Ketchup on hot dog = G+3x(bang #57)+45°angle

Okay so I lied. I know I promised to pick another controversial issue as my next topic, but I simply couldn't resist...

Do you know what MIT's latest accomplishment was?

"A team of engineers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has invented a bottle coating ("LiquiGlide") that makes ketchup pour as easily as milk. They say it could save 1 million tons of perfectly good but inaccessible ketchup and other food from being thrown out each year — not to mention saving untold hours spent in frustration."

For those of you that may be exclaiming "that's awesome!" or "wow- it's about time someone solved that!" -I feel compelled to remind you that MIT houses the most prestigious collection of intelligent individuals in the fields of advanced science and technology. And what are they spending their time with? The paradox of ketchup de-bottling.

Do they deserve applause? Absolutely! I just found it hilarious that of all the global problems to choose from, the best and the brightest would concern themselves with how to eliminate the frustration of being unable to remove a condiment from its container.

Nevertheless, I think we can all be thankful to the team of engineers who took on this troublesome task to make our lives easier. I'm sure that those of us who routinely accompany ketchup with our hot dogs, fries, and cheeseburgers are extremely eager to see this new bottle design hit the grocery store shelves.

Next time you find yourself fussing with a ketchup bottle, rest easy knowing that the days of incessantly banging the #57 on your ketchup bottle...as you shake gently...at a 45° angle...will soon be a thing of the past.

Happy Heinz-ing!

K8

Who's party line is it anyway?

I was recently part of a politically-charged discussion where a multitude of topics were covered, but I thought it might be fun to share what they learned about me...

I am registered as a Republican for 2 reasons:
1. I want to be able to vote in the primaries - the State of Maryland doesn't currently offer open primaries, but if that were to ever change, I would promptly become "Unaffiliated".
2. From my perspective, most political issues boil down to a matter of money. I firmly believe that our government shouldn't be spending money they don't have, so therefore I tend to fall on the conservative side of most fiscal matters - this was the only driving force behind my decision to register as a Republican over a Democrat.

However this does not mean:
1. The Republican Party can "count on my vote" - they do not have my allegiance or support. I vote on the person, not the party.
2. I support a two-party system. I am a huge advocate for open primaries and open elections. You should be able to vote for whoever you think is the best candidate for the position, regardless of political affiliation, lobbyist backing, etc.
3. You can make assumptions on my political views. To me, sticking to party lines is like stating your answer before you've heard the question - it's foolish and insulting to human intelligence. We have the ability to question and reason, yet people seem to forfeit those abilities in order to "belong" to a group mindset. They say "I'm a Republican" or "I'm a Democrat" as if to say "therefore you automatically know where I stand on the key issues".

In addition to my disdain for party politics, they also learned that:
1. I strongly support the implementation of term limits for all elected positions. Elected officials were never intended to be long-term. It was a considered a duty to serve- they would do the best they could on behalf of their constituents and then allow someone else the opportunity to serve while they went back to their life.
2. I even go a step further and urge that attendance also be a documented statistic that voters can use in deciding who to vote for. Here's a fun homework assignment: Turn on CNN and count the occupied seats and compare it to the number of unoccupied seats (I'll give you a hint - the number of the former is almost always smaller than the latter). Serving in Congress must be the only "occupation" where you can not show up for work and not worry about being fired.
3. With the implementation of term limits, the pension program would also become obsolete - no more career politicians. You get elected, you serve, you go home. That's it. Speaking of money, the salaries should be voted on by the public. It's our tax money that pays their salary - I think it's more than fair to allow us the ability to decide how much we're willing to spend on their "service".

And the number one point that I drove home? The government works for us, NOT the other way around. We allow them the honor to serve as our representatives - it is an honor that should be EARNED, not given freely. As voters we can revoke that honor just as easily as it was given and we shouldn't be afraid to do so at a moment's notice. The moment they get comfortable is the moment they stop listening.

My rant on governance will have to come to an end for now - although I'm inclined to believe that I'm a bottom-less pit of opinions on the subject. Never-the-less, I will be sure to pick a different hot-button issue for my next post.

Stay tuned...

K8

Mind your own marriage!

Well, this wouldn't be much of a "deb8" blog if I didn't touch on some touchy subjects. I can't seem to get through a day without hearing someone give their two cents about the gay marriage controversy...so I might as well toss in my $1.50...

Everyone is entitled to their opinion on the matter and some people express those opinions better than others, however it was the last sentence of this quote that really caught my attention: "Just give everybody the chance to have the life they want."

