text:
Category Archives: Art
A shortlist and a call-out
The tiny team at Grapple Publishing was enormously excited last week when it was announced that The Grapple Annual No. 1 is one of three books shortlisted for the Small Press Network's Most Underrated Book Award 2015!
We're still enormously excited, but at least the quivering in our digits has stopped enough for us to type out little updates like this. A huge proportion of the praise must go to all of our contributors, the writers and artists who submitted amazing work to make up our first fledgling anthology. A bunch of kudos must also go to the Small Press Network, and all the judges, for putting effort behind a unique award that so brilliantly captures some of the best of independent publishing: highlighting, spotlighting and limelighting previously underrated and underrepresented work.
So now we wait and see what eventuates, with the award night on Friday the 20th of November at The Wheeler Centre in Melbourne. We'll be there, so see you there? And it's on the second day of the Small Press Network's Independent Publishing Conference, so we'll be there with bells figuratively affixed. For now (and we're sure the other shortlisted authors and publishers would agree), just to be shortlisted kinda feels like we're all winners already.
This excitement simply cannot be allowed to stop, so we have another announcement. We've just commenced a month-long visual art call-out for The Grapple Annual No. 2! Yup, we were blown away by all the written submissions, we've chosen them and we're well underway editing them for publication. But increasing the proportion of visual art in the Annual is one of our aims, thus: this new call-out.
To submit (and pre-peruse all the details) head to the Submittable page. But the gist is 'Australian artists, send us a magnificent date-based visual art submission!' We want it all: comics, photos, illustrations, collage, digital works, anything and everything that's visual art. We'd love to hear from the emerging and the underrepresented, we'd love to be surprised. And we are, of course, more than happy to discuss stuff and be pitched at also. We've got an editor (Duncan), a visual art editor (Fin) and an Assistant Editor (Rachael), ready and waiting.
All going well (though we do things slowly around here), we'll have a full list of contributors (including our new artists!) announced in late October, with The Grapple Annual No. 2 launched in November, or at least before the year's out. So much and many excitements!
– by Finbah Neill
Finbah Neill is a Newcastle-based freelance designer, illustrator, and comic maker. He's the designer at Grapple Publishing, he's the visual art editor for Voiceworks, he draws weekly illustrations to accompany flash fiction at Seizure Online, and he's completing a bachelor of Visual Communication Design at the University of Newcastle.


text:
Battles - The Battle of Ctesiphon, 1915
Following an extended run of good fortune at Basra, Qurna, Shaiba, Amara, Nasiriyeh and Kut within the space of a year, British forces finally ran out of luck in spectacular fashion at the Battle of Ctesiphon, which ran from 22-25 November 1915.
With the occupation of Kut in November 1915 regional British Commander-in-Chief Sir John Nixon ordered Sir Charles Townshend - commander of 6th Indian (Poona) Division - to further advance upon Baghdad.
Townshend argued against further extending the tenuous British supply line - already some 600km from the sea - without first consolidating supply lines from Basra, with specific requests for supplies of extra transport and trench warfare equipment. Nixon disagreed and instructed Townshend to proceed.
In this Nixon was backed with the eager support of the Indian government - who had appointed him in the first place - and, more reluctantly, by the British government in London, whose initial opposition was overcome when the extent of India's eagerness and confidence became apparent.
The Turks meanwhile, following further defeat at Kut, had retired to carefully prepared defence positions among the ancient ruins of Ctesiphon. This formed the Turks' forward defence of Baghdad, Nixon's real aim.
By the time Nixon gave the order to advance to Townshend the Turks - under Nur-Ud-Din - had constructed two lines of deep trenches either side of the River Tigris, defended by some 18,000 largely experienced troops.
Facing them Townshend brought approximately 11,000 Anglo-Indian troops, a force unlikely to be further boosted save for two Indian divisions promised from the Western Front for the purpose of occupying Baghdad.
The reality was that the British government were willing to be convinced of the possibility of a major victory on the Mesopotamian Front. While the capture of Baghdad had no great strategic value in its own right, it would nevertheless undoubtedly prove of great propaganda value, being one of the four great cities of Islam: a matter of some importance in the light of continuing failure at Gallipoli.
Thus Townshend's force, aided by Firefly (a newly-arrived monitor) plus a shallow-draft gunboat, initiated operations against Nur-Ud-Din on 22 November 1915. Aware of the impracticality of launching a dual attack on both sides of the river at once - not only due to shortage of men but also on account of poor ground conditions on one side - he decided to concentrate his attack on the east bank.
Specifically he chose to repeat his earlier success at Kut-al-Amara and issued orders for night-marching, his aim being to surprise the Turk defenders in a flank attack.
Unfortunately many of his force got lost in the dark, thus losing all element of surprise, and the British attack foundered while negotiating the Turkish second-line defences.
Townshend, unlike earlier encounters, was unable to call upon naval support given the Turks' extensive deployment of mines and artillery.
The following day, 23 November, Turkish forces launched a mild counter-attack intended at reclaiming their front-line positions; although it failed Townshend's casualty rate was increasing at an alarming rate.
The British had suffered some 40% casualties, at around 4,500; and while Nur-Ud-Din had suffered more than twice that figure, at 9,600, he could readily call upon reserves from nearby Baghdad (a mere 25km away), a luxury not afforded to Townshend.
Even so Nur-Ud-Din ordered a general withdrawal upon hearing of impending British reserve forces; this did not last however and the Turkish retreat was halted once the latter realised their mistake. Informed of the change in Turkish tactics by his sole reconnaissance aircraft Townshend himself authorised a British retreat.
Harried ceaselessly by both the Turks and marsh Arabs (hostile to Turk and Briton alike) Townshend's beleaguered force eventually wound its way back to Kut on 3 December, preceded by make-shift hospital craft operating in highly unsanitary conditions. Townshend also lost his warships during the retreat, sunk by Turkish shore batteries.
Once at Kut Townshend launched preparations for its defence, pending reinforcements from Basra. Shocked by the belated resilience of Ctesiphon's Turk defenders both British and Indian governments resolved to despatch reinforcements to Mesopotamia to provide assistance to Townshend, the former giving serious consideration to regarding both Mesopotamian and Palestine Fronts as a whole.
Click here to view a map charting operations in Mesopotamia through to 1917.
Photographs courtesy of Photos of the Great War website
Observation balloons were referred to as 'sausages'.
- Did you know?

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Home Care Myths Busted!Updated: Feb. 24, 2023
Experts weigh in on common myths and misunderstandings.
You might also like: TBD
Myth 1: Laundry bleach is the best product to remove mold and keep it from returning.
EPA researchers compared 12 over-the-counter cleaning products with diluted household bleach. They used each product to clean the mold on individual samples of painted and bare gypsum drywall. Then they stored the samples under ideal mold growing conditions and monitored them to see how much mold returned. Diluted bleach scored the worst on bare (unpainted) drywall. It fared better on painted drywall, but not as well as the leading cleaning product, full-strength Lysol All-Purpose Cleaner Orange Breeze. The researchers also tested the cleaners on wallpapered samples and mold-inhibiting paints. To read the research paper, go to link.springer.com and search for "wallboard microbial."
Myth 2: Cheese is the best bait for mousetraps.
Cheese isn't on any mouse's "top-10 list." They'll only eat it if nothing else is available. Plus, cheese hardens after sitting out for a while, making it easier for mice to "steal" the bait without setting off the trap. The perfect bait is actually peanut butter or bacon, or a blend of peanut butter and bacon grease. Mice can't resist the smell and taste. So wipe that on the trip mechanism to get the greatest number of "catches."
Myth 3: The best time to water grass is in the evening so the water doesn't evaporate.
Evening watering does reduce evaporation, allowing the soil to soak up and hold more water. But it also sets up the perfect growing conditions for mold and other lawn diseases. The best time to water your lawn is in the early morning hours as the sun is rising. Late riser? Use a watering timer. By the way, an impact sprinkler is the most efficient type of sprinkler. Avoid sprinklers that shoot fine spray or streams into the air—the water evaporates quickly.
Misunderstanding 1: You should never paint stucco.
Ordinary house paint seals the pores on stucco. And as the stucco expands and contracts, the paint cracks, breaking the seal. Then water enters the stucco, gets trapped inside, and pretty soon the paint starts to delaminate. It doesn't take long before you're left with sections of bare stucco and patches of paint—not a pretty sight.
However, you can use elastomeric paint, which is formulated for stucco. It expands and contracts with the stucco and resists cracking (one brand is Valspar Duramax Elastomeric Exterior Masonry and Stucco Paint). Elastomeric paints also breathe, allowing moisture to get out. The best part: DIYers can apply it themselves.
If you don't want to paint your stucco, consider hiring a contractor to "fog" it. Fogging contractors use a special spray gun that combines a colorant with a thin cement slurry. Fogging is much faster and cheaper than dashing and lasts almost as long.
Myth 4: Duct cleaning is something that should be done regularly.
Most homes never need duct cleaning. There are some exceptions, however. If you find mold, or rodent or insect nests in the ducts, eliminate the source of the contamination or infiltration and have the ducts professionally cleaned and disinfected. Expect to pay $350 to $1,000 for a thorough job that includes scrubbing the ducts with special brushes. Avoid cheap duct cleaning "specials" for $100 or less. Those low-cost services usually just blow compressed air through the ducts. That gets the loose dust moving, but it doesn't clean the mold or rodent or insect residues. Find out the cost of air duct cleaning.
Myth 5: You should twist the wires before you put on the wire nut.
This advice comes right from the wire nut manufacturers. You do NOT have to twist the wires before applying the wire nut. Most high-quality wire nuts incorporate a square-cut spring-steel wire that literally bites into the copper wires as you twist it on. The spring wire expands and contracts as the electrical wires heat and cool, keeping them tightly bound. Continue twisting the wire nut even after it "hits bottom." Keep turning the nut until the wire insulation is twisted 1-1/2 in. past the wire nut.
