This is something I’ve been looking forward to for a long time.
I’ve been looking for an application that would allow me to blog from my phone, and it appears that I found it.
This app not only allows for posting text, but also pictures and other media.
And being able to dictate my posts is definitely cool.
Maybe this will be a good enough reason to get me blogging more and more often.
Browsing Posts published by Amanda
From the “Not All People Are Jerks” department:
A few weeks ago, Patrick Greene of San Antonio, was known in Henderson County simply as a professed atheist who threatened to sue Henderson County about the courthouse manger scene. Greene’s experience with Christians was of narrow-minded individuals who had treated him unkindly throughout his life.
But when Greene learned that he was going blind due to a detached retina, and didn’t have money for groceries because he had to retire his Yellow Cab, Sand Springs Baptist Church didn’t just help with a small donation. They gave him $400 for household expenses, and there’s more on the way. In appreciation, Greene is donating a star for next year’s nativity scene.
I don’t normally go for warm fuzzies like this, but these people clearly went above and beyond. I realize there are a lot of people who need help, some with much bigger issues. But it’s better to help someone than not help at all, and just deliver platitudes like “God will provide”.
Via Ars Technica:
Laura J. Brown, deputy assistant administrator for public affairs for the Federal Aviation Administration, told the New York Times the agency will take a “fresh look” at electronics use on planes.
This revisit will not include smart phones, but we as the masses still stand to benefit. By the end of 2012, more than forty million e-readers and sixty million iPads and other tablets will have been purchased, according to Forrester Research.
According to Nick Bilton, the reason the airlines have not conducted the necessary testing and approved the use of the above-mentioned electronics is because it is prohibitively expensive to do so. So now the FAA is taking it into their own hands.
But, as with everything else in which the government is involved, this will be a slow process. This is because every generation of a device (like the iPad, for example), has to be tested on a flight with no passengers. But at least the ball is roling now, and the potential for being able to avoid airport paperbacks is possible.
It’s good to know that if I ever brick one of my iThings, the staff on the other end of the line will remain calm and professional. It’s nice, however, to know that it won’t be a completely foreign experience. I will be able to count on familiar things like passing the buck, (blaming the problem on third party software), and the best standby of all, the hold button. I got a good laugh out of this.
There’s an article on Israel Matzav discussing the troubling political atmosphere at Hebrew Union College, and it raises what I think is an interesting question. Should rabbis preach about political issues from the bimah? The answer to this question is, I believe, no. I believe this for a few reasons. First, the synagogue is a place for prayer and worship. If rabbis want to discuss political issues, they should do so outside the prayers. Secondly, I see a problem with the idea of rabbi as political leader. I’m only familiar with what goes on in more liberal synagogues, but I see this kind of political involvement as getting very close to a line that shouldn’t be crossed. Rabbis are supposed to be spiritual leaders, not political ones, and I don’t think the bimah is the place for political discussion. I would believe this way even if I happened to share the political views of my synagogue. I don’t. As a matter of fact, I think I’m the only one in attendance who would classify myself as conservative. For me, this creates issues, because I know that I’m going to be on the other side of whatever gets discussed, and since political discussions can become very heated, I think that kind of divisiveness should be kept on the sidelines. There’s mention in the linked piece of how the Torah supports what are considered liberal points of view, specifically the view that government is supposed to take care of its citizens. This is true, but only to a point. The Torah also supports some very conservative positions, and I don’t think it’s accurate to try to mold the Torah to our political views, because it does support views on either side of the proverbial isle. I also believe that if those of the liberal persuasion have a problem with clergy of the conservative persuasion preaching on issues from the pulpit, then they ought to take a page out of their own book and refrain from such preaching, or, if they are congregants, refrain from expecting their clergy to preach on said issues. I believe that social action/social justice is a very thin disguise for politics, and I also believe that the two should be separated, because people of very divergent political views can often believe in a socially just cause, for very different reasons. And I think that by confusing the two, the waters are muddied in a way they never should have been.
In conclusion: Keep prayer and politics separate, no matter which side you’re on, and I think the congregational prayer experience will be better for everybody.
This article came across my Twitter, so since it seemed like it would be interesting, I gave it a read. I find it impossible to feel sorry for this guy at all. Not having the time to secure your wireless network is not an excuse. If you own a consumer router, it has a graphical user interface, which means there’s a page that comes up when you log in with all kinds of links on it. Securing your network takes about five minutes, even if you have to hunt through the links to find out which one you need to click. So if he left the network open, it wasn’t hacked, as this article suggests. Anyone in range could easily connect to the network and do whatever they want on the internet, and you’re responsible because you left it wide open. As far as the bit about blind people not watching movies is concerned, that’s also a cop-out. Blind people watch movies all the time, and most of the time, they don’t include a descriptive track. So as much as I can’t stand the RIAA and everything they represent, this guy left himself wide open and so should bear the responsibility.
I’m watching Fox News and looking at other news sources online, and according to CNN, Osama Bin Laden has been buried at sea. I’m sure, however, if there is a hell, his soul is already well ensconced in it, and he has to be at least somewhat disappointed that there weren’t seventy-two virgins waiting for him. The burial at sea will hopefully prevent any shrines being built to the erstwhile terrorist. I have to say I’m very pleased with his death and that hearty congradulations are in order for the Navy Seals who carried it out. His body was handled according to Islamic tradition, which I question given that he (a) killed tons of Muslims, and (b) wasn’t representative of Islam, and (c), never gave a fig about the traditions of anyone else he killed. Oh well, good riddance, and may his memory be blotted out, or if it is remembered, for a curse and not a blessing.
