My Biggest Oh My Of The Day Do You Have One?

Jump to Last Post 1-12 of 12 discussions (174 posts)
  1. Sharlee01 profile image80
    Sharlee01posted 19 months ago

    https://hubstatic.com/16166931.png

    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
    https://hubstatic.com/16166939_f1024.jpg

    1. GA Anderson profile image88
      GA Andersonposted 19 months agoin reply to this

      Sounds like a productive idea. I'd go for it.

      GA

      1. IslandBites profile image89
        IslandBitesposted 19 months agoin reply to this

        I agree. A great option.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image80
          Sharlee01posted 19 months agoin reply to this

          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? "

          1. DrMark1961 profile image95
            DrMark1961posted 19 months agoin reply to this

            I thought of your thread when I read this.

            https://hubpages.com/relationships/Solo … rry-Myself

            Oh my.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image80
              Sharlee01posted 19 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. GA Anderson profile image88
                GA Andersonposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                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

                1. Sharlee01 profile image80
                  Sharlee01posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                  Now hell ya! That is what I call a wonderful plus to be married to one's self.

      2. Credence2 profile image78
        Credence2posted 19 months agoin reply to this

        I don't think that I have anything to top this. It all sounds sort of ghoulish to me.

        1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
          Fayetteville Fayeposted 19 months agoin reply to this

          Feels a little Soylent Green.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image80
            Sharlee01posted 19 months agoin reply to this

            I agree

            1. gmwilliams profile image84
              gmwilliamsposted 19 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image80
                Sharlee01posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                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..

        2. Sharlee01 profile image80
          Sharlee01posted 19 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. Credence2 profile image78
            Credence2posted 19 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. gmwilliams profile image84
              gmwilliamsposted 19 months agoin reply to this

              I intend to be cremated.  This has inspired yet another thread.

              1. Credence2 profile image78
                Credence2posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                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...

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                  "Forever" is a long time.  How many times would you want to repeat an experience before it becomes blase?  A thousand?  10 thousand?

                  1. Credence2 profile image78
                    Credence2posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

                    1. wilderness profile image95
                      wildernessposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                      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.

              2. DrMark1961 profile image95
                DrMark1961posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                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?

                1. Credence2 profile image78
                  Credence2posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                  Would your corpse present any public Heath problems just being dumped in an irrigation ditch, just asking?

                  1. DrMark1961 profile image95
                    DrMark1961posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                    Maybe in a heavily populated place like Bangladesh. I live in the Atlantic rain forest though, the exact opposite of high density.

                2. Sharlee01 profile image80
                  Sharlee01posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                  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 ---

              3. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                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?

                1. IslandBites profile image89
                  IslandBitesposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                  ^This.

            2. Sharlee01 profile image80
              Sharlee01posted 19 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. Credence2 profile image78
                Credence2posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                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.

        3. gmwilliams profile image84
          gmwilliamsposted 19 months agoin reply to this

          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?

          1. IslandBites profile image89
            IslandBitesposted 19 months agoin reply to this

            LOL

            1. Sharlee01 profile image80
              Sharlee01posted 19 months agoin reply to this

              You mentioned you have children. Would you choose to let them rot to put in your garden?

              1. IslandBites profile image89
                IslandBitesposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                I "wont let them rot". Do you know what happens to people you bury, right? roll

                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.

                1. DrMark1961 profile image95
                  DrMark1961posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. IslandBites profile image89
                    IslandBitesposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                    Agree.

                  2. profile image0
                    savvydatingposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                    Eeew!

                2. Sharlee01 profile image80
                  Sharlee01posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                  Glad you shared.

      3. tsmog profile image83
        tsmogposted 19 months agoin reply to this

        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/

        1. DrMark1961 profile image95
          DrMark1961posted 19 months agoin reply to this

          Enjoyed seeing that obesity article. This is one time I am glad to see Brazil falling near the bottom of a list.

          1. tsmog profile image83
            tsmogposted 19 months agoin reply to this

            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

            1. DrMark1961 profile image95
              DrMark1961posted 19 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. tsmog profile image83
                tsmogposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. DrMark1961 profile image95
                  DrMark1961posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

        2. Sharlee01 profile image80
          Sharlee01posted 19 months agoin reply to this

          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,

          1. tsmog profile image83
            tsmogposted 19 months agoin reply to this

            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".

      4. peterstreep profile image80
        peterstreepposted 19 months agoin reply to this

        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?