Note: Some lighting fixtures come with wire nuts that don't have a spring-steel wire insert. Toss those freebies and use only high-quality wire nuts that have a wire insert.
Myth 6: Leaving my computer on all the time makes it last longer.
This myth had some basis 20 years ago when hard drives bit the dust early from frequent on/off cycles. It's no longer true. From a power-use standpoint, leaving it on ALWAYS uses more power than shutting it off—even when it's in "sleep" or "hibernate" mode. Leaving it on also increases your risk of catastrophic damage from power surges—even with a surge protector. So turn off the power strip or unplug your computer when you're not using it.
Misunderstanding 2: A dielectric union is all I need to protect my water heater from electrolysis/ galvanic action.
Anytime you join two dissimilar metals (such as copper and galvanized pipe) and add water, you create a flow of electrons (electrolysis or galvanic action), that eventually destroys the galvanized pipe. For decades, plumbers have used an insulated dielectric union to prevent the damage. A dielectric union does provide a small measure of protection. But it's not enough to prevent the complete failure of the galvanized pipe (top photo). Lab tests show that a 3-in. dielectric nipple reduces current flow by 85 percent over the use of a dielectric union alone. So, next time you install a water heater, install a dielectric nipple in addition to a dielectric union. Buy them at a plumbing supply store or contact the manufacturer (perfectioncorp.com) to find a local distributor.
Huge Myth!: Setback thermostats don't save money.
Sure, the furnace has to pump out a lot of BTUs to bring the house back up to the daytime temp. But studies have proven beyond a doubt that the fuel savings during the setback period far outweighs the cost of raising the temp again. Set the temperature back at least 5 degrees at night and 10 degrees during the day (when no one is home) and you'll save 20 percent on your heating/cooling bill (raise the temp by the same amount for cooling in summer). That will more than pay for the cost of the setback thermostat in the first year.
Misunderstanding 3: Use hot water when you run the food disposer because it melts the grease to prevent clogs.
Sure, hot water melts the grease and washes it down the drain. But once the liquefied grease hits the pipes, it cools, solidifies and eventually builds up. The grease is a magnet for food bits, lint and hair, eventually clogging the pipe. And those clogs are so far away you can't reach them with a household snake. Calling in a pro to clear the line will cost you about $150. Cold water, on the other hand, solidifies the grease before it hits the sewer line, so it can float all the way to the city sewer. Cold water also cools the disposer motor, making it last longer.
Myth 7: Dethatching my lawn every year is good for it.
Power dethatching is never good for your lawn. It may feel good to run a 5-hp monster power rake through your lawn and see it throw out huge piles of thatch. But if you've set the machine low enough to reach the thatch layer, you're really tearing up healthy grass and stressing the remaining grass. Thatch buildup is the symptom of a serious problem, not the cause of it (the cause is overfertilization, too much water and shallow roots). Instead of dethatching, experts recommend solving the underlying problem by cutting way back on nitrogen fertilizer. Next, rent a core aerator and run it across your lawn. Then apply a product such as Natural Guard Soil Activator. Buy it at any garden center. The soil activator literally composts the existing thatch and turns it into useful nutrients for your lawn. By aerating your lawn and applying soil activator, you help the grass establish a deep root structure— the key to a healthy and thatch-free lawn.


text:
Health libraryBack to health library
Reviewed 2/22/2023
Going gluten-free: Myth or fact?
Gluten is a protein found in certain grains-and in many processed foods, from pastas and pastries to salad dressings and veggie burgers. But as the gluten-free trend has emerged, myths about gluten have also popped up. Can you separate fact from fiction?
Myth or fact: A gluten-free diet is healthier for everyone.
Myth. A gluten-free diet can help some people-those with celiac disease, non-celiac gluten sensitivity or wheat allergies-avoid serious health problems. But many gluten-free versions of products like breads and pastas are lower in important nutrients and aren't healthier choices for people without gluten-related conditions.
Myth or fact: Many people may not know they have celiac disease, in which gluten damages the small intestine.
Fact. About 1 in 100 people worldwide have celiac disease. Most people with gluten-related disorders, including celiac disease, are undiagnosed. If you think you might have this genetic disease, see your doctor before you quit gluten. Why? Because cutting gluten from your diet before being tested could lead to inaccurate results.
Myth or fact: All grains contain gluten.
Myth. Gluten is only in wheat, barley and rye. But if your doctor recommends a gluten-free diet, it's important to learn all the forms these three grains can take-like bulgur and couscous (wheat), brewer's yeast and malt vinegar (barley), and rye berries and rye flour.
Myth or fact: A gluten-free diet can include potatoes, quinoa and rice.
Fact. Potatoes, quinoa and rice are all gluten-free grains or starches, as are corn, millet and buckwheat. So are oats, but they often come into contact with gluten during shipping and processing and may need to be avoided.
Myth or fact: Go gluten-free, and you'll lose weight.
Myth. Swapping processed foods that contain gluten for healthful options like fruits and veggies may lead to weight loss in some people. But gluten-free processed foods often have extra calories from sugars and fats added for flavor and texture, so many people actually gain weight.
If you think you have a gluten-related health issue—such as celiac disease—it's important to talk to a doctor about it.
Read more about celiac disease
Sources: Gluten Intolerance Group; International Food Information Council Foundation; National Institutes of Health


text:
Doors of Old San Juan 1
The colorful colonial façades that characterize the old city. Were they for a postcard, or for one of those romantic tourism campaigns, some elements would have touched-up or eliminated. Nevertheless this is the Old San Juan I know and the one I want to portray. After all, you will find beauty in the un-perfect.Read More


text:
This weekend , I tried a new approach to the guessing game of paying the babysitter. I told them how much I was willing to pay for their help ahead of time, and I outlined what I expected to happen while I was gone. It was a Take It or Leave It approach, and it worked. But there was a little bit of eye-rolling when I stated that my price for three hours with two kids was $15. Apparently I am way below the curve of what people are paying in our neighborhood.
My position is that it is not a terribly hard job: I don't expect them to be the mom, I expect them to watch a movie with my kids and feed them a little pre-made dinner. Probably almost exactly what they would be doing at home for free. If I could afford to pay them more, I would expect them to do more, like clean my house, make the dinner and do the dishes. But I know my budget, so I tell them that I don't expect much extra and pray that it will go smoothly for them. If I had a new baby, I would pay extra for the inevitable emotional drain and possible sore muscles from carrying the baby. If I had really intense or difficult kids, I would pay them more because they would have earned more (and just to make sure they are willing to come back).
After the babysitter took my offer, because we are friends and I was interested, she and her brother started talking about what they get paid for other jobs. He said that he usually earns $30-40 each time he mows someone's lawn. He was bewildered when a man in our ward said $20 was too much to pay for just mowing his lawn. Then he said that regular, non-LDS people pay $50 per time that he mows their lawn! FIFTY DOLLARS. I believe my brother charged $50 for a summer-long commitment of lawn mowing for each house on his route.
So the kids are saying, "This is so great! I am making so much money!" And the adults are saying, "Well, I guess if that is what people are paying, I had better stay competitive with what I pay too." And the price keeps inflating higher and higher. But what are the consequences?
First, I get a babysitter twice a year. I can't afford it otherwise. Other moms feel the same way. So the teenagers are potentially losing out on steady work and the commitment of holding a regular babysitting job because the going rate is more than many families can afford. My friends and I get around that by simply swapping kids with each other, which is fantastic and cheap. So we aren't the ones missing out in the situation–its the teenager who could have some money more often, rather than lots of money occasionally.
And second, we are creating an unrealistic expectation for kids in what their time and energy is actually worth. When I was a kid, babysitting was a low-paying, under-age job, but at least we earned something until we were 16 and we could go out and get a grocery store or restaurant job and really start earning money. Now, we are inflating teenager's wages for babysitting and yard work and the minimum wage job at the grocery store down the street is not enticing at all. They don't want to get a formal job for less money than they they are used to getting around the neighborhood. I had one teen tell me that he hated his pizza place job because "they treat me like a trained monkey. I think they want to work me to death." Yes, real jobs are hard and often crummy. But they are stepping stones to greater things. Experience is important when are applying for a better job than the one you currently have. If they don't want to work at the pizza place in high school, and then they don't want to work at a college job (because they don't pay enough or it is not the kind of work they like), how are they going to get a job out of college with absolutely no experience? We complain about paying the mechanic or the plumber for their labor and yet we freely overpay these unskilled teenagers to their own detriment. And it is not just teenagers that have this inflated self-conception. Everyone does. (See comments below for further examples).
A recent article stated that only 28% of teenagers (16-18) have their drivers licenses, down from 46% of licensed teens in 1983. Their unemployment rate is 24%–fully three times the national average. Yes, it is getting more expensive to do things, but also many kids just don't seem to be very motivated to chase after things. Many of them are content to be carted around by their parents, have things paid for by their parents, and take their time reaching adulthood. Maybe this is the same argument that has been made in every generation (starting with the words, "In my day. . ."), but from my perspective teenagers have never before been so impressive or so useless. There are some really stellar kids out there making their way. And there are some really pathetic ones. Their potential spans a great chasm, and we should all be anxious to help them climb from mediocrity to impressiveness.
The Value of Hard Work and Desperation
In my day, my siblings and I would do anything to earn a little extra money. We were desperate. Lemonade stands, selling fruit from our orchard door to door. I even remember setting up a restaurant in our gazebo in the yard, making sandwiches with the food from our kitchen, and then expecting my mom to come and buy the food from me (so she had to buy the same stuff twice–at the grocery store, then the gazebo. She refused, but in exchange for a free sandwich, she let us keep selling her food to other people). If I could scrape together enough money to go to the movie, I was set. That creative ability to solve my money problems has led me all over the work-world–to Taiwan, a mountain summer camp, cleaning college buildings, working nights in a cherry factory, doing "handyman projects" that I (and my boss) were totally unqualified to do, crocheting afghans, cleaning houses, even writing a couple of articles for a local food magazine. Nevermind my college degree and legitimate, steady jobs. I was willing to work almost anywhere and I have patchworked my 31 years with adventure, travel, crummy jobs, boredom and new skills.
