this while watching my favorite games shows Let's Make a Deal and the Price is Right.
Global Obesity Levels
https://obesity.procon.org/global-obesity-levels/
The average American will change careers 10 - 15 times in their working career.
20 Eye-Opening Statistics About The State of Career Changes in 2022
https://goremotely.net/blog/career-change-statistics/
On average, Americans drive 14,263 miles per year according to the Federal Highway Administration.
Average miles driven per year in the U.S. (2022) by Zebra using data from the Federal Highway Administration
https://www.thezebra.com/resources/driv … -per-year/
Average monthly money wasted is $139/month.
Study: The Most Wasteful Spending Habits Among Americans (2019) by Ascent
https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/credit- … americans/
Stuck on hold? Average person loses 26 days each year to wasted time by Study Finds (01/22)
https://studyfinds.org/loses-26-days-wasted-time/
Most bought food item is sodas.
List of 100 Top Selling Grocery Items 2022 & Tips (Peek at the list and think about obesity.)
https://businessnes.com/list-of-top-sel … -and-tips/
100 of the Most Popular Fast-Food Items You've Got to Try at Least Once
Here's what everyone else is ordering. by Eat This, Not That.
McDonald's french fries tops the list using 7% of U.S. potato's grown.
https://www.eatthis.com/most-popular-fast-food/
Enjoyed seeing that obesity article. This is one time I am glad to see Brazil falling near the bottom of a list.
That is good news Dr. Mark! Yes, good news about Brazil. Scrolling through the list I pondered while seeking some pattern. I didn't recognize most of those at the worst before the U.S. I thought of diet regard proteins, carbs., fats and calories. And, how we get our food such as here in the U.S. the modern day supermarkets with all the psychological stuff going on with how products are placed.
At the article below I discovered processed foods make up 70% of the American diet. And, spend 10% of their disposal income on fast food. I am guilty of that probably, yet I am a bean pole. What are markets like in Brazil?
5 Hard-to-Swallow Statistics About the Standard American Diet [Infographic] by Standard Process
https://blog.standardprocess.com/5-hard … rican-diet
In my area people eat a lot more whole food, although processed products are becoming increasingly common. Unfortunately everyone now is consuming way too much soda. I grow almost all of my food in my garden but in this regiom some things (like wheat, potatoes, and apples) will not grow and produce.
I did wonder about the dates on those stats. The article said 2020 but it also listed Venezuela up high and the people I know there are starving, (Not the politicians, of course.) I cant imagine being obese in a country where even a dozen eggs costs a months salary.
I like that you grow your own veggies. Growing gardens are being pushed a lot more specific as a community thing with urban community shared ones or trading with each other. With a peek just now I see approximately 80% grow something according to one study. I have a dwarf lime tree using them sparingly and giving them to my favorite Mexican mom and pop place, Jilbertos. We have farmer markets here where I live in the San Diego every weekend.
The 2020 date is an update while the report is by WHO in 2016. How they did it I ponder as it had to be the typical study of a sample size for the populace. I ponder things like how many were urban, suburban, and rural in the sample size.
That makes sense. Things in Venezuela were a lot different 6 years ago. I think the majority now are about as obese as the Vietnamese.
Yes, it is clear we have a real problem with overeating. Ya know, I was just talking about this with an old friend. We shared the memory that when we were young not many were overweight.
Eye-Opening Statistics About The State of Career Changes in 2022 --- Another oddity to me. My generation as a rule seems to enter a job field and stick with it. Many of us put a lot of education into our fields.
Hey, I would guess soda, and fast food is what have produced the high percentage of overweight people in America,
As shared I noticed on those favorite game shows, which one may say is representative of society in general, how many are of least overweight and different ages too. That should be considered the difference between overweight and obese. From what I saw it is kinda' even between male and female.
A quick peek shares about 70 million are obese and 99 million are overweight. And, about 37 million have diabetes Type 2 common with being overweight. Supposedly overweight and obesity costs 173 billion in the health care system. And, about 20% of children 2 - 19 yrs are obese and will be when an adult.
I get a kick seeing a TV commercial where a guy opens the refrigerator and there is a sign that says, "You're bored not hungry".
Great. Love it. I used the ashes of my mother into a lovely flowerbed in my garden. Every time I walk by and see the lovely flowers I think of her.
We die, and isn't it a wonderful idea that your last gift, your body, will be the source of new life?
The Oh My of this week is a positive one.
In Spain they have given a nature reserve the status of legal person. So if anything is done against the nature reserve it will have more severe consequences. It's the first eco system in Europe who is given this status. The same status as people and companies.
So the protection will be more solid. I think this opens the way to give more nature reserves the status of a legal person.
Apparently this is already the case in New Zealand and Ecuador and Colombia.
Some places on earth are so special that they should need the highest legal status as possible like the Great Barrier Reef, Yosemite National Park, and the Amazon to name a few.
The Mar Menor has legal personality
Hey, in America we treat corporations like people so giving nature these protections makes sense to me. It's great to see a respect and reverence for our environment.
Yes, hopefully it becomes an example for other nature reserves too.
This is a wonderful Oh My!... If we don't protect our ecosystemeventually we will not sustain life as we know it. Man is more swiftly killing off the ecosystem. It is much more dangerous than global warming at this point. Not that global warming is not very important. But, our earth, the substance we need to feed to produce our food is in my view very much as important.
killing the ecosystem and global warming are connected.
Food can be produced in many ways. Some more eco friendly than others. The worst eco unfriendly food is the beef and dairy industry. As for beef so much water and food is needed. Thousands of acres of amazon are deforested for the growth of soya that is fed to animals. and tons of liters of water for drinking and cleaning the stables is needed. And the manure and other waste products are weighing havenly on the envirionment.
If we ate all a bit less meat and consumed less dairy products the world would be a much better place.
I have to wonder: if one cow is considered to equal one bison = one caribou = one wildebeast = one elk = one deer = one zebra = one giraffe, etc. etc., what is the net number today relative to 50,000 years ago.
Are our beef really that more numerous, after deducting for the hundreds or thousands of species we've decimated, that what the world supported in the past?
A first response, (with the luxury of ignorance), regarding this concept is that it's nuts. It's dangerous, and it demands a rationalization that is nuts.