      5. peterstreep profile image80
        peterstreepposted 18 months agoin reply to this

        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

        1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
          Fayetteville Fayeposted 18 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. peterstreep profile image80
            peterstreepposted 18 months agoin reply to this

            Yes, hopefully it becomes an example for other nature reserves too.

        2. Sharlee01 profile image80
          Sharlee01posted 18 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. peterstreep profile image80
            peterstreepposted 18 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 18 months agoin reply to this

              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?

        3. GA Anderson profile image88
          GA Andersonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

          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

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 18 months agoin reply to this

            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.

          2. peterstreep profile image80
            peterstreepposted 18 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. GA Anderson profile image88
              GA Andersonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

              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

              1. peterstreep profile image80
                peterstreepposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. GA Anderson profile image88
                  GA Andersonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                  Still with the 'company and legality' stuff? We would need years to argue about our different views on this issue.

                  GA

                  1. peterstreep profile image80
                    peterstreepposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

                    1. GA Anderson profile image88
                      GA Andersonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                      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

    2. gmwilliams profile image84
      gmwilliamsposted 19 months ago

      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?

      1. Sharlee01 profile image80
        Sharlee01posted 19 months agoin reply to this

        It did me too... let's make mom a placemat sort of mentality.

      2. profile image0
        savvydatingposted 19 months agoin reply to this

        Grace, this idea is disgusting. What god awful thing will they think of next?

    3. Miebakagh57 profile image69
      Miebakagh57posted 19 months ago

      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?

      1. Sharlee01 profile image80
        Sharlee01posted 19 months agoin reply to this

        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?

        1. DrMark1961 profile image95
          DrMark1961posted 19 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. profile image0
            savvydatingposted 19 months agoin reply to this

            No. A proper burial is a time honored tradition that respects the dead and the living.

            1. DrMark1961 profile image95
              DrMark1961posted 19 months agoin reply to this

              Burning bodies and dumping the ashes in a river is also a time honored tradition. Why cant becoming a flower be a new tradition?

              1. Miebakagh57 profile image69
                Miebakagh57posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                I doubt if you prefered to be created out of the Indian sub-Cfetinent.

                1. DrMark1961 profile image95
                  DrMark1961posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                  No, I would prefer to become compost and feed the flowers.

              2. GA Anderson profile image88
                GA Andersonposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                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

                1. DrMark1961 profile image95
                  DrMark1961posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. IslandBites profile image89
                    IslandBitesposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                    "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."

                    1. GA Anderson profile image88
                      GA Andersonposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                      psst. I said "rhetorical." You know you failed when you have to explain a joke.

                      GA

                    2. DrMark1961 profile image95
                      DrMark1961posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                      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,)

                  2. profile image0
                    savvydatingposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                    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."

                    1. DrMark1961 profile image95
                      DrMark1961posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                      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?

              3. profile image0
                savvydatingposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. DrMark1961 profile image95
                  DrMark1961posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. Miebakagh57 profile image69
                    Miebakagh57posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                    Yes, and that into the Gange. It's like the Romans of old. But unlike the Indians, the Romans didn't burn they dead.

                    1. DrMark1961 profile image95
                      DrMark1961posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                      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.)

                    2. IslandBites profile image89
                      IslandBitesposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                      They did.

            2. Sharlee01 profile image80
              Sharlee01posted 19 months agoin reply to this

              Yes, that's my view too...

          2. Sharlee01 profile image80
            Sharlee01posted 19 months agoin reply to this

            All pragmatic points.  I think the ashes or the gravesite are more for the living than the dead.

    4. gmwilliams profile image84
      gmwilliamsposted 19 months ago

      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?

    5. tsmog profile image83
      tsmogposted 19 months ago

      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/

    6. Sharlee01 profile image80
      Sharlee01posted 19 months ago

      https://hubstatic.com/16174062.png
      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.

      1. GA Anderson profile image88
        GA Andersonposted 19 months agoin reply to this

        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

        1. Sharlee01 profile image80
          Sharlee01posted 19 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. GA Anderson profile image88
            GA Andersonposted 19 months agoin reply to this

            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

            1. DrMark1961 profile image95
              DrMark1961posted 19 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. GA Anderson profile image88
                GA Andersonposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                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

                1. DrMark1961 profile image95
                  DrMark1961posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                  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.)

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image80
                    Sharlee01posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                    My point was, the woman already had one Government job. Is it appropriate for her to be appointed a second?  This reeks of .nepotism in my view.

