What does it meant to you?

I was just thinking today about the meaning that we all individually connect with words. When i use some words i think of the particular meaning it holds to me and sometimes i venture so far as to think, "I wonder what connotations any one else attaches to this word."
Today i overheard my coach describe a boy on the 17-yrs team we were watching as barrel-chested. And to me, because of the connotations with the word barrel and the shape of the barrel, i think of a 'barrel -chested' person as having this huge curved chest that sticks out. Absurd sounding but you really need to see my mental picture.
Just a thought i leave that with you.

Musings

As I write, the world turns, the stars burn and moon reflect sun, and on the other side of the world the sun shines dandy in the day time. Plates of the Earth's crust shift slowly and trees forever create our gaseous life source. Miraculous new life begins but down the street another life is snuffed out. Huge decisions are made by world leaders while others embark on a trip around the world.
And i sit and type on my computer. Thinking about the music playing in my ears, what word I'll type next, which book to read next and when i can move into my room. While i sit and shape words fruitlessly, achieving nothing but the small pleasure of having recorded my thoughts for others to see, the world moves and things happen.
Most of the time we're oblivious to it all. Selfish beings that we are, we're focusing on the miniscule portion of the world that belongs to our life. But for me, when i think about it, there's another reason.
It just blows my mind when i think of everything happening around the world - down to even the smallest things. In Russia paper is crumpled up and thrown in the bin in frustration while in Argentina a boy scores a goal and runs madly, happily about. Then there's just the simple matter of someone livign in another country. Knowing only Australia as i have for the memorable part of my life, sometimes i just get stumped at the fact that people live their everyday life somewhere else. Germany, the Middle East, rural America. I can see the country, yes, but that they see everyday in and out, living completely differently to me just baffles me. I honestly don't think our brain is able to hold all the thoughts i snatch at momentarily everyday, to their full extent, at the same time. As well as every other thought i have difficulty retaining everyday.
I think as a christian, its way too easy to get caught up in our own christian circle, whether it extends only to your city, state, maybe even coutnry. But i know for me, i have a great church, a great diocese, a wealthy and free country and it's all very easy. And that's when we forget the rest of our family, spread around the world, many of them living much more dificult lives, physically or spiritually, sometimes doing more to advance the gospel than i think i could ever hope for.
And as i come to round up this rambling post, i want to leave you with a thought that a sermon i heard once gave me. When we meet together in Christ's name, we join with all the christians all over the world, now, from the past, all christians.
That made me think "wow".

Fact vs Fiction - A "politically Incorrect View" - Ironic? I think so...

Goodness me i just realised i have previously tried to explain my views of global warming on my blog, but did a rather dreadful job of it. Then i thought, just now, 'Ha i have a great piece of writing on just that that i did for English recently!' And so, here is my A grade piece on global warming. (not to boast or anything . . .) You'll be pleased to know, as an aside, that i believe all this blog writing has helped me in my already stronger form of writing: the opinionated piece. Much easier do i find it to compile a piece containing my opinions and beliefs than craft a good creative story.


Fact Vs Fiction - What Will We Risk Our Economy On?
Recent years have shown the development and climax of a Great Fear over the problem of global warming, carbon levels in the atmosphere and climate change. Already world and regional summits have been held and world leaders have promised to spend time and money on cutting national carbon emissions, while the individual tries to do their bit by planting a tomato plant or cycling ten minutes to work. And it’s all due to the environmental frenzy sweeping the world to become the greatest, most useful fad.
Sorry, did I say useful?
I do not by any means claim to possess All Knowledge attached to the subject, but I do mean to make the point that global warming fanatics - believers, call them what you will – need a closer look at the numbers and a nudge – no more of a shove – in the opposite direction.