A piece of land has the rights of personhood. What rights are they? Are they written, or are they the of the all-encompassing 'basic' human rights?
Can someone sue, as an advocate for a tree, for slander? Or for a bush that suffered the indignity of hate crimes, (a human repeatedly peeing on it)?
Are those silly examples really as silly as they sound? That depends on the legally authorized 'rights' defined for 'personhood.
Would those 'rights' be so hard to compile in simple legislation, without the 'personhood' designation?
The 'end' may be commendable and valuable, but this 'means' is dumb.
GA
The tree has all the rights of a person. The right to potable water and food. The right to housing (must we now build a roof over the entire preserve?). The right to immigrate to another country at will. The right to marry a chosen one (likely another tree, but you never know). The tree has the right to be treated the same as a flower, a mosquito or a rabbit (all in the preserve and all protected with human rights).
You're correct; this is dumb. And dangerous.
Can't the same be said about a company? Still, a company has the same rights as personhood. And a company is even more abstract than a tree.
Give my thought a shot, without the defense of the 'companies' comparison. That's simply a 'you did so it's okay for me to do it' rationalization.
What about just this issue? If my point can be considered without the bias of judgment of the goals, what is the justification for designating a tree to be considered a person, relative to law? Why wouldn't legislative action designed to protect these segments of the environment —as what they are: non-human things, be the 'proper' means to your ends?
GA
The "you did so, so it's okay for me to do it... is not a defence. Or actually it is. As in law, when one case is justified that's more or less the same, the next will be justified as well for the same reasons.
A company is often nothing but a piece of paper, an abstract construct. You could argue that a lake or nature reserve is far more tangible and closer to a person.
So why should a company have any jurisdictional rights in the first place?
We all take it for granted that they have. So it is possible that something that does not exist in real life but only on paper or in the cyber world to have rights.
So why is it so strange to give lakes, woods or animals, rights?
Some animals do have more rights than others, endangered species for example.
To give a tree the same right as a person is less crazy than to give a company the rights of a person in this respect.
To label it " legal status of a person" does not make it a person. It's legal talk. Just as it does not make a company suddenly a person.
And besides, there are a lot of things in nature that needs protection, and the best way to do this is the legal way and not just promises or threads.
Still with the 'company and legality' stuff? We would need years to argue about our different views on this issue.
GA
To be honest GA, legal stuff is beyond me..It's magic.. nobody understands it except for some wizards and than you've got black magic and angels that protect you...
I think nature deserves to be more protected, as we have destroyed to much already in the name of progress. And I don't care how you label these laws as long as they are effective.
I also think nature needs to be protected from us, but the method, (and label), does matter to me.
Why create an opportunity for abuse when none is needed seems applicable to this "personhood" thing.
GA
Everything can be used in a good way or can be abused.
But I don't see much room for abuse. Over-protection? I think with nature we can better protect more than less.
If you don't make strong laws with consequences people will shoot elephants till they are extinct (examples enough...)
The labelling thing, Do you have problems with labelling a company as a legal person too? And if not, why not?
Is it perhaps the deep rooted Christian idea of seeing humans as superior to "animals" and to give them the same rights goes against this fundamental believe of separating the animal kingdom from humans?
(please, don't read this as an accusation, but a thought to explore.)
. . . again with the "company" thing.
As a friendly poke—stick with the topic you introduced, the 'personhood' thing. The 'whataboutism' of your comparison isn't relative to why I think the proclamation and the folks behind it are nuts.
Are the strong laws protecting elephants part of a "personhood" designation, or are they strong laws designated for protecting elephants, (poaching, et al, and such)?
And that "Christian thought . . . that's so loaded that even I won't touch it.
GA
Sorry for the late reply, I hadn't seen it.
The Christian thought of separation of humanity with the rest of nature (I would extend this to Muslim and Jewish thought as well) is indeed pretty loaded, but it's also ingrained into western society and everybody who lives in it (Christian or not)
To give animals the same rights as people is an incredibly profound subject, something that was unthinkable for a long time.
It is probably a loaded subject but I guess those are most thought provoking questions.
Again, I don't see when you can give a company (that's an abstract construct) a personhood as legal protection, why you can't use the same for nature reserves.
I guess we see things differently, that's okay.
Have a nice weekend GA.
No worries about the lateness.
Relative to your thought about animals and humans, I see us as also animals, (not derogatorily so). We may be an evolved animal species, but when our security is stripped away the 'animal' in us quickly appears.
We may be 'special' in our evolutionary path, but that path still originated in the animal kingdom. Once again, the details of what something is doesn't change what it is.
Your "company" point doesn't work for me because I don't agree with that either—as a concept. (I am not familiar with the details of that court finding)
I don't see giving animals, (in the realm of lions and tigers and bears, oh my) the rights of humans as profound, I see it as silly. To be clear, I do believe in the point of it, but not the logic. I may think people are essentially animals but that does not equate to thinking animals are people.
And the "Have a nice weekend." thing . . . I'll have whatever kinda damn weekend I want. ;-)
GA
no, I understand, the company thing doesn't work for me either. But I think if that's what is needed to protect a nature reserve, then I don't care how a rose is named, it smells just as sweet (or stinks..) by any other name.
Law en legal stuff is beyond me.
.
Reminds me of what the Nazis did to concentration camps prisoners bodies after death. One commandant's wife made lamp shades. Other uses were soaps. Women's hair were used as stuffing for pillows etc. Have we become bestial & Nazified? Well, have we?
Ah, oh my...this sounds like humans have no respect for human dignity again. Ah, oh my...have we forget that the human body is made 'after image and likeness of' the Creator? Or am I presumely bringimg religiom into the topic? Oh my...we've become so imaginative and misled ourselves before nature. Are not all the wastes from the kitchen enough for a compost that's more healthly than the human cadevo?
So, pleased to see you say what I wanted to say, and held back. I am a Christian, so I can honestly say I would never consider moving away from respecting one's body after death. I have pure sorrow to see this happening. It certainly says something about society, does it not?
If you believe in a soul, and a soul leaves the physical body after death, what does it matter what happens afterwards to that piece of organic material that was hosting your soul? If you bury it in the ground for the worms to eat (traditional burial) or compost it for the plants to use, it does not affect your soul.