Pompeii by Robert Harris
My rating: 3 of 5 stars
Pompeii is a novel set in 79 C.E., and opens two days before the eruption of Mount Vesuvius. But while it is a sort of retelling of that eruption and its consequences, the eruption is not its main focus, and it contains plenty of suspense, mystery, and a decent plot. The main character, Marcus Atilius, is an aquarius, or hydrollic engineer, in charge of the Aqua August aqueduct which supplies water to Pompeii and it’s surrounding towns. Atilius is sent down from Rome to find out why there is a water shortage in the area. He finds that the aqueduct is blocked and has to be repaired, and while trying to get the job done, runs into all kinds of corruption on the part of political officials, greed on the part of an incredibly cruel and ruthless freed slave, and men who all but refuse to recognize his authority. There is a bit of romance too, but it’s not overdone. The novel features historical personages as well, namely Pliny the Elder and Younger. In my oppinion, Pliny the Elder comes off as one of those tragic academic characters, who is more concerned about facts on paper than he is about reality. It’s clear that Harris did a lot of research when writing this novel, and I’m glad for that. I can’t stand novels that are supposed to be about historical events but include no research. He includes a lot of technical details, (which I found interesting), but those details enhance the story instead of overshadowing it. The only part I think the book could have done without was the semi-dramatic attempted assassination scene at the top of Mount Vesuvius. It really didn’t add anything to the plot. Harris did a good job, though, by including various tidbits of vulcanic research, and by doing so presents the mountain itself as an unseen monster waiting to get everyone. Atilius manages to get the aqueduct repaired only hours before the eruption destroys everything, and at the end, manages to escape with his love interest, Corelia, (who is the daughter of the freed slave), up the aqueduct. I think I would like to see a sequel which follows the subsequent lives of Atilius and Corelia. I like seeing the good guys win out sometimes, (especially an engineer of this sort). All the same, I was glad the book wasn’t superficial in that the good guy wins and gets the girl despite the impossible odds. That’s a clichet which has been really overplayed, especially in current movies. And speaking of movies, Pompeii was slated to be made into a movie, and would have been so if it hadn’t been for the 2007 Writer’s strike. I would like to have seen that. I think it would have been one of the better vulcano movies. I actually watched Vulcano this afternoon after finishing the book, thinking it would be something similar, and was very much disappointed. But that’s a review for another time.
View all my reviews
Mary Stinemetz, 64, is suing the State of Kansas in order to receive a bloodless transfusion. She is in need of a liver transplant, and could receive one at the University of Kansas Hospital. There is already a liver available, and she is eligible for the transplant, but ordinarily the transplant requires a blood transfusion, and according to Stinemetz’s religious beliefs, blood transfusions are against God’s law. A bloodless operation is available, but it’s out of state, in Omaha, Nebraska, and of course the State doesn’t want to pay for the extra expense of an out-of-state operation. I have mixed feelings on this. On one hand, if I had my choice, I would like to see this lady’s religious beliefs upheld and not trampled upon, but on the other, I understand the state’s side as well. Paying for an out-of-state operation would be expensive, and I don’t think Medicaid is ordinarily in the habit of paying for out-of-state anything for anyone, and if they don’t ordinarily do that, I don’t see why they should do it in this case. I’m also at a loss as to why, if this operation is medically necessary, and it would save her life, her religion wouldn’t permit the blood transfusion. But , the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, i n the publication What Does The Bible Really Teach states the following concerning blood transfusions:
14 What if a Christian is badly injured or is in need of major surgery? Suppose doctors say that he must have a blood transfusion or he will die. Of course, the Christian would not want to die. In an effort to preserve God’s precious gift of life, he would accept other kinds of treatment that do not involve the misuse of blood. Hence, he would seek such medical attention if that is available and would accept a variety of alternatives to blood.
15 Would a Christian break God’s law just to stay alive a little longer in this system of things? Jesus said: “Whoever wants to save his soul [or, life] will lose it; but whoever loses his soul for my sake will find it.” (Matthew 16:25) We do not want to die. But if we tried to save our present life by breaking God’s law, we would be in danger of losing everlasting life. We are wise, then, to put our trust in the rightness of God’s law, with full confidence that if we die from any cause, our Life-Giver will remember us in the resurrection and restore to us the precious gift of life.—John 5:28, 29; Hebrews 11:6.
It should be noted that in order for the verses cited above to prove the doctrine being elucidated, one would have to consult the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures specifically, which is the Watchtower’s own translation of the Bible. Given the above, I would think that if Medicaid is refusing to pay for the bloodless transfusion, then allowing herself to die resting on the hope of her eventual resurrection would have to be an option. But for now, she’s trying the legal aproach, and the Watchtower has filed an amicus brief on her behalf with the court. I believe that, whatever way this case goes, it will be precedent-setting as far as medicaid and religious rights go, and I will keep you updated on this as more information becomes available.