And my level of ambition is put to shame by the previous generation's. My father-in-law is a remarkably tenacious worker. When he was ten, he decided that he wanted a horse. Period. His parents said, "No, we don't have any place to put it, you can't have a horse". But he was undeterred. He got on his bike and made some inquiries. He found a stable that he could board a horse and a place to buy hay. Now, he just needed a horse, and money to buy it. He first saved up his money so that he could buy a lawnmower, then he mowed lawns, saved his lunch money every day instead of buying lunch, turned in pop bottles for about a dollar a day, saved his birthday money–in short, he didn't spend a thing. (Keep in mind: he was TEN). When he was 11, he had finally saved up about $300 in 1970 dollars (equivalent to $1,775 today).
He saw an ad in the paper for an Appaloosa for sale in LaVerkin, Utah that he thought would be a good fit. $200. So he called up his bishop, who had a horse trailer, and they went down to buy the horse. He got Callie (named for her Calico coat) all set up in her stall and then went home and told his mom, "I bought a horse." "You did not!" "I did. I'll show you if you want." So they drove down there together and she was blown away. He would ride his bike across town each day after school to feed and ride Callie. He kept working to earn the money for her hay and board.
Desperation begets creativity. Creatively solving problems gives kids confidence to do more. Confidence in doing more leads to success. Overpaying kids upends the whole cycle.
So I propose a unified approach to the question of What Do You Pay The Babysitter:
- If you aren't already sure of what you want to pay, try setting your price relative to the price of a movie ticket. Everyone's cost of living is different, so it isn't reasonable to say $5/hour across the world. But if it takes about two hours to earn the money to go to a 2-hour movie, that seems fair. Movies here are $10 a ticket, I think, so I would pay $5 an hour for kids under the age of 16.
- Lay out your proposal from the beginning so you can avoid the awkward car ride conversation when you are dropping them off. "Is that enough? Is that okay?" "yeah, it's fine. Whatever is fine." This also lets the teenager refuse the job if they feel it isn't worth their time. I remember the agony of wondering what they were going to pay me–sometimes even if they were going to remember to pay me. It gives them more confidence when they are agreeing to the job.
- Point out exactly what you would like to have them do while you are gone. "I need you to feed them all, and then clear up the table and put the dishes in the sink. If you do the dishes, I will pay you $2 extra. Then put the kids to bed, make sure they have their pajamas on and their teeth brushed. After the kids are in bed, if you want an extra $2, feel free to clean up the house." Think of hiring a teenage babysitter as a training opportunity for their upcoming "real job".
- If kids decide that they really want to develop their babysitting skills by taking CPR courses, or making a babysitting kit to bring with them, then we ought to respect their improving skills and pay them more. I have a friend who saved up all of her money for college by babysitting kids in the DC area, even holding summer camps in her home for groups of kids. I'm not saying that we should underpay anyone. I'm saying that these kids should earn their money. So if it is an easy job, they have earned $5 an hour, if my kids are difficult, then they have earned $10 an hour by putting up with them. If they save them from a house fire, they get a bonus! If they have developed themselves professionally to a point where they are actively engaging with my kids, taking care of the house, feeding them healthy foods and getting them to bed on time, they are earning more than $5. But to sit and and watch a show, leave the house a mess and put the baby to bed with a saggy diaper– they haven't earned much. We need to require responsible, accountable employees, and they will learn skills that will make them employable out in the world.
- Paying the "going rate" blindly or proudly isn't doing our babysitters any favors. If this resonates with you, please share the article with your neighborhood friends and ward members. It will be more effective if all of the parents in your circle are on the same page. Let's do what little we can to reinforce responsibility and healthy ambition in these kids!
(If you dare to descend into the pit of the comment section, be warned, it's a dirty place. And then please check out my response to the responses.)


text:
Editorial: A political prescription
Albany Times-Union, 5/2/14
A senator offers a compromise to break New York's impasse on medical marijuana.
Will politicians let medical professionals make the medical decisions?
In a perfect world, politicians would leave medical decisions to doctors and other health experts. Alas, when it comes to medical marijuana, we live in an imperfect world.
It's an issue that, in New York and many other places, is unfortunately intertwined with politics. Lawmakers continue to balance the expert opinions of the medical community and best judgments of individual physicians against political considerations, such as their own law-and-order images and fears among some of their constituents that legalizing marijuana, even for a limited and beneficial use, opens the door to full legalization and heralds the decline of civilization…
In that context, the best we can hope for, in the short run, is acceptable compromise. And a reworked bill seeks to achieve just that.
The bill's sponsor, state Sen. Diane Savino, D-Staten Island, is amending the original legislation, which essentially allowed prescribers to determine what ailments qualified for a marijuana prescription. The bill originally defined that broadly as conditions that are severely debilitating or life-threatening, including but not limited to 22 specific ailments. That "but not limited to" clause, however, was too open-ended for some lawmakers, particularly in the Republican Senate conference.
Determined to get a bill passed, Ms. Savino struck the disputed clause and added language to limit prescriptions of smokeable marijuana to people 21 and over, addressing a stated concern among some legislators about allowing underage smoking. People under 21 could, however, be prescribed extracts, vaporizable material, or products infused with marijuana.
Importantly, her amended bill would also set up an advisory committee, appointed by the governor, Legislature and attorney general. It would be made up of health care practitioners, patients or patient advocates, experts on the regulation of controlled substances for medical use, people from the medical marijuana industry, and law enforcement. It could hear appeals of patients or practitioners who are denied prescriptions or the authority to write them.
The committee's most significant role would be to advise the state health commissioner on expanding the list of conditions for which a marijuana prescription would be allowed. The health commissioner would have the power to add conditions to the list or remove them.
While satisfying the concerns of some lawmakers that the earlier bill was too open-ended, this amended version would put the decision about the appropriate use of medical marijuana in the hands of a medical professional, not politicians. Assuming the commissioner's job is held by a thoughtful, compassionate individual who would rely on the latest research and experience, it's a sound approach.
The question of whether to legalize medical marijuana has for far too long been a political football. It's time for politicians to end a game they have played as people have suffered needlessly on the sidelines.


text:
By Elizabeth Landau, CNN
Drumroll please. The results are in.
The rover Curiosity, equipped with the most sophisticated tools ever sent to the Red Planet, has returned the initial measurements of the composition of the Martian atmosphere. And they are ...
1. No methane - at least not for sure, yet
Chris Webster of the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, is the instrument lead for SAM Tunable Laser Spectrometer. He promised attendees of Friday's press call that he would answer the question eventually.
But the bombshell was delivered in one sentence: "We have no definitive detection of methane."
This is perhaps a disappointment for anyone who thought signs of life would come this early in Curiosity's two-year mission. Curiosity is using the Sample Analysis at Mars instrument (SAM) to help scientists probe the atmosphere.
Methane gas could be a key indicator of the planet's habitability. About 90% to 95% of the methane in Earth's atmosphere is biologically derived, said Sushil Atreya, a University of Michigan researcher and co-investigator for SAM.
"It's not really a surprise to us. We went there with no preconceived notions of what we were going to find," Atreya said.
Even if there were methane, however, the gas can be produced by nonbiological sources, such as volcanic activity.
The story isn't over. Curiosity landed on August 6, so it has time to take samples and come up with a more conclusive estimate for the amount of methane in the Martian atmosphere. The scientists took into account relatively large margins of error for the analysis.
If there is a source of methane, it takes about three months to distribute it from the source, scientists said. Curiosity will continue making atmospheric measurements and may find methane in the future.
"We're going to keep looking in the months ahead," Webster said. "Mars, as we know, may yet hold surprises for us."
Twitter was buzzing with the news. @SarcasticRover tweeted, "So far Mars has no methane. It also has no lemurs or apples. Also lacking in homemade soups. It's a pretty empty planet."
2. Atmospheric loss
An analysis of the isotopes in the Martian atmosphere reveals that a portion of the atmosphere may have been lost to space.
Scientists theorized this based on the presence of heavier isotopes of carbon in the atmosphere's carbon dioxide compared with the ratio of heavier to lighter isotopes estimated to have existed when the planet formed.
So what happened to the gases? There are several possibilities, says Laurie Leshin, researcher at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and co-investigator for the SAM instrument. For example, large impacts can blow off large parts of the atmosphere, Leshin said. There's no protective magnetic field around the planet, either, so solar wind ions can knock things off, she said.
NASA's next step for the Red Planet - the Mars Evolution and Volatile Evolution Mission, aka MAVEN - will try to understand those mechanisms in more detail by examining the gases escaping from Mars today, Leshin said. MAVEN will involve an orbiting space probe, which is scheduled to launch November 2013.
3. Composition
The five gases most prevalent in the Martian atmosphere are carbon dioxide, argon, nitrogen, oxygen and carbon monoxide, scientists found.
In general, the results are consistent with what the Viking mission found in the 1970s, except that Curiosity found a 35% lower atmospheric abundance of nitrogen. Atreya said it's possible that the proportion of nitrogen in the atmosphere could change seasonally; there just isn't any information on that yet.
With more measurements over time, the latest and greatest rover may provide further insight into whether that's true year-round and what it means.
NASA: Press conference visuals
More: Mars rover finds shiny objects
More: What's we've done on Mars and what's next
Please don't tell the government there is weed on Mars, or they will figure out a way to spend more than the $1000.00 per hour. That they spend on me, trying to bust my nickle bag.
Finding no "life" on Mars should open a gateway to send thousands of probes wiith bioengineered life forms that could thrive on the environment present on the planet. If successful these "plants", spores, fungi....whatever we decide.... would assist man in the developmentof permanent colonies . Now we are exploring yet trying to avoid contamination problems ...to effectively colonize we must introduce lifeforms if none are present.