The only reason the tradition of burials and headstones even exists is to give the descendants something to cry over. The dear departed does not care.
No. A proper burial is a time honored tradition that respects the dead and the living.
Burning bodies and dumping the ashes in a river is also a time honored tradition. Why cant becoming a flower be a new tradition?
I doubt if you prefered to be created out of the Indian sub-Cfetinent.
No, I would prefer to become compost and feed the flowers.
Your point is worth a nod.
As mentioned in another thread, morality, (which includes traditions such as this thread), does have borders.
I'm fine with the idea, but I do have one question, (it's rhetorical). What about the bones, does the composting process 'dissolve' the bones as they do our soft organics, (as in speed), or does the final compost need to be screened before bagging?
GA
I think it would need to be screened but have no experience with humans! I compost old sheep if one of my animals dies and no matter how long they are in there the teeth never turn into soil.
"The human composting process breaks down bones and teeth through a combination of microbial and mechanical means. Microbes do the primary work of human composting. By controlling the ratio of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and moisture, human composting creates the perfect environment for microbes and beneficial bacteria to thrive. These microbes are assisted by mechanical steps to help complete the transformation into soil. Recompose staff rotate each Recompose vessel at several points during the process to ensure thorough aeration and decomposition, which helps to break up any remaining bone fragments and teeth. Recompose staff also screen for non-organics such as implants, which are recycled whenever possible. At the end of the composting process, fragments remaining that are larger than one centimeter are processed using the same equipment that is used to process bone in conventional cremation. Soil is tested for safety and screened before it is returned to families or the environment. The final soil may include small bone fragments, which are safe and will continue to break down and return to the environment over time."
psst. I said "rhetorical." You know you failed when you have to explain a joke.
GA
I know. That's why I didnt replied to you.
But the question was interesting though. My plans were to be cremated. Now I want to be composted. LOL
Composting is a process whereby bacteria break down organic material and turn it back into soil. Unless their "mechanical processing" includes grinding the teeth up into powder, the bacteria cannot break them down even if they have years to do so. (Which is why teeth survive in that nasty petri dish of bacteria that we call a mouth,)
Uh, yeah... glad to know you have no experience burning humans. A sheep is one thing... a human is another. Pragmatism is not enough to get us where we need to be..... as decent human beings.
The more somber point, which so-called intellectuals here cannot understand, is that... there is something to be said for treating a dead human like a human.... rather than an animal who has just died.
Do you not think that the burning of your dead child, while you watched on, would not haunt you forevermore? Do you believe the idea that because he or she might one day become a flower or a marijuana plant or a piece of corn for some random stranger.... would actually feel like, or somehow be compensation for your grief? Maybe if you were a sheep.
Grief never dies, by the way. Humans are not sheep or flowers, corn, radishes, or any other thing except humans.
This is what is wrong with the thinking of "intellectuals" here and abroad. Nothing is sacred. Some here think that everything is so damn hilarious. Kill a baby at nine months? Sure. No problem. The list goes on and on regarding all the pragmatic things we can do to debase humanity.
Sure. It's practical... except it isn't in the grand scheme of things. History tells us that.
As someone said, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."
There are plenty of people around who are employed burning humans in your very own neighborhood. I was talking about composting.
Disposing of a sack or organic material has nothing to do with murdering babies. If the soul leaves the body at death that body is no more than a sack of organic material.
Do you not think that putting a child into the ground so that the bacteria could destroy the flesh would not haunt you forever?
I asked someone close to me what they thought, and they didn’t think it was a big deal either. I may have to research the decision further. Thus far, every action Gavin Newsom has taken has gone to hell. So, I wonder what’s in it for him.
As an aside, I was not referring to you as a “so-called intellectual who thinks everything is hilarious.”
Just thought I should keep that record straight.
I had to Google to see if he had any involvement in this but I could not find any, other that he signed the law in California. I cant see anything in it for him but of course I might be wrong.
Hindus did burn their dead. Not good for the environment according to Sharlee's article. There are better ways to plant flowers, in my opinion.
The second sentence referred to composting, The Indians usually throw their ashes in a sacred river, as opposed to people where you live who keep their ashes on the mantle.
Yes, and that into the Gange. It's like the Romans of old. But unlike the Indians, the Romans didn't burn they dead.
Probably back then they werent concerned about the contamination of the water. (From what I have read though the contamination of the Ganges is from chemical spilloffs and not the dead bodies.)
I could not find anything about them tossing the bodies in rivers though. Where did you read this?
Dr.Mark, I've forgot the name of the film. I thlnk I was 13 years old when I watch the historical movie.
All pragmatic points. I think the ashes or the gravesite are more for the living than the dead.
To veer off the subject or perhaps it may be a distant relation to the subject, what about cryogenics. There are some people who upon their deaths intend to freeze their bodies in the hopes of being revised again in the future. What do you all think about cryogenics? Would you like to have your bodies frozen in the hopes of being revised in the future?
Just to share a bit more on obesity for the curious the following link is for obesity ranked by state. Interesting.
US Obesity Levels by State updated 2020
https://obesity.procon.org/us-obesity-levels-by-state/
OH MY!!!!
"The Biden administration announced Wednesday that it is appointing the wife of White House Chief of Staff Ronald Klain to be a special diplomat overseeing international animal and plant habitats.
The State Department appointed Monica Medina as the first-ever U.S. Special Envoy for Biodiversity and Water Resources to solve the world’s intertwined biodiversity and water crises, according to a department media note. Klain’s wife will adopt an “all-of-government effort” to represent the interests of plants and animals abroad because the administration believes that such species are currently threatened by the “climate crisis"
Medina and the department will crack down on “nature crime” such as illegal mining and logging, to promote biodiversity and keep water supplies clean, the department stated. The special envoy will also implement the White House’s water security plan and the Global Water Strategy, initiatives that seek to stop droughts across the globe without increasing greenhouse gas emissions."
BUT PLEASE DON"T WORRY ---- Medina will continue to serve in her current role as the Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs.
Yeah. this will be a second job... Guess the Klains are now on the payroll for three jobs.
Maybe Biden should appoint someone to handle some of the people that are living in the wilds( our streets) right here in America.