“The normally begin thus: ‘How does this come about?’ But does it do so? That is what they ought to be asking.”[1]

Indeed they should, although our generation has already answered the question of ‘how’- or so they think – and now searches for ways to slow even stop global warming occurring, before we melt in 10 years time. However, they ought to be asking does it really, will it really, have the effect we think? No. Could you do anything if it did and you tried? No. The effort would be as negligible as an ant pushing against a concrete wall. You may as well just climb to the top and enjoy the view – the amazing view of carbon cycles and the atmosphere and what’s really happening to stop us dying.
I empathise with Michel de Montaigne; things believed because of the sheer number of believers, and those numbers made of ignorant fools, that we should be saying it is not like that, but that if we do, we will be seen as ignorant and it is hard to ‘stiffen your judgment against widely held opinions.’ People are opposing these views though. Over 19,000 American scientists have signed a petition urging the U.S government to reject the Kyoto Protocol because they believe anthropogenic carbon dioxide causes no catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere. That’s their basic reason, and it actually well sums up why we should be ‘stiffening our judgment’ against the view of the Earth’s catastrophic heating.
Firstly, how do I define this widely held view of global warming? From experience I have gathered that people believe i) the ‘greenhouse effect’ will cause the Earth to heat up to a point causing, eventually, death for its inhabitants; ii) that man-made carbon dioxide produces most of the carbon in the world atmosphere, hence anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide causes the greenhouse effect, and thus if we reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the greenhouse effect will be slowed and life on Earth saved. Problem found, solved and forgotten.
And it makes sense.
If we “conveniently” ignore the basic figures.
And basic scientific fact.
Let’ start out big and then hone in on the details.
Firstly, “Global Warming”, the process that supposedly spells Big Trouble for the human race, has actually been happening for ages – since the time of the cave men, more or less continuously and slowly. It is a normal state in the world that occurs between ice ages, and is exactly what should be happening. Be worried if it’s not - it more than likely means another ice age is on its way.
Secondly, the “greenhouse effect”, the process that is supposed to be causing global warming, helps to moderate temperatures on the Earth. In fact, the warming due to the greenhouse effect is limited mainly to night time temperatures; day time high temperatures are negligibly affected. Without the greenhouse effect, the average temperature here would be minus 18 degrees Celsius – and we’d be frozen stiff. It’s generally accepted that the greenhouse effect is also the primary cause of global warming, but it’s not. The primary cause of global warming is instead, believe it or not, ‘orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the Sun’s output.’[2] Other main causes are atmospheric (i.e. the greenhouse effect: yes it does come in second) and tectonic.
Thirdly, carbon dioxide, known as the main contributor to the greenhouse effect, has had so many wrong things attributed to it, I almost feel sorry for the diatonic gas; I almost don’t know where to begin. Its main trespass these days is its position as the main greenhouse gas and the cause of all out problems.
Wrong!
Any scientist who tells you that is ignoring the 95% of the greenhouse effect that is the result of water vapour – and they’re probably not associated with climatology at all. Water vapour is the reason day time temperatures are so negligibly affected by the greenhouse effect. When held in suspension, water vapour (commonly: clouds) makes for good thermal insulation, but almost as good a reflector as well.
So how much carbon dioxide actually makes up the total amount of greenhouse gases? About 3.618%. How much of the atmosphere actually comprises of carbon dioxide? About 0.04%.
As an aside, carbon dioxide doesn’t actually stay in the atmosphere. It is continually being recycled by trees (which use it to make oxygen, without which we would cease to exist) and the ocean. (Without carbon dioxide, the trees would kick it off pretty quickly.)
The intriguing thing about popular greenhouse theory is that it states the earth’s temperature correlates directly with the amount of carbon dioxide. In the face of these statistics alone that fact is highly disputable, but historically there has been much more CO2 in the atmosphere than exists today, and if we follow popular greenhouse theory, in those times the Earth should have been exceptionally hot.
But it wasn’t – it was no hotter than now. (But alas, if we follow popular theory they’d have no reason to be hot – less man-made carbon dioxide you know!)
Which leads me to my last happy point about carbon dioxide: as humans we are sadly blamed for all of the supposed destruction that will one day collapse in on our once proud heads. Fortunately, if all that is generally believed - except for this last point - were true, it would not be our fault. You seem man-made carbon dioxide is in such minority that all the promised cuts in emission will do nothing to help the world and everything to damage our economy. The amount of anthropogenic carbon dioxide that actually contributes to the greenhouse effect is 0.117%. Next to nothing. And besides statistics, there’s other inferential proof. One is that after World War II, there was a boom in industrialization but – a global temperature drop. Another is that recently mid troposphere temperatures (the place to measure if you want to see CO2 having an effect) have decreased slightly as carbon dioxide levels increase. Another? Ice core records suggest that the correlation between temperature and CO2 is actually the reverse of popular belief: carbon dioxide follows temperature changes. If we believe our politicians and the media, something seems to be missing, but on the above evidence, everything fits. Carbon dioxide acquitted and cleared of all charges?
Catastrophic global warming theory is a product of our society and the power of a ‘multitude of believers’ swaying those few left undecided by sheer number. There’s so much proof to the contrary of what those people believe that no one could condense it into two pages (but I try to please). To all misguided souls in the world, please think for yourself and find out the facts! This Great Fear isn’t so frightening after all.