I am a firm believer in equality and liberty - I also happen to believe that you can't help who you fall in love with. Love is love and if two consenting adults want to spend the rest of their lives together, then who are we to tell them they can't (or shouldn't)? Two consenting adults are two consenting adults - period. If there's no harm, there's no foul. It's not acceptable to pass judgement on someone else's marriage - each marriage is unique to the persons involved. The opinions of a third party should never be weighted or debated...in other words, mind your own marriage!

If gay marriage is legalized, will it impact you? What do you think banning gay marriage will accomplish? Are you basing your stance on personal views or are you basing it on right and wrong? These are important questions to ask yourself, because that's how you tell if you are fighting for a cause or fighting for your cause.

A lot of people maintain that this will be a slippery-slope for society. Honestly, the only "slippery-slope" I am afraid of is our government's restriction of rights. If they've done it before (interracial marriage) and they can do it now (gay marriage), they can certainly do it later for something else. That's what scares me. What's to stop them from going a bit further? Instead of just requiring you to file a marriage certificate with them to validate your marriage, suppose they require you to file an application for marriage that needed to be approved by the State first? Would that seem right to you? Would you feel that the government is justified in judging your right to marry? I doubt it.

Putting my "big-government-wielding-unchecked-power" fears aside, it simply doesn't make any sense to me that being in a homosexual relationship is legal, but committing to one for life isn't. Logically, it would have to be one way or the other and I think people are starting to see that. Personally, I try to not concern myself with other people's life choices (my own are enough to deal with), but it is important to me that those other people have the freedom to make their choices, just as freely as I do.

So, what is my Jerry Springer-like final thought of the day? Equal rights for all. No exceptions. Just give everyone the chance to have the life they want.

K8

Mental Mothers

In honor of Mother's Day this Sunday, I decided I would highlight a few of the "Mommy-related" headlines that caught my attention...in a negative way:

Clowning Around: For a nominal fee, parents can hire a creepy clown to scare the daylights out of their child during his/her birthday week. After a week of threatening letters, texts, and phone calls, the week-long harassment ultimately results in the clown catching the child off guard in order to smash cake in their face. Happy Birthday!! No harm done, right? Coulrophobia (fear of clowns) is one of the most common phobias in the world. In fact, there was a recent study where it was discovered that most children universally dislike clowns...and those are the "nice" ones! What parent would think paying a menacing clown to taunt their child for a week would ever result in a happy birthday for their child? Can you say therapy?

  



Misfortune Teller: People go to fortune tellers for a variety of reasons, but most people do it purely for entertainment purposes. It was not revealed why Linda Clappison went to see a fortune teller, but we do know that after she returned home, her parenting technique drastically changed. Apparently she promptly locked her children in their rooms, removed their light bulbs, toys, and mattresses before volunteering them into indentured servitude for the local Roma population (Gypsies). This lasted for 6 years before one of her children broke down at school and begged them to not make her go home. The mother's response to the charges? "They're liars." Wow - what a compelling argument! The weird part is that her kids insisted that she was a great mother prior to her mysterious visit with the fortune teller. Things that make you go hmmm...



Diaper Drama: We've all heard stories of the controversial methods that parents have used for punishing poor performance in school, but I think this one tops them all. A mother was recently arrested for shaving her 12 year-old daughter's head, dressing her in a diaper, and making her pick up garbage in the front yard. Why? Poor grades and tardy homework completion. Several neighbors heard the girl crying hysterically and begging to go back inside. Police officers arrested the mother and CPS promptly removed the girl and her siblings from the home. It is a sick, sick mind that can come up with crazy punishments like this. Overreact much?

I don't know about you, but after reading these stories, I am going to give my mother a huge hug and thank her for my childhood that lacked humiliation and torment. It is fairly obvious that good mothers are a minority, so be sure to show your appreciation this weekend if you can! If not, at least say a prayer for the poor souls who are so unfortunate as to be born into nightmares like these...

K8

Pit Bullshit

This is probably the first time in my entire life that I found myself embarrassed calling myself a Marylander.

The highest court in Maryland just ruled that Pit Bulls are "inherently dangerous" and they have adjusted the state law concerning liability accordingly. It used to be that knowledge of the dog's violent tendencies needed to be proven in order for the owner to be held liable, but now it is no longer necessary to prove a particular Pit Bull is dangerous to win a lawsuit - it is only necessary to prove the dog is a Pit Bull.

This angers me for a multitude of reasons. First of all, I think both versions of the law are inappropriate. you shouldn't have to prove knowledge of potentially violent behavior in order to be held liable and it shouldn't matter what kind of dog it is. If you own a dog and that dog injures someone, then you should be held liable....period. It doesn't matter what kind of dog it is or what kind of temperament your dog usually has, you should be held responsible.