What a crock.
It sounds like you are criticizing the nominee and not the creation of the position, or is it both?
Did you check the lady's credentials for the position?
GA
My comment was meant to be purely snarky.
I have never heard of her before, nor had I realized The State Department had created the job of U.S. Special Envoy for Biodiversity and Water Resources to solve the world’s intertwined biodiversity and water crises.
I would think it obvious I was criticizing both. Do you think her credentials were a consideration? And yes I did a bit of checking on her credentials.
Medina received an Army Reserve Officers' Training Corps scholarship in 1979 and earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from Georgetown University. She received her Juris Doctor with honors from Columbia Law School.
In my view, Biden created a fluff fluff freebie job. "U.S. Special Envoy for Biodiversity and Water Resources to solve the world’s intertwined biodiversity and water crises."
My point, is we have many pressing problems, I prefer to spend our fluff money on the homeless, the mentally ill, addiction, foster care, education, and much more.
I chuckled about the job description too. I didn't know there were such positions, but it does make sense when you check the history, (and her history—over 30 years of experience in this field), of it.
Although the position, and the nominee, do seem snark-worthy at first glance, a second thought could see it as just an aspect of a proper delegation that makes sense. I imagine our Secretary of State has a full plate of more important stuff for their time.
GA
My problem with the US paying someone a hundred thousand a year (plus staff, travel expenses, and support, etc) for that type of job is that they never look in their own back yard, just seek to meddle in other business. The US is covered in about a third of forest but a country like England, which has been practicing deforestation since the time of the industrial revolution, is only 10% forest. You can be sure though that instead of going to England she will be coming to Brazil where we have over 60% of our land in forest.
I can see the lure of a partisan attack in the optics of this issue but I don't think it is warranted. I don't know much about the position or its aims but I can see the logic of assigning someone to do it. The person they chose seems very qualified for it.
I don't think this would be the same issue if a Republican had been appointed to the job.
Just for kicks, I bet we could come up with pages of such seemingly silly government positions that aren't really silly at all when examined.
GA
I would hope the Republicans would not waste taxpayers money appointing someone, but now that it exists it is unlikely to go away. Remind me here how badly the US government is running in the red every year? (No, hiring another 64,000 employees at the IRS is not going to make that problem go away.)
"I don't think this would be the same issue if a Republican had been appointed to the job."
I don't think it would be a big deal if the job was given to someone that did not already have a job in the Federal Government, Republican or Democrat.
Again my point is we have women ( the wife of Sec Of State) being appointed bot one but two Government positions, I have found nothing in her formal education related to science. I certainly could have missed something. Although I respect to experience, I do not when it comes to technical science.
Again, I actually feel even if she had an education in the field that the job requires --- It is apparent she is pulling in a paycheck from two Government positions. One position was recently created, and her husband is Secretary of State. This all rubs me the wrong way. Yes, this kind of nepotism is not new in the Federal Government, but it is fair. In my view, it is not.
Thanks for sharing your view, although it seems opposite to my own, it gives room for thought.
I feel this one deserves a great big --- Oh My.
I can see this appointment has hit a political nerve with you. And maybe there are politics involved, but the inferences and implications, (as I took them to be), of your comment are more partisan than the issue warrants—at this point.
The woman seems to be very qualified according to her Wikipedia page, (it seemed believable to me): 30+ years of leadership-level experience in governmental involvement in environmental science issues, both domestically and internationally. I don't see your 'beef' there.
The existence or creation of such jobs can be controversial, and sometimes they deserve the controversy, and most of the time the out-of-power party stokes such controversy, but I guess that most of the time the titles might sound 'attack worthy', but the actual jobs aren't, they are important parts of a government's job—at whatever level an issue is important to. So, I don't see a real beef with the created position, but I didn't check.
That leaves the double-dipping and political connection issues as what bothers you, right?
GA
Is Wikipedia reliable? Is it trustworthy? There's no doubt that the lady's credentials and 30 years experience, made her a force to be recogned with. The political 'beef' is American question.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source and has never been. I have mentioned this before. Wikipedia has editors who claim to be reliable yet they are certainly not in all cases. Their editors are biased. As I explained to Valeant in another forum post, no professor would ever allow a student to use Wikipedia as a source for writing papers... precisely because Wikipedia is not a reliable source for accurate information. (again)
I have personally noted inaccuracies by Wikipedia many times over. On occasion, they get it right, but not always. I only use Wikipedia as a last resort.
I agree. I will use it sometimes to check the chemical structure of a medicine, but if I want any other facts have to look elsewhere.
That's because of certain 'truth' it may contained?
For example, the guy that started 8chan wanted to wage a war against the sites new owners. He called a bunch of reporters that he knew who would buy his conspiracy theories, waited for them to publish, then used their articles as sources for his wikipedia post. Fake news, and it even has "reliable" sources to back it up. When you are able to source your wikipedia post they accept it happily. It happens all the time with political posts, much less with medical and science posts.
This type of sourcing is not reliable becausse, the journalists have not been known to be an expert in a specific field. Contributors to any encyclopedia should be scholars with specialized knowledge. I mostly relied on Britannica offline, due to its indept review, and it's an acknowleged authority. No doubt a review edition is better in a trending times.
It's a matter of who controls the information put there.
The information on Wiki... well let's just say its biased.
The people who manage it have certain agendas.
Then it seems Wikipedia, has no 'editorial committee'?
Wiki is always my last source, just due to the fact, anyone can freely edit the information. And Wiki has a disclaimer that tells you upfront the info may not be accurate due to vandal editors that come in and change any given work.
They encourgae editing.
"Wikipedia is a wiki, meaning anyone can edit nearly any[1] page and improve articles immediately. You do not need to register to do this, and anyone who has edited is known as a Wikipedian or editor. Small edits add up, and every editor can be proud to have made Wikipedia better for all." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Edit … for%20all.
There are many opinions about Wikipedia. Frankly, there are many opinions on any source of information. For consideration take a peek at what Wikipedia's General Disclaimer states then make your own view/opinion.
Wikipedia:General disclaimer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia … disclaimer
For the above notice they place in bold; Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here.
Another source for consideration from Wikipedia is below.