Lets conquer Mars so we can tax the wealthy who live there. This will solve the 4 billion dollar per day cliff we are headed for. So lets join hands and move forward together. Thank God there is a way out!!!
Come on people look at your foolishness. Everyone acts like the bible states life is only from earth. I am a Christian but i cannot argue that God made life on earth only show me one place in the bible that states such a thing. God is the creator of Heaven and Earth, what makes our little blue ball so special that God could only put life on one planet. After all God can do whatever he wants. Do I think their is inteligent life out their suh as aliens, im not so cure, but i dont know and dont pretend to know all things about what God has or has not done. If life does exsist which I would like to belive that it does i think it will most likely be in the form of plants, mammals, dinosures, fish, and other cool life that God would love for us to learn about. The more science teaches us the more sure i am their is a God. For anyone to claim to know God but reject the fact that the bible says "by him all things were made that were made. So if science proves life exsists this would not question my faith, the question is would it question yours and if so you might want to reconsider what you belive becuse your faith cannot be based on ideas that do not derive from the bible. "there is no life on other planets" is one of those ideas i would throw out, because when they prove you wrong what will you stand on, or will your fiath crumble... Last thought .... for those who argue about life and the bible if life was found what would be your answer to this?
Well, although the Bible does not explicitly mention that God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) created "Life" ONLY on Earth, the entire "narrative" in it revolves around "Life on Earth!" The Bible describes the "beginning and end of time" pertinent to "Life on Earth" from the "story of creation" in Genesis to the "apocalypse" in Revelation! That implicitly indicates no other life forms anywhere else are tied to this timetable! Also, the Bible mentions ONLY Angels, Humans, Animals, and Plants as created living beings!
Yeah, no bugs.
Let alone other planets, bible does even mention the existence of Americas. If early fundamentalist Christians had not destroyed scientific books by Greek scientists like Ptolemy, we would have discovered that the earth is round a lot earlier. To seek answers to scientific queries in religious books seems like barking at the wrong tree.
Does anyone know if the rover scientists tested Curiosity's gas sensors with their own flatulence before it was mounted on the rocket? Did they damage the gas sensors and have to replace them? Just wondering.
Look At It This Way, Here On Earth, We Have The Footprints Of Our Ancestors Journey's Across The Planet. Only To Evolve To The Technology Of The Wheel, Which Left It's Wheelie Prints On The Surface Of Mars. This In Itself Is An Astronomical Achievement. Makes Us Truly Ponder, That Humanity Has Moved Up A Notch.
Science is against the Will of God! It is a sin to send this Souless robot there!
And....who/what took this picture!?
Is there a limit on the amount of text?!
NASA's strategy in their search for life on Mars had previously been "Follow the Water", but now it is "Follow the Farts"
There is no life on mars, God only put life on Earth!
and don't forget, God put all that life here just 6000 years ago and intentionally buried all those dinosaur bones all over the place just to test our faith
lol Dinosaur!
Common sense and selective religious views never mix. Spot on Culpepper.
Read your Bible again. The six creative periods occurred BEFORE God gave man his reckoning of time. The six creative periods (called "days" only for lack of terminology back then) could have been ANY length.......including BILLIONS of years. Once God gave man his reckoning of time, then the Bible records 4000 years from Adam to Christ.
But we can put life on Mars, cant we?
WAY too many "rational" and "logical" know-it-alls packed into one message board. This has got to be the funniest, most arrogant group of comments I have ever seen. Maybe we should hold-off on gracing other planets with our "intelligence", at least until this generation ends, or at least until this ridiculous election (which the rest of the planet always seems to suffer for) comes to a close.
First enjoy the broccoli cheddar soup, the methane will follow.
I'm with buzz. figuratively & literally.
All that has to be done is send up a few cows, some grass and call it good. Grass gives them oxygen and food.. Cows produce the methane.. All good.
That will require a small dome with grass field plus cow in it. There should be a vent that can open and close from time to time. Its might take a years to years by filling Mars with cow's fart.
They may have not found methane, but physicists at the prestigous Sarah Palin University report uncovering the remains of an ancient trailer park and nascar track, proof that eons ago the Red Planet was inhabited by alien tea party patriots.
What a waste of money.
And you're a waste of oxygen.
They said the same thing about gasoline in the late 1800's and airplanes in the early 1900's. I think the problem is that you have a poor imagination.
Fortunately, there are many people who are able to see how Mars represents a potential for mining and colonies.
It isn't a lot of money, and this can help set the future for a base to be built there one day.
And tax payers benefit more from NASA than any other organization.
Mars is a no farting zone.
so i guess Adam and eve never traveled to mars :)..surprised
@Lifeasweknowit: Adam and Eve may not have been to Mars, but God stopped there before coming to earth.
Great! No life! We can do whatever we want to the planet now! Launch the hotels and McDonalds!
They could send my wife to Mars...if there's ANYTHING smelly there, she'd find it in 2 seconds (and complain about it too)
Come on Curiosity, try harder! Get with the program!
So, they haven't been able to find traces of life on Mars, huh? Perhaps it's because life doesn't spontaneously arise from non-life... Could science finally be proving itself wrong on this issue?! I, for one, hope so. :]
Why would you hope so,unless it's to reinforce your belief in ridiculous religious nonsense?
Yes Brandon... since only the 2nd planet out 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 in the visible universe alone have been examined, I believe you made a very accurate and informed comment....
Look, it's simple. Six thousand years ago God decided to create the Earth so he reached over and grabbed a bunch of dirt and rocks from Mars, one of his earlier experiments that didn't work out, and formed it into our planet. So the dinosaur bones and other items including rocks and stuff, that all appear to be millions or even billions of years old are really from Mars and came over in the big pile God used to make Earth. So Earth really is only six thousand years old. See how easy that was.
Yes. Because we searched one planet out of the possible trillions of planets in our one galaxy out of the possible billions of galaxies.
At least science has the ability to prove itself wrong. Religion doesn't seem to be able to prove anything except for the fallibility of man and itself.
"Could science finally be proving itself wrong on this issue?"
Uh, no. Look up the negative proof fallacy – which was originally recognized as a logical fallacy using tools for rational analysis developed by the church several centuries ago. It's often summarized as "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Wrong. The Earth's magnetic field MAY be heading for a field reversal, which happens every few hundred thousand to a few million years. The field weakens temporarily while it does so. It will then spring back to full strength. The Earth is ten times more massive than Mars and can retain heat far longer as a result.
November 3, 2012 at 3:22 am | Reply
Actually it's a bit under 10 times as massive."
Well, well, @Ralter: "a bit under"? And somehow that makes all the difference to @Leif's comment?
So, surprise, there is no evidence of Martian farts.
Paw whats we gots here is one of them big city comedians
I guess the reason you and Paw don't realize that the reason you can spend the evening amusing each other by lighting your farts, is that they are comprised of (that's a big word for made of) methane.
Maybe maw, but he joking is not goods
I'm still betting the rover will find something incredible. And even if it doesn't, this mission is invaluable as the precursor to a Europa or Enceladus mission, where there is undeniable liquid water.
They're looking in the wrong places. They need to search in and around the volcanoes where it was warmer for life for a longer period and still spewing out chemicals like sulfur and methane.
Gee – you should contact the NASA science team immediately and inform them of your insight. I'm sure they no nothing at all about life or volcanoes or Mars.
Ummmmm, the volcanoes aren't active and haven't been for a LONG time.
what's up with the grammar? use spell check much~
grammar nazi. seig heil!
most spellcheckers i've seen only look for misspelled words and don't find grammatical errors.
Dave did you know that you are to use capital letters at the beginning of sentences?
I will tell you exactly where the Martian atmosphere went, it once had a spinning iron core that slowed down and stopped collapsing its magnetic field once this happened solar winds blew away the atmosphere, and the same thing is going to happen here on Earth, our core is slowing down too and our magnetic field is weaking fast 10% in the last 100 years, already the magetic field here is becoming unstable, it happend sooner on Mars because it is 1/3 the size of Earth. The Earth will become Mars like probably in just a few centuries to one millenia at the most, all the more reason get moving with human space colonization not of planets but of space itself in artificial environments that can be controlled other wise what was the point of everything humans ever did if we arent going to take our own survival serious.
The Earth reverses its magnetic field every once in a while. It comes back though.
People will acually believe speculative conspiracy crap like this, but won't believe in well established global warming as the immediat threat.
John, stop spreading such garbage. The Earth's got billions of years before it changes due to magnetic field dampening.
Actually the last magnetic reversal was the Olduvai event at 1.7 million years ago so it could happen again anytime.
Wrong. The Earth's magnetic field MAY be heading for a field reversal, which happens every few hundred thousand to a few million years. The field weakens temporarily while it does so. It will then spring back to full strength. The Earth is ten times more massive than Mars and can retain heat far longer as a result.
Actually it's a bit under 10 times as massive.
@ralter – tell us, Mr Science, exactly how much more massive the Earth is compared to Mars
John ... Earth's iron core will still be happily spinning away generating a magnetic field a few billion years from now when our sun's energy is finally exhausted and all the inner planets are swallowed up as the sun expands into a red giant star, but the Republican party applauds your scare tactics of trying to frighten lesser educated people that it will occur in just a century from now
What they really need to do on Mars is DIG! You need an archaeologist rover that can go around and do some serious digging, there may well have been life on mars millions of years ago when it was more earthlike, so you need to dig for fossils, crack some rocks open and look for fossils.
as I read this, I just farted. talk about elusive methane!
Careful now. No sparks for at least a minute.
take the next shuttle to Mars! Need your help!
I'm really hoping they will find themselves a nice bowl of french onion.
Simply propagate the entire martian service with baked beans. Done.
Surface even. Man what a night.
I still can't figure out how you can have oxygen on a planet that doesn't have life.
Doesn't make any sense. Even if there was some form of water or microscopic life...when the water dissipated and life died off...so would have the oxygen.