[1] “The Essays: A Selection” - Page 352 - Michel de Montaigne
[2] “The Global Warming Test” – http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/A3b.html – Monte Hieb

Classy Darcy, Lizzy-Dizzy

Upon my internet browsing yesterday evening i discoevered the following - whichone will only understand if one has read/seen pride and prejudice (insert evil laugh at exclusion of all blog's readers).

Pride and Prejudice
``Marry well'' is Bennet tenet: Bingley singly must remain
Since classy Darcy (Lizzy-dizzy) thinks he's far too good for Jane.
Rummy mummy, jaunty aunty, these would drag both gallants down --
Plus the younger siblings' dribblings over officers in town.
See the specious Wickham trick 'em with his tales of birthright gloom,
See how hideous Lydia's ruin looms before she gets her groom;
Glassy Darcy saves the bacon, shaken out of former pride:
Is he Lizzy's destined love, to shove her prejudice aside?
Has she clout to flout that matron, patroness of priestly coz (He whose ludicrous proposing Rosings rules -- like all he does)?
Darcy oughter court her daughter, destined his through two decades...
``Mulish, foolish girl, remember Pemberley's polluted shades!''
Dare she share his great estate, or can't Aunt Catherine be defied?
Yes! and ere the bells ring jingly, Bingley too shall claim his bride.

- How to Become Ridiculously Well-Read in One Evening, compiled by E. O. Parrott (Viking, Penguin Books, 1985)

[Note that this works best when read with a British accent; also "ludicrous proposing" is the object of the verb "rules".]

Oh no Sally Morgan! Your Honour Questioned?

"Sally Morgan: claims of fabrication
In a special investigation, Helen Dalley reports on the controversy surrounding the Australian bestseller My Place by Sally Morgan and allegations by the white family at the centre of the book that it's based on fabrications and a distorted and twisted version of events.The Drake-Brockman family dispute Aboriginal author Sally Morgan's account, which tells of their ancestors' alleged harsh treatment and abuse of Aborigines, including Morgan's own grandmother Daisy, who worked for them in the early 1900s. Judith Drake-Brockman, now in her 80s, wants to expose the alleged fabrications written about her family and challenge the moral and factual certainty of My Place. The portrait of black exploitation at the hands of white masters is now an almost universally-accepted cornerstone of Aboriginal history. But the Drake-Brockmans claim that Sally Morgan has distorted and twisted their story in telling her story. "

For full story see Ninemsn


Poor Sally, her integrity questioned? I don't know what to think, who to believe!

A bit of Newsy News

Frankly, i'm ratehr sure noone reading this except me cares about this article. But i love Pratchett's books, he is a very funny man, and i highly advise the reading of any.