Reliability of Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
There are alternatives like Encyclopedia Britannica. There are skeptics of that too. See links following for info.
Encyclopedia Britannica Online
https://www.britannica.com/
Encyclopedia Britannica submission guidelines
https://corporate.britannica.com/submission.html
My brother sometimes uses Google Scholar which he says is mostly legit.
Journals are best. If the work has lots of citations, it tends to be more credible.
For current news, The Wall Street Journal is as neutral as can be, notwithstanding the opinion pieces. Joe Biden "wrote" a piece there not too long ago, so any side can write an opinion piece.
I spend more time explaining the context of my OP's.
First please revisit my first comment. I give a simple unbiased opening, just adding the facts as I found them. I then added my view.
My view --- BUT PLEASE DON"T WORRY ---- Medina will continue to serve in her current role as the Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs.
Yeah. this will be a second job... Guess the Klains are now on the payroll for three jobs.
Maybe Biden should appoint someone to handle some of the people that are living in the wilds( our streets) right here in America.
What a crock.
I make no mention of this woman's education or lack of... My context implies clearly, and very much sarcastically that the Kleins are living high on Government jobs, A brand new Government created job.
It was you who quickly brought education into the equation. I responded with what little I know about her formal education. I did not go in any respect after her abilities in my opening statement. And could care very little about her experience.
I have no problem with the creation of the position, just that it was given to a woman that is already has a job with our Federal Government, and her husband holds a high office in our Government.
It's very clear our mindsets on this one are far apart. I will just ask you to read the progression of this conversation. And start with my hoping comment, My context clearly shows what I have a problem with. It is not her education or the creation of the position. I have a problem with nepotism.
So it would seem I will agree to disagree. To each their own.
"I have a problem with nepotism."
LOL
Now, I guess.
Yeah, in this case, this ass clown doubled down. Can't stand greedy.
This happens and has happened throughout various administrations. Need I mention Jared and Ivanka? Jared proved himself to be a worse businessman than Mr Trump actually with his 666 building deal.
Neither took salaries. In regard to Jared, and Ivanka not sure I am up for offering lists from prior administrations. However, yes nepotism happens in most administrations. Don't think I have seen an example of one doubling down, taking to Federal positions. but I have not looked. Perhaps this is common.
Some may not be reading my comments. I certainly did not indicate nepotism is something only Democrat administrations practice. Oh well... Seems some are reading in a context that is not presented in my original comment.
Back to Trump I see.
I was taught that two wrongs do not make a right.
If someone in the last administration did something wrong it does not justify the new administration doing wrong.
That's the whole truth. right the wrong done. and the country moves forward. thank goodness...Trump tried that.
Oh my... God, old joe biden a crook? God save America!
"Even HuffPost reporter Alexander Kaufman pointed out how President Biden has appointed a diplomat for plants and animals "while the U.S. still has no ambassador to *Brazil and Italy,* countries that, uhhhh, have a lot going on these days."
Is Medina still the editor of Our Daily Planet? That’s telling. Either way, she fits into Biden’s climate agenda. As for Klain, he has been in politics with Biden for the long run and is a continuation of the Obama presidency. I’m less concerned with nepotism than I am with how the Biden policies (with Medina & company) are hurting the poor, not just in this nation but in mostly poor nations.
He simply was hell-bent to abandoned energy security to pursue a radical climate agenda and spent trillions on this sure-to-fail policy. Leaving us dependent on other nations to supply energy. This alone will hurt the poorest of our population. He is a radical man, being led around by a radical party, and they seek pure power.
His failed economic policies have left the country vulnerable to economic warfare. As events of recent years from the COVID-19 pandemic to the ongoing war in Ukraine have shown, economic security is national security. Due to such a global economy, he has set us up for great power struggles that will be decided in financial markets or trade wars.
In less than two years Bidens, failed Democrat economic policies have led to record high inflation and falling real wages. With just about everything costing more again yes, it is the poor that have suffered the worst under Biden.
He ignores crime and leaves the inner city poor to deal with as best they
can. He cares nothing about the poor, he cares only about a green agenda and shoving it down Ameican's throats.
If all goes well this Nov, we will be able to send Biden back to his basement, and in 2024 -- cancel out all he has done, that has been so detrimental to America.
I hear your passion. Ideologues in power could care less about the poor. Those who trust such people are not aware of the stark realities of impoverished nations that will be profoundly hurt by extreme policies. Already, Germany is in trouble... They are bracing for a cold winter...
There is so much disinformation out there. I will only say this for now... if we were to go to zero fossil fuels until 2100, we would only reduce the temperature by .33 degrees. We can do so much better in much cheaper ways... ways that will not destroy our GDP and will allow other nations to become wealthier and thus, much safer in the winter and summertime.
I think we are kidding ourselves to think we could supply our energy needs with wind and solar. The manufacturing of both causes unbelievable pollution. We will poison the earth we derive our food from. It always shocks me to hear about global warming as the worse possible threat to earth. One only needs to read a bit about the manufacturing of Solar panels and wind turbines. The waste we have no way to get rid of safely.
It all sounds so good until one really does research into making panels and turbines. And the batteries that are out and need to be
disposed of.
My god they don't think using plastic straws is wise --- what the hell will they do with all the leftover chemicals and batteries that will need to be disposed of?
https://palmetto.com/learning-center/bl … -batteries
Recycling hasn't much impact on the environment unless we recycle cans. That being said, I only use washable straws.
On another note, if solar power works, we would have seen it by now. Unless the sun is shining constantly, and every day is windy in all nations throughout the world, the most we can do is power one lamp and a cell phone each night in our individual homes.
We can do so much better than that through cheaper and common sense innovation, but most companies will turn a blind eye, knowing they can make a lot of money due to uninformed voters who are easily deceived. After all, this administration has its back.
Something noteworthy: Poor people are 14 times more likely to die from cold deaths than heat deaths. We have cheap, clean, energy-efficient fuel to service the world. We must use it to help the poor.
There are ways to make our planet cooler in ways that will not entail harming our most vulnerable people. This is what ideologues do not understand.
You do realize that supplies of fossil fuels are not infinite, right? Or is that just someone else's problem to deal with?