Are you saying you think the oxygen would die, or need to be replenished? It isn't alive. It's a gas. It's manufactured in stars and disbursed via supernovae, like the other elements on the periodic table. Plants manufacture oxygen on Earth by using up the carbon in CO2 for growth, producing oxygen as a waste product – animals use oxygen but give off CO2 as a waste product – a nice little quid pro quo we've got going with our plant buddies, but not required for the presence of oxygen in and of itself.
Oxygen is required for life as we understand it, but life isn't required for oxygen.
If you believe evolution not only occured once but many times your a blinded fool oh sure you may believe it but have you ever once looked at how many millions of things have to go right for evolution? The irony of evolution is this they can't believe everything was creating but everything just magically appeared odd right. Think of it like this in this perspective out of the millions of stars and planets just in our solar system somehow the right molecules landed in the right spot earth just so happened to need everything to sustain life even more so the earth produced food and water to support such life how man rules over the beasts and how we are the only creatures with a few things animals don't have a concience a spiritual need and reasoning power all these things animals do not posses you see if evolution is real then all the other animals on earth would have evolved to a human like thinking form long ago it's only logical but regardless of what science tells you they have never found proof of one species changing from one to another completely different creature they have only been able to prove adaptation. Those that think people thought the earth was flat where Christians are sadly mistaken read Isiah it's right in the bible and it gives a good explanation of what the earth is a spherical shape that hangs on nothing this is long before science ever figured it out now I wonder how could someone so long ago could have known about the earth. Conclusion if there is life out there we won't know unless God reveals it to us guess you will just have to study the bible and wait for the big war thats coming who like Noah goes today and warns people of the fast approaching disstruction of the wicked? And who are like those in Noahs day who laughed at him and said why should we listen to it has never rained a day from the beginning of man? Don't mock my grammar as long as you get the message thats all that matters.
I get it. You're stupid.
Nothing like basing your life on fantasy and fiction ehh Phazon?
You're joking right?
It's sad that people who think of themselves as intelligent, logical, scientific humanbeings are so willing to throw out the Biblical possiblities. Phazon is correct that there is no solid evidence proving macro evolution. There are many strong scientific minds that disagree with the process. For example, Dr. Hugh Ross who wrote the book "The Creator and the Cosmos" has some compelling truth on how the latest scientific discoveries reveal God. It really is time we stop teaching our children that evolution is a fact, because it is still a theory. The problem is that during the past 100 years science has been so desparate to disprove the existence of God that it stopped being objective in its findings, and this has created an obstical for true scientific research. Think of it this way. Imagine a police detective that is so certain that a crime was commited by a particular individual that he stopped looking at the facts. In the case of evolution, it can't explain the Cambrian explosion, that true evolution would require more time than the planet Earth has been able to supply, that we haven't been able to replicate the process of first life in the conditions that existed upon the earth, that there is no fossil evidence of macro evolution, and then we have the eyeball. Chalres Darwin himself said that evolution can not explain the complexity of the eyeball. So Phazon. My hat is off to you for being willing to state an opposing arguement.
Pokeydok. The Bible has yet to be disproven as fact. The seven days of creation for example coincide with the Big Bang Theory. Including the fact that time itself began when the universe was created. It was the first book that placed the order of creation correctly. It was the first book to explain that the universe was laid out like a blanket. It was indeed the first book to show that the Earth just hangs out there as Phazon said. Hmmm.
Archeologically, it has yet to be disproven. Prophetically, it has yet to be disproven. Also, if you take the time to read it and you realize that it was written over centuries by many different people, you will really see the miracle of this. For example, read Psalm 22 that was written 1000 years before the death of Jesus. Once again, hmmmm. Take time to research all of the facts. I used to be an evolutionist, but I took time to do the research. Real knowledge comes from being willing to look at all of the facts.
if you studied grammar and spelling as much as you've studied the Bible then perhaps i wouldn't have stopped reading your post after the first couple of sentences.
@rabies... " The Bible has yet to be disproven as fact". Couldn't I also argue that evolution has not been disproved, therefore it exists?
Seriously? Sorry for this everyone, but I find it incredible in this day and age people still exist that think the world is 6,000 years old and people used to live to be 600 years old. I get that it feels good and it provides you all with a sense of certainty, but I hope you understand its rediculous. Outside of the obvious problems in any argument you might come up with, I challenge you toactually read the bible from cover to cover and have a look at everything you "choose" not to believe, while spewing all of the other crazy nonsense you cling onto in discussion boards.
@Yep I actually applaud your reasoning on this. Although I believe there is much more evidence to support the Bible than there is for the Theory of Evolution, you make a good point. You took the challenge of looking at the problem and doing a logical comparison. With that in mind, let me pose a quandry your direction. You obviously have a logical mind. If you were walking in England and were to come across Stonehenge, would you look at it and say,"Oh, these rocks must have formed this way over the period of eons. How amazing is that?" Or, would you say,"I wonder why someone set these huge stones up this way?" We do not know who set it up or how it was set up. Yet, I've never heard anyone say that it must have been by pure chance. Yet, living beings are vastly more complicated, and we are willing to say that it was by pure chance. Without the smoking gun to prove evolution as fact. Then my question is how can we teach it as fact. On the other hand, the Bible does have first hand accounts of its validity. The question of Evolution is not Evolution vs. the Bible. The question is whether or not there is really enough information to prove it as fact, and that is sadly lacking. I have noticed a lot of one line quips, but I am still waiting on the logical arguments for evolution. YEP has been the only one to offer a logical argument, so far. I appreciate that.
But why does it have to be either the Bible, or Evolution ?? Throughout history, there are thousands of stories about creation. Personally, I feel there is far more archeological evidence for the Sumerian legends of the Annunaki, sentient beings from another world who came to earth, and conducted a genetic experiment which resulted on the creation of humanity. Why can't this theory be on equal footing with the Bible and Darwin ?
For that matter, why does it have to be the God of the Bible? Suppose Divine Creation is true, who says it has to be the Christian God that did it? Why could it not have been Ra, or Zeus, or Hecate, or even Allah ?? None of those can be disproved either.
Spiders can reason, and I think they have a spiritual love of Cthulu.
There are no little green men out there. Sorry to tell you. If you believe in aliens, you might as well believe in angels. At least if you believe in those, you tend to be a nicer person.
sentient life exists elsewhere: this general statement is almost certainly true, considering the staggering size of the universe. Whether they are even technologically advanced enough or will ever be (or we will ever be) to communicate and explore space is what is extremely unlikely.
Clearsight I disagree... technically, look how advanced we have came within the last 1000 years, 100 years, 10 years... to think we are the only creatures in the cosmos that can have intelligence is like saying the earth is the center of the universe (which we used to believe not so long a go)...
then to think that there are more suns in the universe than there are grains of sand on earth should give you some semblance of how really insignificant we really are......
What we know for sure is that planets are a perfectly ordinary feature of star systems, and that our star is a perfectly ordinary example of the 200 or so billion stars in this galaxy; a galaxy which itself is perfectly ordinary and one of billions. We also know that all that's required for life is the right combination of chemistry and conditions.
So while I agree with you that stories of "little green men" visiting Earth are made up by bored or crazy people, I must also place into the same category anyone who willfully refuses to accept the possibility of life elsewhere in the incomprehensible vastness of the universe.
There is no evidence of these "angels" of yours. There is abundant evidence that the universe is an immense place full of ordinary galaxies, stars and planets, just like our own.
If we "know that all that's required for life is the right combination of chemistry and conditions", how come no one has been able to synthesize new life in the laboratory, by design or by accident, apart from using existing components taken from existing living cells, and using entire living cells to manufacture them? How can we know, when we cannot even define what those conditions are?
I was a little jarred recently to read my son's 6th grade Glencoe science book that states categorically that spontaneous generation has been "proven" impossible, then to postulate evolution of the first living cell from non-living matter (both in the 1st chapter), which is... spontaneous generation.
Before someone tells me how dumb I am for asking, I got "A"s in pre-med molecular bio at the University of California. Duh.
@Cameron, read this:
We just haven't figured out how to speed up a few million years of chemical interactions into a few years; wait long enough and there will be more evidence on that.
I think the point SB was trying to make is that life exists here and there is nothing particularly extraordinary about our solar system...we KNOW there are billions of others out there and it only makes sense to assume some are like ours. The reason we have not been able to reproduce life in the lab is that clearly we still don't understand everything about the process (at one point in history the same could be said about many other scientific discoveries). People search for certainty and obviously the bible is the most popular source of certainty, but in the end, its just not that simple. I think the point is that if you look at it rationally, its very difficult to ignore the probability of some sort of life (intelligent or not) somewhere else in the universe.
Build huge power plants close together in multiple places. Place lots of power plants in a circular motion around the poles. Build other polluting power plants around the equator of Mars. This would create a magnetic field. Once this project is complete, we need to transport some cows to Mars. Another ship would drop a large shipment of goods for the cows to graze on. Keep replenishing the cows and the feed. Before you know it there would be plenty of methane in the atmosphere and Mars would begin to warm. The cows would also be dropping cow paddies, therefore fertilizing the soil. After all this man may begin to walk on the face of Mars just as we do here on earth.
Nice of you to assume it's ok to build all that junk in my backyard. Typical humans.
would of been more sense to spend the money protecting the east coast before hand instead of a trash truck on mars
complete waste of money......
wish i could argue with you, but im becoming quite impatient myself.
and how was this self portrait taken ?????
Mosaicing and reprojection to a different viewpoint.
I agree 100 percent! This quest to find life or prove evolution(which really what it is) is fruitless. Why not put this money where life can be found, like the 95 percent of the ocean that has nopt bee explored! I was so amazed about the life forms found in the extreme deep! They look alien in nature!
You mean, like, through an entire government agency called the NOAA? Or are you referring to the already substantial amount of money NASA already spends on oceanographic research?
Btea5503 the reason they spend money is understand our universe, but more importantly it is used to generate innovation... without innovation our economic system would collapse...
That thing can shovel my martian driveway.
I believe the the human foot print upon the martian surface is being lied about by the US government because of military and economic prospects.
The amount of withheld information is large and wide spanning.