Author Terry Pratchett is suffering from a rare form of early Alzheimer's disease, it has been revealed.
In a letter published on the website of artist Paul Kidby, the writer said the condition was behind a "phantom stroke" he had earlier this year.

Pratchett said his statement should be interpreted as "I am not dead" and that he had taken the news "philosophically" and "possibly with a mild optimism".

The Discworld author, 59, has sold more than 55 million books worldwide.

"I would have liked to keep this one quiet for a little while," he wrote in a letter headed 'An Embuggerance'.

"But because of upcoming conventions and of course the need to keep my publishers informed, it seems to me unfair to withhold the news."

The author said work was continuing on his latest works, Nation and Unseen Academicals, and that there was "time for at least a few more books yet".

"All other things being equal, I expect to meet most current and, as far as possible, future commitments."

"Frankly, I would prefer it if people kept things cheerful," he continued, saying it was "too soon to tell" if the condition was immediately life-threatening.

Parallel universe

"I will, of course, be dead at some future point, as will everybody else. For me, this maybe further off than you think.

"I know it's a very human thing to say 'Is there anything I can do?' but in this case I would only entertain offers from very high-end experts in brain chemistry."

Article obtained from news.bbc.co.uk

Morals and Manners

In true essay genre style the ideas below were truly being tested out as i wrote. I picked a most confusing subject matter for use in my extension English assessment, which was meant to be in the style of first, self-proclaimed essayist Michel De Montaigne. Rebellious, frank, digressive Frenchman that he is, I've grown quite attached to him.

Morals and Manners
Since the late 18th century, rapid change has been occurring worldwide. The industrial revolution began shaping the modern world over 200 years ago – it divided city and country more than ever, started the exponential increase in pollution and set the world on a new course. The kids of today spend more time with machines than with the sunshine and people over the age of 50 – with some exceptions - are more often than not baffled by technology.
One change that’s been overlooked amongst all this though, is that of the decline of etiquette, courtesy and respect, along with the major morals upheld by society for so long. When we look back 200, 100 or even just 50 years, we’re often amazed at the way society demanded people to act. But I look at the world we live in and am shocked by the amount of tolerance granted an individual, and the things that are permissible. Of course etiquette must grow and change with the constantly progressing world – but the manners, respect and ideas behind it need not disappear or become an object of amusement. And in any case, I believe the morals should stay the same.
However, much etiquette has had to evolve to suit a changing world and society. The most obvious is that affecting the relationships and conduct between males and females: the necessity that a man not sit while a lady was standing has become somewhat of a nuisance in the modern age (feminism helped stamp it out too I imagine), and the ‘rule’ of husbands and wives not using each other’s first names in public is a bit much for our more laid back society – particularly in Australia. But however much things have had to change, there are some that changes that are regarded with a certain sadness by myself. Marriage was once held in respect– it was inconceivable that divorce would be relatively easy or even remotely respectable. Living together before marriage brought shame not only to you, but your whole family. Society’s newly developed non-committal, fast paced lifestyle has reduced these attitudes to horrifying memories for some, when we could really take a leaf out of the book of those times.
The courtesy and basic manners that were a part of old style etiquette also seem to have dissolved somewhat with society’s busyness. We don’t have enough time to do everything we need to anymore, so we rush and push and don’t think about anyone else in our haste to just get that next thing done. Of course, it’s not the people that have changed; there’s always been discourteous thoughts, to say the least, beneath every face, it’s just who we are. But I think that society has become more lax in permitting us to behave rudely – it’s not nearly as frowned upon if you don’t return a greeting civilly or speak coarsely (in fact, it’s perfectly acceptable; not like the days when use of the word damn had to be excused).
You see, the basis of etiquette is how to ‘rightfully’ behave in society. It all comes down to, essentially, the respect due to the various people and classes you could come across in life. This was usually applied to an association between people of relatively close rank, or respectable people of society relating to those of even higher rank. Of course the poor were able to be disrespected without any injustice being impinged upon (except that of ethics), but for the middle class and above, respect was expected in due form. Now that our world now much less divided by classes, such rules have virtually disappeared. Except for the odd occasion when we may meet royalty and even there etiquette has been slackening gradually.
I do love a more casual society. Formal and staunch do not suit me in the least and I’m rather glad most of the rules maintaining the old formality are gone. The problem is that the respect and general manners have gone with the rules, and formality does not come with them as a prerequisite. It’s just being polite! As the underlying principle behind manners and etiquette, what I really find sad is the loss in respect required of all. Of course the inequality that the class systems of years ago once imposed meant that anyone below you was worthy of nothing much (if anything) from you. A foolish concept, but I think that if we could somehow combine our egalitarian views with the respect of the past times, a pleasing result could be reached.
However great it would be though, I see this aspired-to, ‘pleasing result’ as nothing more than an impossible dream. The poor are still forgotten and lorded over, no matter how socialist we claim to be, and the rich are worshiped. It is nothing short of wishful Utopia. It is our selfish, self-centered society that is causing its own degradation.
Maybe there’s more behind it all than equal respect for every man. Maybe it’s all in the morals.
Society of the western world was once driven by Judean/ Christian Ethics. Christianity was the western religion, and so people held to the biblical values. But of course this had to change - “Love your neighbor as yourself” is now scoffed at more than ever by a world driven by the individual and the ideology that it is ‘all about me’ – because this was all before the mysteries of the world were unlocked by science and man came to worship himself and science. We knew how it all worked now – or at least would prove it theoretically using the scientific principals – and didn’t need God anymore. And so I believe that it was Christianity behind the older morals and values, because you can see how they’ve been less and less valued since the theory of evolution evolved. Even if everyone is thought of as equal now, I don’t believe it’s a practiced thought and the rest of the values held dear by the world of today are superficial and in a sorry state.
What society needs is to redeem itself. Not by returning to the days when chasing a dog down the street was worthy of a scolding, but by borrowing the simple courtesy or etiquette, respect and morals that were once common. We can make society much more attractive than it is now by combining what we already have in causality and egalitarianism and what we have lost in manners.

