Monday, June 16, 2014
go bad to the NYC subway into Brooklyn, time: c.1969/70. ... on train going between Court Street and Coney Island ... lost at Court Street station... dropping on train as exiting, doors closed before realized.
a gold wedding band ... about a quarter inch wide, ... white gold "cuts" around the band.
Reward if returned ...
Ok, 45 years and probably long gone ... but stranger things have happened.
Thursday, June 5, 2014
I've mentioned this several times.
There is a difference between "GOD" and deities of mythical origins.
The "GOD" comes from the reality that: thousands of years ago humans realized you cannot get something from ABSOLUTE nothing; so, if there is something, it had to have an origin.
The rational problem that emerged is that of infinity -- there is always one more step, one more element or source, and you can never get to "ABSOLUTE nothing" ... thus the universe and existence was designated as a circle whose starting point is hidden in the line defining the circle.
But that still left the "ABSOLUTE nothing" from which the circle emerged --that was designated GOD ... or, as the ancient Egyptians stated it, "The self begotten beginning".
God exists because energy and matter exist.
The idea that there must be design or intent is inferred, but not at all necessary for the existence of God.
Basically, God does not need to know we exist or even care.
The rules of nature are such that they create and destroy many things -- none of which are "necessary". Thus "divine retribution" is a given for all forms of matter (humanity, and life in general, being just a form of matter and energy with only the energy portion being the ultimate indestructible.).
It is a valid point. I would take exception to some of Kyle's phrasing.
The argument is this: If I can talk you in to doing something, or express an opinion on something, it is equally valid if I say it, write it, or use money to express it.
Therefore, if I can "woo" a girl into bed, buy her candy/flower/jewelry/diner/drinks to get her to bed, then it follows that I can just hand her the money to achieve the same goal and objective (QED Prostitution is a date where the girl rather than a third party get the money).
Now the same argument goes down the line -- I can give the money to a third party -- a PAC or something -- therefore I can give it directly to the beneficiary of that third party function, with the same strings attached, or same objective in mind.
Money is speech and there is no rational justification to have a third party relay the message in some instances and not in others. As with any law, the burden is on the legislature to establish an overwhelming social benefit in restricting speech (transfer of finances). HUM! Interesting idea -- if two parties are forbidden contact by the court, no money transfer (speech) is allowed. Therefore, the Supreme Court ruling also forbids Alimony and child support where a protection or, or no contact order, exists.
Effectively, the child support orders and alimony are court ordered speech of a specific type and nature – equivalent to ordering someone to proclaim the validity of, and support for, an enemy government.
It will be fun to see how this plays out …