These are my beliefs, and I would only be crazy if I intended to divert the selfishly limited fact finding and bubble reality constructing human beings who might read these words.
You will read what you want out of these stories, and comments. Don't let me interfere. I just wanted to have said that for the records.
your opinion is based on exactly what evidence?
The evidence of pure insanity, perhaps?
The lack of evidence is my evidence. If we assume a law of space exploration that suggests over time the science of space travel advanced at a rate comparable to an average of other engineering science ie train travel, air plane travel, submarines, bridge building, clothing manufacturincg etc We can easily notice a void of known space science ability. If you project space travel however at similar emerging sciences you not only notice the same void, but the chance of such a large cover up my quite simplistic assertion of a Moon base and man presence on mars because the tip of the iceberg of unknown space science. When you call me insane it hurts my feelings very much.
This only proves that Aliens don't fart.
Perhaps alien's fart H2 or Argon?
Anything is possible at this point
they knew as much forty years ago about mars as they do to-day, there was a full life magazine about how they were going to have machinery in place to change mars atmosphere to oxygen with a ozone layer ( liveable and trees growing also with a colony) they knew there was water there at that time, beginning of 1970, s
one of the rover pictures shows two areas where rover equipment is stationed, there also appears to be cultivated fields, they are not telling us what that is about, there has to be some kind of equipment there if fields are cultivated,
one of thier pictures even shows water flowing down the mountainside,
why have they not planted trees and vegitation???
I think Mars had life and had trees and plant producing oxygen but they must have died and carbon dioxide built up and plants dying maybe created nitrogen and oxygen became gone and then maybe the plant life burned up and produced all the carbon monoxide. Maybe this is what we should look at and not let it happen to earth. Plant trees or oxygen producing somethings.
so, wait a minute, the picture caption, "A self-portrait of the Mars rover Curiosity, taken on October 31" LOL, how did it take a picture of itself?!? i dont see a boom arm in the shot
II like your junk!
The picture you see is made up from a few small pictures. When you stich together those pictures, elements like the boom can appear to be missing.
If I was there it would find methane.
Drill baby drill!
We send Tinker Toy's to the Red planet to detect methane? 🙂
Agree, drill or find caves to seal off and make habitable. We must habitate Mars because..well , just because.
I'm actually from Mars. Us Martians have all you Earth people fooled. We monitor your television news broadcasts (usually DirecTV because it's cheaper), and then when we hear that you guys are coming over yet again, we start laughing and cracking up (we are such practical jokers). Then, we hide underground, just to mess with your heads. Our planet Mars, is actually a very lovely place, when you Earthlings are not here! You screwed up your own planet, we don't want you screwing up our's. By the way, we love Seinfeld!
You know, I understand pelpoe's choice to be Christian or their choice to be Atheist, but seriously, both groups, why can we not just practice or not practice religion in peace? Atheists: Christians are not trying to oppress you. Get over your grudges from the 12th century. PS why are you even watching this video? Christians: Love as Christ commands, let them live out in peace.
Looks to me like we need to plant a lot of things on Mars to start changing the atmosphere. I bet earth was like that too before the plants started eating up the CO2
Nothing would grow. Mars doesn't have a magnetic field to protect it from solar radiation. The radiation would kill any Earthly life forms.
perhaps genetically modified cold weather plants that had traits of plants which survive along our equator and also get their fair share of solar radiation could exist in a temperate region of mars if water circulation on a micro system was provided.
Frackin no methane on Mars! chuckles. 🙂
So with the earth atmosphere being 80% nitrogen, 18% oxygen, and 2% rare gas, what are the percentages of the five gases most prevalent in the Martian atmosphere of carbon dioxide, argon, nitrogen, oxygen and carbon monoxide. Is it hablitable?
not without a lot of work...
What, no cambells chunky, I'm disappointed.
What a waste of taxpayer's money. It be spent on more important issues right here on Mars.
ya, ya! 'it be spent right here on mars!' flagsagoofin!!
So are you a Martian living here on Earth paying Earth taxes here, or are you complaining that you are a Martian living on Mars paying Earth taxes on your retirement trailer that you own here on earth? Is that done by direct deposit or do you send it here on the regular yearly shuttle? What is the current conversion factor of Martian to Earth currency anyway?
Translation....This is last trip to Mars.
Why don't you go research the vast number of technological advances have come from space exploration. You will quickly learn how many things you use in your daily life that have come directly from it.
Stop being so short sighted.
It's fine to point to advances due to the space program. (Never mind how much cheaper all of these advances could have been through pure research.)
But the problem I have with NASA is that they deceive an uneducated population in order to get an inordinate amount of funding, relative to projects that would provide a greater ROI to our nation and our planet.
For example, this article says they found no methane...and that they went there with no preconceived notions. The truth is that if they had found methane, they would be trumpeting it to the world as possible evidence of past organic life...and immediately return to requesting funding to send humans to Mars. As a geologist, I know full well that humans do NOT need to fly to Mars to collect and bring back important sedimentary rock samples, any more than geologists have to put themselves 10,000 feet under ground to harvest rock samples from wells on earth.
The original pictures are on the NASA website. The rover took a bunch of close-ups and then they pieced them together to form the picture above. I've got to admit, it's pretty cool to sit here at home an look at the other day's pictures from Mars.
No methane?? Nobody up there lifts a cheek and passes gas??
What an incredible waste of time and money.
Yea, I agree!! Magellen, Columbus...all of those guys similarly spent a whole life wasting time and money.
Your lack of vision is depressing. Its a whole new freakin' planet for cryin' out loud. We are bound to learn things of immense value about our own world from an examination of Mars.
And it's people like you why we are behind scientifically almost a millennium. You say it's a waste of time and money, yet the people doing these things are the reason why you have all the technical comforts you do today, from air conditioning, to the darn country you live in. So go invest in your education, and learn, this stuff is more important than you think. One day, due to people like you, this planet will be uninhabitable, and we will need to find a new place to survive. So don't go opening your uneducated mouth until you realize how these important experiments effect our lives.
Paid for using taxpayers $$$
I suppose it is, if you live under a rock
The whole of the space program costs 6/10% of the US budget. I think you can agree that there is far more waste elsewhere in the budget which has no redeeming value. This little amount for advancement of knowledge is well worth the cost.
These numbers are far off. As a percentage of TOTAL federal spending, the NASA budget is barely one half of one percent (0.5%). Even taken as a percentage of discretionary spending, it wouldn't reach 3%. At the height of the Space Race ie. 1966, NASA budgets didn't break 4.5% of TOTAL spending. This year, the NASA budget will be at a level so low you would have to go back to 1960 to find comparable outlays. That was three years after Sputnik!!
Our numbers are the same unless I'm mistaken
Your decimal is in the wrong place. Spending on NASA is ONE HALF OF ONE PERCENT. It's not 6%, but 0.5%.
You do realize that Mars contains valuable resources including water that we will eventually need...these rovers we sent over the past 15 years is just the beginning. It is inevitable that someone will be on mars within the next 50 years so stop your stupid waste of money comments and wake up.
Aside from the fact that water has been pretty much leached from the Martian soil and lost as vapor to space, let's consider a scenario of bringing water from Mars to Earth.
Let say that we...oh....pump and carry a volume of water equal to the size of the Goodyear Blimp...from Mars to Earth. What would that water cost to pump and return? How about 20 billion dollars? Then, once that volume of water is brought to earth, it will provide water to a medium sized city for approximately one day.
On the other hand, 20 billion dollars will build a lot of water purification and sea water desalination plants on earth. But NASA never brings up that sort of detail, since it is so important to NASA that we send folks to Mars. For what exactly, they have yet to explain.
Spoken (written, actually) like a true Conservative – who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing...
?? I am a conservative and believe we do not spend enough money on endeavors such as this. I for one want to leave this rock to all the Left and Right wing nuts.
Oh my stars! The rover is only 3 months into a minimum 2 year mission, Stan. If you want it your way, then go down to Burger King and stuff that mouth of yours with their full artery-clogging menu, and leave NASA to the real work. I would much rather see my tax dollars spent on space, science, and technology than on an endless stream of wars.
Without, Science, NASA, and the space program, you'd be typing your comments about 'waste of money' on a rock.
I had bet $500 they would find soup; now I feel foolish.
Well it's beginning to look as though any methane they do find is going to probably be volcanic in origin. Not looking good for life, ancient or otherwise since volcanism can account for everything they've got so far.
I honestly wouldn't doubt it if life on Earth originally came from Mars. Humans lived there, and destroyed that planet, then they came to earth and terra-formed it, and they were our original ancestors on Earth.
The point here is that scientist speak the truth whether it is what they wanted to hear or not. It's what the evidence supports. So when they talk about global warming we should listen very closely. It's what the evidence supports.
LOL @ Tim
There is a difference between data and conclusion.
I agree.
The sun can be observed rising in the eastern sky every morning. Throughout the day, it travels westward climbing higher and higher as it goes. And, each evening, the evidence is clear that the sun sets below the western horizon. The obvious and unmistakable conclusion is that the sun orbits the earth. Of course, we know that this is not the truth. In truth, the earth rotates which gives the appearance of the sun's movement. But, for many generations, the sun's daily journey through our sky was indeed seen as irrefutable evidence that the sun orbited the earth.
The observation of the sun rising in the east, of it traversing the sky, of it setting in the west, all of that evidence is absolutely true. There was no mistake in the measurements and nothing wrong with the observations. It was the conclusions that that evidence was used to support that turned out to be mistaken.
Will this grand theory called "global warming" ultimately be found to be true? Or will it be yet another in a long history of science misinterpreting evidence? We don't know. Only time will tell.
The point that you obviously missed – or chose to ignore – was that science is self-correcting. In other words, it has no need to try and hang on to old theories that no longer fit available evidence. There are a relatively small number of theories that were simply thrown out and replaced by an entirely different theory. Instead, the vast majority have evolved as more evidence has been discovered, and therefore the conclusions have evolved. The conclusion then, should be that the probability is that the theory of climate change being at least partly due to human activity has some degree of truth – rather than the black and white preferred by most of the ignorant masses of either 'true' or 'false'.