A trifling matter Indeed

Oh no! I've created my third/fourth blog. it's a crazy obsession of mine when one blog starts to get a bit stale. Don't lsoe faith, despite the fact that i havn't posted for goodness knwos how long. I'll still be using this blog to update on any thoughts of mine i find paricularly intriguing. Trifling Facts is a blog dedicated to the sole purpose of tellign YOU things I learn everyday (or close to it). Enjoy!

America the over-posted

I just realised, going over my posts as i surveyed my latest one in its rightful place on my blog, i talk alot about america/ns dont i? Haha i either pay them out, express my bemusement at their culture, my frustation at their spelling and imperial system (yeah the imperial system gets its first complaint today, it sucks!) or hint subtley that Australia is just better (in my completely unbiased opinion anyway). Hereafter i will try to bore you less about america and vent my mingled fascination and dislike of the country somewhere else. Just be thankful i'm cutting it out of my blog (or attempting . . . it'll take alot of my material though).
[EDITOR"S NOTE] Actually, there is one good thing about the imperial system. The names of the lengths of measurements are usually better for inclusion in: desriptive things, stories, poems etc.

One must presume i don't have much on my mind today

Things are beginning to get a bit stale aorund here but i've been busy. Had a birthday wednesday, out the whole day thrusday at jamberoo (whre you controlt he action), slept over at my friend's that night, got a new tooth friday, then got my l's that afternoon, drove for an hour and a half yesterday ad had chruch for four and a half hours today. Plus i've been reading as much as i can and playing with my new phone so really i havn't had much time to blog!
I do love Relient K's "Mhmm" . . . . fabulous album.
So tomorrow i start senior school, looking forward to half of that. No i'd say three quaters. Seeing my friends everyday and what i'll be learning but just . . . it's school ye know?
Anyone else as interested in etymology as i am?