                2. Sharlee01 profile image80
                  Sharlee01posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                  "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.

            2. Sharlee01 profile image80
              Sharlee01posted 19 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. GA Anderson profile image88
                GA Andersonposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                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

                1. Miebakagh57 profile image69
                  Miebakagh57posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. profile image0
                    savvydatingposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

                    1. DrMark1961 profile image95
                      DrMark1961posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                      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.

                    2. Miebakagh57 profile image69
                      Miebakagh57posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                      That's because of certain 'truth' it may contained?

                2. Sharlee01 profile image80
                  Sharlee01posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. IslandBites profile image89
                    IslandBitesposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                    "I have a problem with nepotism."

                    LOL

                    Now, I guess.

                    1. Sharlee01 profile image80
                      Sharlee01posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                      Yeah, in this case, this ass clown doubled down. Can't stand greedy.

      2. Miebakagh57 profile image69
        Miebakagh57posted 19 months agoin reply to this

        Oh my... God, old joe biden a crook? God save America!

      3. Sharlee01 profile image80
        Sharlee01posted 19 months agoin reply to this

        "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."

        1. profile image0
          savvydatingposted 19 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image80
            Sharlee01posted 19 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. profile image0
              savvydatingposted 19 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image80
                Sharlee01posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                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

                1. profile image0
                  savvydatingposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
                    Fayetteville Fayeposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                    You do realize that supplies of fossil fuels are not infinite, right? Or is that just someone else's problem to deal with?

                    1. profile image0
                      savvydatingposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                      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.

                    2. Sharlee01 profile image80
                      Sharlee01posted 18 months agoin reply to this

                      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.

                  2. Ken Burgess profile image76
                    Ken Burgessposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                    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.


                    https://hubstatic.com/16176861.jpg

                    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.

                    1. Miebakagh57 profile image69
                      Miebakagh57posted 18 months agoin reply to this

                      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

            2. Miebakagh57 profile image69
              Miebakagh57posted 18 months agoin reply to this

              Let the experiment begin soon!

              1. Sharlee01 profile image80
                Sharlee01posted 18 months agoin reply to this

                Yes, my friend, it can't begin soon enough. The damage was swift, let's hope the fix will be also swift.

    7. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
      Fayetteville Fayeposted 19 months ago

      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.

      1. Ken Burgess profile image76
        Ken Burgessposted 19 months agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image80
          Sharlee01posted 19 months agoin reply to this

          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'

    8. Miebakagh57 profile image69
      Miebakagh57posted 19 months ago

      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.

    9. Sharlee01 profile image80
      Sharlee01posted 19 months ago

      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.

      1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
        Fayetteville Fayeposted 19 months agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image80
          Sharlee01posted 19 months agoin reply to this

          Your anology in regard to the medical field rings true.

      2. profile image0
        savvydatingposted 19 months agoin reply to this

        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

        1. Sharlee01 profile image80
          Sharlee01posted 19 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. profile image0
            savvydatingposted 19 months agoin reply to this

            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."

    10. Miebakagh57 profile image69
      Miebakagh57posted 19 months ago

      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.

    11. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
      Fayetteville Fayeposted 18 months ago

      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

      1. Credence2 profile image78
        Credence2posted 18 months agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image80
          Sharlee01posted 18 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. Credence2 profile image78
            Credence2posted 18 months agoin reply to this

            This is one time we can agree.....

    12. Sharlee01 profile image80
      Sharlee01posted 18 months ago

      https://hubstatic.com/16179311.jpg
      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.

      1. Credence2 profile image78
        Credence2posted 18 months agoin reply to this

        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."

        1. Ken Burgess profile image76
          Ken Burgessposted 18 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. DrMark1961 profile image95
            DrMark1961posted 18 months agoin reply to this

            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.

          2. Credence2 profile image78
            Credence2posted 18 months agoin reply to this

            I cannot deny any of these things,  we are where we are due to many years of missteps taken by both parties.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 18 months agoin reply to this

              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.

          3. Miebakagh57 profile image69
            Miebakagh57posted 18 months agoin reply to this

            Yes, as long as inflation, is continously rising year after year.

     
    working

    This website uses cookies

    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 Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis 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 ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis 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 LibrariesJavascript 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 SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis 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 YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis 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 LoginYou 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)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe 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 PixelsWe 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 AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore 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 PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)