There is plenty of data that shows that global warming is occurring. The cause, however, is disputable...
Except that the evidence shows that the sun travels in the sky.
We know that not to be true. Further and more advanced observation shows us that it's not the sun that travels, rather the rotation of the Earth makes the sun _appear_ to be traveling.
Not trying to be demeaning. My point is that data doesn't always equal the right conclusion. Sometimes, well – a lot of times, there is more to the story.
You completely fail to take into account the amassing supporting evidence. Your argument focuses on one observation. Galileo came along with supporting evidence that the path of Mars and the phases of Venus could only be explained by the the heliocentric model. Yes science can be misinterpreted and theories dismissed, but there is already a vast amount of supporting evidence that climate change is being accelerated by our habits. Most people choose to ignore it and demonize those scientists just as the religious did Galileo.
I don't trust NASA. In my heart I believe there is a moon base which is a a so called "black op" NASA is too much apart of the US fundamentals of militarism and secrecy. If they show me pictures I have an easier time trusting than when their "professional" state party men lead the speculation. What is a "state party man"? I believe in Russia the forefront communist party made it easy to determine. In the USA there is less proof, but these professionals seem a bit canned and staged to me. I like the mission, but lets let the kids speculate before we let NASA do the thinking and interpretation. Why did we spend so much energy looking at a "shiny speck" obviously the people leading the inquest are Jewish. And another group wants to
fire a laser" Get real. Do we need our Jewish Military to lead the research? Firing lasers and looking for diamonds. Yeah that's what most people would do. Yeah right.
Please put your tin foil hat back on and go hide in the closet for another 50 years or so.
Yup. The freaks are definately out, and THIS one is further out than most.
Looks like we found another tin foil hat wearing crack smoker!
So, NASA is now part of a vast government conspiracy to deny the existence of methane on Mars?
Oh Kay.
But to what end? For what purpose?
I don't trust the government when the availability of information is limited to sources which are funded by the country that has every reason, ability, and demonstration of lying in the past. If this is a scientific mission I see a huge variable for the second hand scientific observer. I suppose I should also mention I don't use illegal drugs, and know how hopeless thin aluminum / tin foil is against the air to surface weaponized voice to skull wave air pressure effect technology if it is directed at your head. I assure you to stay on constant guard for the "weirdos" but don't be confused by well formed dissent. Wack Jobs have quicker defenses against slander, but my questions are of the rudimentary facts, and are thus persistent. I need not mix it up further with the secondary conversation my inquest has spurred on because proper victory in terms of online commentary would have to be of years possibly decades. The reason for the suppression of debate is previously characterized by me as Jews just being Jews. And I'll wait until your Jewish military run country is looking the other way and once again ask about the moon base, and actual state of the martial surface, as not described by jew-military -bot -2.
You're stupid.
Sorry, bud... this wasn't achieved by Jocks who shout USA... it was achieved by Nerds... according to Jon Stewart, their motto should be "U.S.B."...
If the rover finds a Martian skull the public will never hear a thing about it.
John C:
Explain. Why would NASA withhold this information?
If they were to find a skull on Mars you would know it the next day. It would be immensely beneficial to the NASA program to have that information released. GUARANTEED the public would demand we increase the budget for NASA to send people their to investigate first hand.
I would even go so far as to say that you would see the government release Mars Bonds to the public to help finance a colony.
.....almost forgot about the little guy. So...it says we can't survive there yet? Money well spent.
Ok, where is the arm holding the camera that took the self portrait? I don't even see its shadow.
It obviously used the self-timer.
It's called image processing. The camera is mounted near the center of the vehicle and can pan completely. Images are mosaiced together and reprojected to provide an image as it would look from a different viewpoint.
That would make sense. But then the camera must be on an extendable or retractable boom that can be raised above the Rover, so that it can look down on it, otherwise it should not be able to show some of the details that are in this picture and I would think that when it is finished it would fold/retract down and hence there would be no evidence of it in the photos; but what about the shadow of it or its boom?
Their is actually a shadow. If you look at the wheel on the bottom in high rez you will see an extra shadow they forgot to digitize out of the frame 🙂
If the rover finds a wallet, its mine. I left it there by mistake. I think it had a few hundred space bucks in it.
what no "latinum"?
Hah, I finally got a joke on a discussion Baord,,,Ferigy, Star Trek,Latinum. Please I hope I'm right.


text:
Epic decision portends new balance for reopening dunes in Glamis
SAN FRANCISCO, CA - Recreational visitors observing a fine flaky substance this morning at the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area (ISDRA) will be pleased to hear it is not snow but judicial manna. Barely a month following argument, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. Northern District Court of California yesterday issued a long-awaited decision on the 2013 ISDRA management plan, ruling almost entirely on the side of the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and sand-rider organizations, and against the latest challenge led by the Center for Biological Diversity. The ruling sets the stage for implementation of the 2013 plan, which would allow resumption of access to areas placed off-limits to riders through "interim" closures imposed over a decade ago.
The litigation over riding at the ISDRA began in 2000, and has resulted in multiple trips to Judge Illston's courtroom where BLM, USFWS, and recreation enthusiasts have suffered multiple setbacks. The 2013 plan followed lengthy public input and was designed in response to the Court's 2006 ruling and new critical habitat designation by the USFWS for the Peirson's milk-vetch (PMV), the plant species of primary concern at the Dunes. Preservationist plaintiffs raised an array of challenges under the Endangered Species Act and other laws to the new plan, but yesterday's decision rejected those claims and upheld BLM's plan, with the limited exception of finding that a recovery plan for the PMV is overdue and must be issued by 2019 unless the USFWS makes a specific finding that a recovery plan will not promote conservation of the species.


text:
I have had this reel for a few months and I think I have used it enough to form an opinion. I bought the ZERO (New for 2015) because I bought a 2wt Redington Classic Trout and I didn't want to buy a spool for my Ross Evolution 0 that I use on my 3wt. The ZERO in the 2/3 size is pretty light for a cast reel. It comes in at 2.7 ounces according to the website- though I have not weighed it myself.
I got the matte black color because I thought it would go with my rod. The finish is nice and seems durable. I did not think I would like the look of the reel... and I don't- but it has grown on me a bit. The drag is a simple clicker with two settings. I found both settings to be pretty well dialed in. I will probably use the lighter setting mostly. The sound (which is important to many of us) is mediocre and a bit plastic-y.
The ZERO comes in a nice cordura case just like every other Redington reel. The price tag is probably the best part of the ZERO. At about 90 bucks, you really cannot go wrong with this reel for a lightweight setup. It is sturdy, lightweight and not too bad looking. The reel is not machined- but Redington claims that the design is "unmachinable"- which I suppose is a good thing. Of course, for 90 bucks- you cannot expect a machined work of art. If you are in the market for a lightweight workhorse reel for your 2-4 weight, I would definitely give the Redington ZERO a look. (The ZERO pairs very well with a Redington Classic Trout 2 weight- which has already landed some decent fish and is more fun than a greased watermelon.)


text:
--> Текст песни Busta Rhymes - Cocaina lyrics
(feat. Justin Timberlake)
[Intro: Busta Rhymes]
Busta Rhymes ya gotsa be the sure shot
Flipmode ya gotsa be the sure shot
Aftermath ya gotsa be the sure shot
My live niggas y'know; who be the sure shot?
Live bitches y'know; who be the sure shot?
[Busta Rhymes]
I'm back in ya soul just like a minister
I'm big like a movie, I'm on the screen and at the cinema
While I'm in the process of slowly gettin rid of ya
I'm back over bitches, and then I throw 'em in my videa
Yeah, yeah, the God of the block
Y'know me killa had you spreadin
the spot wet and +Twist It+ like Olivia
Oh shit, flow so sick in the committeea
We know you a slouch duke, we don't even consider ya
Boss nigga, see or hear me in ya area
The more niggas, the murders,
the more the money, the more the merrier
Smash shit 'til everything become mass hysteria
Hungry for street shit, see I be takin care of ya check nigga
Fuck all the talk, homey I'm daring ya
The lead from the shot'll poision ya blood like malaria
made back and sell it over exotic
Worm skin interior, my swagger to my bitch the more money
It's all superior
[Chorus: Busta Rhymes]
When we in the spot y'know that we sure to shine (to shine)
It's all so holy and so divine
Analyze niggas 'til we can read ya mind
Sometimes a real live nigga is hard to find
We like, "drugs overdose niggas every time"
(Cocaina baby, cocaina baby, cocaina baby, cocaina baby)
(Cocaina baby, cocaina baby, cocaina baby, cocaina baby)
We like, "drugs overdose niggas every time"
(Cocaina baby, cocaina baby)
[Busta Rhymes]
Yo, I'm tired of tellin ya
Back on my bullshit, fuckin put a shell in ya
Gangster niggas respect it, salute me on the regular
When it comes to the street shit, define me as the emperor
Check it my nigga.. most of you muhfuckers amateur
I muster the nigga quick and damage any challenger
But now y'know, "Oh a nigga flow so spectacular"
Break niggaz down and handle you muhfuckin characters
Captain of this shit but most of you niggas is passengers
I'm takin it back to the hood, like '87 Maximas
Yeah, yeah y'know who the truth,
no need for askin the, same question again
to get the same answer bruh, fasten ya seatbelt
Bitches fuck wit the bachelor
wit' money like a thousand coke deals from here to Panama
Strike like a brightness, a light.. I'm here to dazzle ya
Whole hood from the boroughs, to the niggas up in Attica
Soldiers in the streets, the Middle East, way down to Canada
When it comes to the block, y'know I'm the ambassador
Follow nobody's footsteps, but said it like a scavenger
Wanna talk money bitch!? Then holla at my manager
The way y'all niggas is trash, my crew'll get to blasting ya
Twelve shot clip, hollow tips, quick to plaster ya
All over the cement, spread ya like I'm mashing
Everything, Bus-a-Bus date... but check ya fuckin calendar!