No one here has said fossil fuels are “infinite” although we can easily supply the world with both heating and cooling for a century and beyond without having to worry about climate change. The point is that limiting clean, cheap fuel immediately is bad for poor nations, and even our nation. There is no value in bringing down the GDP of any nation.
This is where innovation comes in. Many smart people have already come up with feasible plans to offset global warming within a century, decades, and even now…
We are not going to die of global warming in 12 years, although the poor who are deprived of air conditioning and heating will suffer and die if they have no fuel. That is not okay with me, nor should it be for any decent person.
Just watch what is happening in Germany (and the UK) We do not want to go down that road. Virtue signaling is worthless unless it helps the poor.
Based on the increase in consumption as well as reserves, the conclusion is that current trends suggest that all fossil fuels (oil, gas and coal) could be depleted within decades, possibly as early as 2060.
But we'll all be dead so who cares right?
Apparently, you did not understand what I said. This obsession with being dead is not healthy or accurate in any way & has nothing to do with anything I stated. This is why it is usually best to ignore questions by entrenched liberals who claim they are not liberals. Another waste of my time.
I was talking about the poor and facts pertaining to them given current, harmful policies. I am sorry you cannot understand. Bad on me for thinking some, who seem to seek clarification, may actually want to understand a reasonable & alternative view.
Yuck. You seem to be a really nasty person. Apparently you did not comprehend anything that I said. You can't Converse in a civil manner with someone you feel isn't a member of your tribe?? You're really sarcastic and condescending and overall rude to those who you feel aren't on your team. Pretty narrow minded.
Neither is sustainable healthy soil --- which feeds us... So if one can't feed one's self, they will have no need for a cool planet --- they will die of starvation., cancer, and many more diseases than manufacturing batteries, solar panels, and wind turbines. Not to mention chips.
We will be killing trees to set up our solar fields, and turbine fields, and killing our very ecosystem. Science can be a bitch when it comes to
facts, and getting in the way of a liberal new cause.
We should be planting more trees instead of cutting them down.
If ones want longevity better worry about pollution of soil and water.
There probably is a role for strict regulation, government oversight of these companies.
"Solar panels and other electronic devices contain a number of harmful chemicals that are not easy to dispose of.
Over the last few years, solar manufacturers have made steps to reduce or completely eliminate the usage of toxic pollutants in the manufacturing process. The Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC) ranks solar manufacturers on their efforts to develop cleaner solar panels. In 2018-19, SVTC identified ten manufactures that lead the solar industry in clean manufacturing, and six additional companies that are considered above average when it comes to non-pollutant processes.
SEIA is leading the effort to set up a network of solar recycling centers throughout the nation. Participating vendors recycle solar components in a safe, sustainable manner, so that toxic chemicals do not end up in the landfill, and useful materials are recovered for reuse. These materials include glass, aluminum, copper, silver, and semiconductors. In fact, solar panels contain significant amounts of glass and aluminum, both of which are easy-to-recycle materials. "
Energy companies can improve their process for sure and I think that there are also other forms of renewable energy that are on the horizon but wind and solar are talked about most. It would seem that solar can be handled in a responsible manner.
As far as wind turbines, I think most of those are placed in plains areas that are already flat.
In any event, the world needs to find alternate ways to power itself before fossil fuels run dry.
https://ilumsolar.com/how-the-solar-pan … 20process.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe … d71a7e121c
"3. Manufacture of solar panels
The solar industry, like other electronic industries, relies on many well-known toxic chemicals. For solar, these include arsenic, cadmium telluride, gallium arsenide, hexafluoroethane, hydrofluoric acid, lead, and polyvinyl fluoride, putting frontline workers and communities at risk to toxic chemical exposure. These risks include:
Exposure to silicon dust as well as dust from copper, indium, gallium and selenium, all of which may pose inhalation hazards for workers
Exposure to cadmium, which is considered “extremely toxic” by the Environmental Protection Agency and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), potentially causing kidney, liver, bone, and blood damage
Exposure to selenium dioxide, which is a tissue poison like arsenic"
"As far as wind turbines, I think most of those are placed in plains areas that are already flat. "
This is not the case in Michigan 100 miles of forest have been cut down to make turbine fields. We have some of the most beautiful forests being done away with. Forest clean air and provide healthy air to breathe. “Trees remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and reduce the greenhouse gas effect, all while providing us with clean air to breathe." Trees become increasingly important in urban settings as they lend a hand with air pollution via their natural cycle of carbon absorption.
We are killing the planet due to greed. China has gotten rich selling panels and turbines --- and killing the environment --- we want a piece of the pie.
Also, trees make the planet cooler. Cities should plant more trees and use asphalt that is not black, but lighter in color. The Netherlands has done this and lowered its temperature by about 15 degrees.
Believe it or not, the biggest threat to life on this planet right now is plastic.
Well... other than the seeming effort to start a Nuclear war currently ongoing.
Globally, the world produces more than 400 million tons of plastic every year and the vast majority of plastic products are not recyclable.
The ocean is expected to contain 1 ton of plastic for every 3 tons of fish by 2025. More than 80% of marine litter is plastic which kills up to 1 million seabirds and 100,000 marine creatures each year by ingesting it.
Some scientific studies say that we are ingesting five grams of plastic per week, the equivalent of eating a credit card, from the tap, bottled water and through our food. This eventually goes to our blood, which can contribute to cancer and many diseases.
plastic is not biodegradable, it simply breaks down to smaller and smaller particles until it is small enough to be digested by single cell animals. As it cannot be digested, it is almost always terminal to the creatures which ingest it.
A National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey produced by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded that BPA was found in 93% of urine samples taken from people above the age of six.
Research found that if no action is taken, the plastic crisis will grow to 29 million metric tons per year by 2040. If we include microplastics into this, the cumulative amount of plastic in the ocean could reach 600 million tons by 2040.
Considering that plastic takes 400 years to decompose, it will be many generations until it ceases to exist. There’s no telling what the irreversible effects of plastic pollution will have on the environment in the long run.
As For SOLAR ENERGY:
You can run your whole house on solar power. It is not so complicated or costly. First, you have to estimate the power that the house needs. After that, you can buy a complete solar system to run the entire house on solar power.