[Chorus (w/out the last two "cocaina baby's")]
[Justin + Busta]
Take me all the waaayyy, where you are
(cocaina baby, cocaina baby, cocaina baby)
I really want to mattteee, take me now
Take us far awaayyy, to the skkkyyy
(cocaina baby, cocaina baby, cocaina baby)
I really want to mattteee, some.. time.
--> lyrics Busta Rhymes - Cocaina слова песни на www.lifemusic.ru


text:
Due to the rising cost of fees associated with credit card processing, an additional fee of 2.5% will be added to all credit card payments. To save costs, payments are preferred by e-transfer, cash or cheque. E-transfers can be sent to email@example.com If you have a PayPal account you can also transfer payment directly from your account to CSOPA without incurring any fees.
Powered by: DanceStudio-Pro.com


text:
WASHINGTON – Virgin America says it will grow at Reagan National Airport by gaining landing rights from American Airlines.
Virgin said Wednesday that it won the right to buy enough so-called slots for four takeoffs and landings a day at the airport across the Potomac River from downtown Washington.
That will let Virgin America expand from its one daily flight between San Francisco and Reagan, which is so busy that takeoffs and landings are limited. Virgin also flies to San Francisco and Los Angeles from nearby Dulles International Airport.
The slots that Virgin is gaining are limited to flights of up to 1,250 miles from Washington, meaning that Virgin won't be able to use them for new nonstop flights to the West Coast unless it gets a government exemption from restrictions on Reagan flights. The airline said that it would announce plans for new flights later this month.
American agreed to sell some of its slots at Reagan and New York's LaGuardia Airport to settle a government antitrust lawsuit that threatened to block its merger with US Airways.
Virgin and Southwest Airlines won the bidding for slots that American is shedding at LaGuardia, and Virgin joined Southwest and JetBlue Airways in gaining slots at Reagan. Spirit Airlines made an unsuccessful bid for the Reagan slots, its CEO said Wednesday.


text:
It Isn't (Just) Ironic: In Defense Of The Hipster
Yesterday I rescued something from the back of my closet: the first and only trucker cap I ever acquired. It's pink and adorned with a patch that reads "Milwaukee's Milk Producers" next to the stitched outline of a farm silo. The hat caught my eye at a Milwaukee Brewers game twenty-five years ago, sitting on the head of an actual farmer. I mentioned to this friendly bleachers neighbor that I found his headwear fetching, and he unexpectedly gave it to me. Score!
Why did I desire this silly, unflattering piece of kitsch — and why have I held onto it for so long? Princeton professor Christy Wampole, the latest cultural reactionary to make a splash with a screed against arts-driven youth culture, might say I have an irony problem. In "How To Live Without Irony," published Sunday in The New York Times, Wampole attacks contemporary bohemians (the common name now: hipsters) for trying to "negotiate the age-old problem of individuality, not with concepts, but with material things." Things like shirts or accessories inscribed with words and pictures — of a farm, for example — that mean nothing to the "contemporary urban harlequins" who wear them with a self-distancing snicker.
The blogosphere's first responders have already thoroughly dismantled Wampole's argument, from her obvious error in even trying to employ a term famously misused by Canadian pop stars and home-schooled wunderkinds, to more specific mistakes, like her assertion that the 1990s — defined, for many, by this album cover — were "relatively irony-free." I just have one thing to add to the outcry. It brings me back to that pink chapeau, and to a current hit that shows how misplaced Wampole's worry about irony poisoning may be.
LANGUAGE ADVISORY: This video contains profanity.
"Thrift Shop," by the Seattle-based rapper-producer team Macklemore and Ryan Lewis, is a funny little number about the joy of scoring something cool in your local Goodwill. Strutting around a sweet sax line and a chorus sung by the churchy R&B belter Wanz — "I'm gonna pop some tags, only got $20 in my pocket" — it's an ode to resourcefulness, to getting fabulous even when you can't afford to touch the luxury items so often marketed through popular songs.
Silly celebrations of ridiculous finds (flannel zebra jammies, velour jump suit) share space in Macklemore's rhymes with an understated critique of consumer capitalism: $50 for a designer T-shirt, he points out, isn't such a bargain when six other people in the club will be wearing the same thing. "I call that getting tricked by business," he declares, confident that his fly used Velcro sneakers will help him just as much when it comes to getting girls.
"Thrift Shop" has been around since the summer, and its inexhaustible popularity is one reason The Heist, Macklemore and Lewis' just-released album, is a surprise chart-topper right now. (The other is "Same Love," a tender endorsement of civil rights for homosexuals that became the theme song to Washington state's recent successful marriage equality campaign.) The song made me a fan of the duo after a few years of being less than persuaded by their big-hearted but goofy style, partly because it spoke directly to my own long history of treasure-hunting in the Value Village bins. Besides provoking laughs, I think it illustrates that while the "hipster" attitude may include irony, there's much more to it. Here's how Macklemore's rhymes help refute Wampole's argument.
"I am stunting and flossing and saving my money and I'm hella happy," the rapper declares in between boasts about his green gator loafers and his wolf-head cap. In other words, Macklemore's found a way to be personally powerful without over-extending himself. Bohemians often live in a state of what the poet Philomene Long once called dedicated poverty. Rejecting stable career prospects, they eat instant ramen, live in buggy group houses and work service jobs (please tip your barista!) so that they have time to write music or start an urban farm or volunteer with Occupy Sandy. True, many are privileged to have parents they can fall back on if they get sick or just sick of it, but many do not, and anyway, in the moment they're genuinely cash-strapped. Haunting the thrift shop — the foundation of the "ironic" style Wampole decries — is fun for them, but it's also practical.
For Millennials like Macklemore and Lewis, thrift is often a generational requirement, not a lifestyle choice. Job prospects for youth have been in the tank since these 20somethings left high school. Revolutionary changes in creative industries like publishing and recording have made times even rougher for young artists or writers. Even young tenure-track professors like Wampole are none too secure. Meanwhile, especially for youth, luxury consumer goods have become crucial status symbols, often marketed in songs, movies and television shows themselves. Appropriating old stuff and twisting its meanings to suit you becomes a smart solution to the problem of not being able to rock the fancy stuff.
The scene in the "Thrift Shop" video is multiracial and hard to classify class-wise. Young bohemians tend to live in gentrifying neighborhoods, a controversial reality since the days when Puccini gave voice to Mimi expiring in her unheated garrett. There's plenty bad about the poor losing ground to real-estate moguls serving up-and-coming city dwellers. The challenge for bohemians is to engage with the diverse community their presence inevitably changes. The boisterous delight of "Thrift Shop" stems in part from its multicultural milieu — another way lived bohemia can differ from Wampole's fantasy of distanced hipsterism. Macklemore's idealized vision is one in which neighbors get to know each other because, why not? Close quarters can make new allies.
Using the absurd humor that's often mistaken for ironic by those outside hipster culture, Macklemore also connects his story with one that has many variations in rap: the up-by-your-sneaker-straps tale of rising above constricting circumstances. Often this narrative involves ghetto fabulousness — the risky choice to live beyond your means. But it can also be about exuding confidence even in tough times: "Man, we were just in the food court eating our gyros," Andre 3000 rhymes in Beyonce's song "Party," remembering his own humble origins. Macklemore's not even the first to play with the idea of cost-conscious swag. There's a two-year-old, minor viral hit about bargain hunting geniuses who stand out in finery from the discount chain Ross Dress For Less.
Beyond economics, the thrift store lifestyle and its more recent booming variant, artisanal culture, forges a link with history for young people with shaky cultural family ties. Snicker as you bite into the lovingly prepared poutine you bought from a truck, but also recognize that learning hands-on stuff, like food preparation or knitting or even mastering a fixed-gear bike, offers people a path out of the maze of chain stores and cold cubicles that dominates our daily lives. That path can lead to a mirage: Romanticizing the past is a convenient way to avoid its long-embedded problems, from racism and sexism to the drudgery of many working people's days. But insofar as these activities involve the body — moving in time-honored ways as you try a classic dance step or chop some wood — they can fix an alienated relationship with tradition, forging a link that's personal and real.
Thrifting does something else, too. It makes the rummaging enthusiast a pop archaeologist. Hip-hop itself is rooted in the same process of crate digging, assembling new styles and sounds from precious vintage scraps. "For real, ask your grandpa, can I have his hand-me-downs?" begs Macklemore midway through the song. For the rapper and Lewis, who are white, poking loving fun at the thrift store lifestyle is also a way of slyly acknowledging that some might question their musical appropriations.
That wish to be deserving of a legacy brings me back to my pink hat. See, my mom grew up on a farm in Wisconsin, a long way from the suburban home where she raised me in Seattle. Part of the reason I wanted that feed cap was because my life does flow from a line of dairy (and sauerkraut) producers. At what point does yearning overcome the chill of irony? For many hipsters, I think, it's when they find that thing at the thrift shop that their grandpa really might have worn. They might put it on as a joke, but they grow into it.


text:
GNU phpGrabComics is a software program to grab and save comic strips from the web. Its aim is to help users to read and archive their favourite comic strips.
It supports grabbing today's strip from several sites, such as Dilbert, Calvin and Hobbes, Snoopy and Il Manifesto. More than 300 strips are supported and working in the current version.
The phpGrabComics server is aimed to developers, and allows to download strips from different sources and to automatically save the comics.
The phpGrabComics ports are simple, tiny applications (more) aimed to the final user. phpGrabComics ports get from the server the list of available comics and the information on how to retrieve the comics. The ports can always use the latest list of comics, as soon as their are available in a phpGrabComics server.
Both the server and the ports can download the strips.
All comics are copyright of respective owners, and redistribution of the comics is, for most comics and in most circumstances, not permitted. phpGrabComics is intended for personal use only.
phpGrabComics is available for download here and a demo is available here.