This was not possible 15 years ago, there were a few eccentric people who were able to do so, but it required a separate structure to house a plethora of car batteries (or the like) strung together to store enough electricity to make it through the night. That and a lot of solar panels.
Today technology has advanced to the point where it is possible for a home with a large enough roof space, and a couple of power walls, to meet the needs of a home, using grid power only as an emergency back-up, which could be replaced by a generator if the person were that insistent on not being on the grid.
Many people today have had such systems installed. It is becoming more and more common, making it more economical to do so.
Ken, thank you for all your inputs. It's all basic science. And, if someone doesn't understand that, let these go back to they chemistry or biology class; or take a basic tutorial about. Oddly, there's too much plastics also on land. Few months ago, I notice certain persons gatherinj them from land and sea. They were washed and sold for containing vegetable oils. We eat a little of the plastic with the oil. Naturally, the organic foods we eat are the protective defence for our bedies against the plastic threats we ingested. As for the rolar electricity question, it's cheap, and I have a plan to rnstal such on my house come year 2023.(editing
Oh my am I'm impressed at this point with the response of Governor Ron DeSantis to the devastation left behind by hurricane Ian. He's very calm, detailed and speaks with reassuring confidence. It's obvious that he has great capability. It's giving us a us a glimpse of a dimension of his persona we haven't seen.
That being said, he is really selling himself short by generally choosing the culture wars as his predominant platform. If he is to become the GOP nominee, I'm hoping that he continues with this demeanor and abandons the culture wars. They aren't a good look and after hearing him speak these last few days in a normal manner, feels like they've "dumbed" him down.
DeSantis was in his element during the crisis, that is why he appeared so calm and rational.
He is a man of action, a man of experience, a man that takes on difficulties and makes the tough decisions.
He is not a natural politician, he's not good at getting in front of people and telling them what they want to hear and lying to them.
He does what he believes is best, despite the political backlash, and he doesn't cater to whatever the polls say the people want.
I hope he doesn't run for President, he is too good a man to be sent to that den of thieves and vermin.
I agree, he is a problem solver and averts problems. My sister has lived in Florida for 40 years, she is or should I say was a very devoted Democrat. She said if he runs he will be the first Republican she has ever voted for. She has been so impressed with how he handled COVID. When I was here in Michigan without tests she was there able to walk into any drug store and purchase tests to send my family here. When I waited months for my first COVID shot, she walked into a Mall and was inoculated many weeks before I could get the vaccine here in Michigan.
She is so impressed with him as a man and a Governor. I think he could be the man we need in the White House, to work on the mess and corruption that is plaguing the country. I think he could handle and rid us of the thieves and vermin.
Just today he came out and warned looters to not even go there -- DeSantis issues warning as Florida emerges from the horrific storm: 'We're a Second Amendment state' "I can tell you in the state of Florida, you never know what may be lurking behind somebody's home," he said. "And I would not want to chance that if I were you — given that we're a Second Amendment state."
Florida Gov. DeSantis warns those taking advantage of hurricane victims: 'We are a law and order state' A Florida sheriff said that there will be 'swift incarceration immediately with no tolerance'
Yes, nepotism or favouritism is a problem in nearly all or most governments. That's why it's best to give the job to a neutral person.
I am not sure Wiki said much more on the woman than the US Government site that tells of her background and formal education. I still do not see her as having a formal education in the environment, other than she has had a position working under others that may have had a science education. In my book, I have done enough in regard to her qualifications. That was not what I was pointing out. She is on the government payroll for two jobs, and her husband has a high-standing job in government. A little background, yet two jobs that require some knowledge of true environmental science. Some have said her experience is sufficient. I am an RN I have 25 years of working with surgeons --- ya want me to remove your appendix?
https://www.state.gov/biographies/monica-p-medina/
"Monica P. Medina was confirmed as Assistant Secretary for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs on September 28, 2021.
Previously, Assistant Secretary Medina was an adjunct professor at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service. She was also a Senior Associate on the Stephenson Ocean Security Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and Co-Founder and Publisher of Our Daily Planet, an e-newsletter on conservation and the environment.
A former Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, she served as General Counsel of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense. Earlier in her career, Assistant Secretary Medina served as the Senior Counsel to former Senator Max Baucus on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, as the Senior Director for Ocean Policy at the National Geographic Society, as the ocean lead at the Walton Family Foundation, and in senior roles in other environmental organizations.
She attended college on an Army R.O.T.C. scholarship and began her career on active duty in the Army General Counsel’s Office. She received the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service and the Army Meritorious Service Medal. She has a Bachelor’s degree from Georgetown University and a J.D. from Columbia Law School.
I think there is also an argument to be made between those who manage/oversee and those who "do"
In my view, a bureaucrat has a different job description. Using the medical analogy, the hospital administrator can be a doctor but may not have the skill or expertise of the ones he or she manages.
Hi Sharlee, My impression is that this "Oh My" forum is for anything interesting. . I first heard about the following on Ted Radio, and found the article below to share.
Octopus mom waits record 4½ years for eggs to hatch.
The mother octopus will always die after giving birth because she must stay put & thus starve to death to protect the eggs before they hatch.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/octopus … -1.2722807
Yes, I had hoped others would join in with anything they found made them respond with an --- Oh MY.
Your article was truely interesting, really got me thinking do animals love their offspring the way humans do? It is apparent some do. For instance, the octopus gives their life to ensure the birth or births of offspring.
It would appear in many animals motherhood is an innate characteristic. They instinctively take up the task of making sure their offspring are born and cared for.
Yes, I know this mothering characteristic is not evident in all species of animals, but it is in many.
Thanks for sharing. Ya know lately the words Oh My are very much a part of my daily vocabulary.
According to another article I read, their mothering instincts come from the optic gland. However, I do not know if this particular article is accurate. They had no citations, which gives me pause. Anyway, here is a quote from that particular article that is not from the one I listed before & which may or not be accurate, however interesting.
"Now, scientists have figured out why this grim scenario happens. It has to do with the optic gland between the octopus's eyes; a gland similar to the pituitary gland in humans."
The grim scenario they speak of is the death of the mother.
"In 1977, researchers removed this gland and found that the octopus' mothering instincts disappeared. She abandoned her eggs, started feeding again, and went on to live a much longer life."
Whatsoever is said or held against Wiki, due to it's open sourcing, I usually cross check with Britannica and or Americana. I then formed my opinion, as far as the issue goes. Knowledge is still dynamic. What is trending or current today will be gone a few months later. I think Wiki has that in consideration.
Oh my y'all. Herschel Walker's son speaking out on his dad's hypocrisy.
Does character or integrity even matter anymore to Republicans? The fact that they could have so many misogynistic liars running currently is just mind-boggling.
https://twitter.com/ChristianWalk1r/sta … ohXoGUg02A
he is just an empty suit filling a vacant seat.
It will do if he does what he told and "sings along with Mitch" in Congress.
Seems odd, this son was supporting his dad, and all of sudden he comes out with this video. None of it surprises me, Walker has lived a slimy life. I will leave it there.
Treasury Department data released Tuesday showed that the total national debt was $31.123 trillion as of Monday.
The national debt at the end of 2020 When Trump left was
$26.9 trillion
Today Joe broke another record ! -- U.S. National Debt Tops $31,123 Trillion for the First Time America’s borrowing binge has long been viewed as sustainable because of historically low-interest rates. But as rates rise, the nation’s fiscal woes are getting worse
The new milestone was reached even as the federal government's insatiable spending has slowed considerably as the COVID-19 pandemic has waned. In the months following the outbreak, the national debt rose by $1 trillion in just a month’s time — not just once but twice in 2020.
As a result, the federal government spent $3.1 trillion more than it received in 2020 and $2.8 trillion more than it received the following year.
In 2022, the budget deficit is expected to be about $1 trillion. Some experts believe $1 trillion per year in new debt is the floor given growth in entitlement spending as well as new spending priorities set by Congress this year. Those priorities include the environmental policy bill known as the Inflation Reduction Act and assisting Ukraine in its war with Russia.
And all in two years.
So, let's be fair about this, shall we?
National debt under Obama increased 8.6 trillion in 8 years, Trump increased the national debt by 7.8 trillion in just 4 years. Biden has run up national debt by a little over 4 trillion in 2 years.
I don't think that there is really anything to complain or brag about yet. And Republicans do not come off as the fiscally frugal party, not by a long shot.
Well, Sharlee, how about these apples?
"Trump had the third-biggest primary deficit growth, 5.2% of GDP, behind only George W. Bush (11.7%) and Abraham Lincoln (9.4%). Bush, of course, not only passed a big tax cut, as Trump has, but also launched two wars, which greatly inflated the defense budget. Lincoln had to pay for the Civil War. By contrast, Trump’s wars have been almost entirely of the political variety."
Its a sign of an economic system near its end.
So to, is the inflation that cannot be stemmed by higher interest rates.
Those higher interest rates, which are going to collapse the other economies of the world. Due largely to the Dollar being the world's reserve.
Both Europe and China are weeks away from collapse. I could be wrong... it might take months.
A combination of factors, from the pandemic shutdown, to the Ukraine war, have gone a long way to ensuring this occurs in a timely manner.
I don't think their "Reset" efforts are going to go the way they hope, I believe them to be unrealistic and unobtainable... that doesn't mean these egotistical elites aren't going to try, and if a few hundred million people perish in the attempt they aren't terribly worried about it.
Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank effect the Global Economy and they are about to go belly-up. If you think Lehman Brothers almost collapsed the global economy, you haven't seen nothing yet.
My suggestion to everyone is spend your money while its worth something, buy that new car, remodel your home, put on that new roof, invest in that solar system... spend it now... your dollars might not be worth much this time next year.
Funny when I pointed out what a waste it was for the US government to pay yet another person to tell the rest of us how bad deforestation was no one mentioned this. I guess when you hire 45,000 new people at the IRS one or two more does not matter.
Hey people, it does matter. Hiring more people just leads to more inflation and more government debt. As Malcolm X pointed out, those chickens are going to come home to roost.
I cannot deny any of these things, we are where we are due to many years of missteps taken by both parties.
On this I whole-heartedly agree. It has not been one party, but the entire system in DC. It seems the only thing they can ever agree on is to spend our hard earned money, and the heck with the economy, crime, inflation, and everything else.
Yes, as long as inflation, is continously rising year after year.
by summerclark7387 13 years ago
Do you consider yourself "green?" Do you make an attempt at living a sustainable lifestyle? Please share the steps you take whether they be small or large. Composting, car pooling, recycling, use renewable energy etc... My hope is to share good green ideas with...
by ggenda 11 years ago
I'd like to start composting. Any tips on an inexpensive way to get started?
by zscripter 16 years ago
Already reported as spam
by Katelyn Weel 13 years ago
Why are some people so resistant to reducing waste? (ie. recycling, compost, etc.)
by Sara Tonyn 11 years ago
I'm curious as to what people prefer to have done with their bodies after they die.I'd guess that burial is still widely preferred by most people but I think cremation is gathering steam. (No pun intended!) (That's a lie; it was intended!)Also, I know cremation has been forbidden by some religions...
by ngureco 14 years ago
Ashes To Ashes: Why Are You Against Cremation As A Way Of Laying Loved One To Rest?
Copyright © 2024 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2024 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.
For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy
Show DetailsNecessary | |
---|---|
HubPages Device ID | This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons. |
Login | This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service. |
Google Recaptcha | This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy) |
Akismet | This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Google Analytics | This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Traffic Pixel | This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized. |
Amazon Web Services | This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy) |
Cloudflare | This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Hosted Libraries | Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy) |
Features | |
---|---|
Google Custom Search | This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Maps | Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Charts | This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy) |
Google AdSense Host API | This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Google YouTube | Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Vimeo | Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Paypal | This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Login | You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Maven | This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy) |
Marketing | |
---|---|
Google AdSense | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Google DoubleClick | Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Index Exchange | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Sovrn | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Ads | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
AppNexus | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Openx | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Rubicon Project | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
TripleLift | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Say Media | We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy) |
Remarketing Pixels | We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites. |
Conversion Tracking Pixels | We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service. |
Statistics | |
---|---|
Author Google Analytics | This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy) |
Comscore | ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Tracking Pixel | Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy) |
Clicksco | This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy) |