What also makes my blood boil is the wording "inherently dangerous". Domesticated dogs are NOT inherently dangerous. If that were true, then dog ownership would have died out hundreds of years ago.
They are animals and sometimes we "superior" human beings forget that. All dogs have the capability to cause bodily harm...ALL dogs. From Chihuahuas to Great Danes - they all have the ability to bite and inflict injuries, the only reason Pit Bulls have been catching a bad rap is because of US.

We are the ones who turn them from this:

To this:

To this:

We do this to them. We create dog fighting rings. We beat them and force them to fight for their lives. We glorify the underground "ballers" who make millions from their suffering. We idolize the "bad ass" image that seems to cause people to want to own these dogs, without raising them properly or even really loving them.

These dogs are banned in Prince George's County. Completely. If you own a Pit Bull, you can be arrested and slapped with a $1,000 fine. Are you kidding me?! That is absurd and completely prejudicial! If my dog (Pit Bull or not) exhibits aggressive behavior or injures someone - the State has the right and responsibility to prosecute me the the full extent of the law, but guilt by association based purely on breed (and not behavior) is an inappropriate approach to protecting the public.

That's what it all comes down to - protecting the public. The State sees a pattern and they're trying to stay ahead of the curve - I get that, but they're going about it the wrong way. Harsher penalties for ALL instances of dog aggression/injuries would cause owners to take a harder look at their pet and possibly seek out help in correcting the behavior. Harsher penalties on dog fighting rings and the abusive dog owners would also stem the flow of aggressive Pit Bulls. Punish the people responsible for the danger, don't just go around punishing people for simply owning a Pit Bull.

Coming from personal experience, it was extremely difficult to find a rental property in Central Maryland who would allow any dogs at all let alone my completely docile and complacent Labrador Retriever. Every apartment I looked at had a posted breed restriction (Pit Bulls were on every list) and a weight limit - which made no sense to me. My dog is a big dog, but he's quieter than all of those incessantly yappy dogs that are always permitted in apartment complexes. You have a large number of people, living in close proximity, with thin walls, and the only dogs you will allow are the little loud ones? If it's not on account of noise, then it must be on account of safety, right? Well in my experience, I've seen more protective, aggressive behavior exhibited in smaller dogs than I have in larger ones!

I'm not saying that the State is wrong in trying to address an issue that is causing injuries and fatalities within our community, but merely that they are focusing on the wrong cause of the issue. I don't own a Pit Bull, so you could say it's none of my business - but even though I'm not directly impacted by any of this, I know when something is wrong and I refuse to ignore it.

You know, it wasn't too long ago when Rottweilers were the most "dangerous" and hated dog breed and for the same reason...human error. It looks like society has found a new breed to crucify and generate baseless fear over and Maryland has found a new scapegoat to take the fall for irresponsible ownership, ignorance, and negligence. Good luck to those on this witch hunt - I don't know how you are able to sleep at night.

K8

Love is in the...pill?

I came across this article today that basically stated that researchers and scientists are currently working on the development of a "love pill" that would simulate the feeling of love for the user.

"Their proposed pill, a combination of five types of drugs, would biologically manipulate the brain into thinking you really, really, want your spouse—enough to put your differences aside."

While the concept is scientifically interesting, I truly find the idea of a "love pill" to be an awful idea overall. I'm sure that in defense, people will reference Viagra in some way, but the correlation would be faulty.

For example, a man with erectile dysfunction (a medical condition that is completely beyond his control) shouldn't be compared to a man who has lost his emotional connection with his partner and seeks chemical assistance in order to make his relationship last. It could be argued that an emotional connection can also be considered a condition beyond one's control, but in reality, the two scenarios have completely different consequences.

Consider this - how would you feel if your partner was taking a pill in order to be able to perform an expression of love for you? Now, what if your partner was taking a pill in order to have an expression of love for you. Totally different, right?

The idea that someone needs to fabricate feelings and emotions in order to be happy with you would inevitably generate a negative response. What if you both need the "love pill" in order to be happy together? People usually interpret that as a sign that perhaps you aren't meant for one another, but that rationale would become completely obsolete. Why on earth would anyone want to stay in a chemically-induced relationship?

I'm sure the intent behind this pill is to save relationships (as we all know the honeymoon ends at some point), but by saving what? Face? Are we too proud to admit when our feelings have changed past the point of no return? Can we not be honest, call a spade a spade, and move on? We only have a certain amount of life to live and I can't imagine someone choosing to waste their precious time trying to keep up appearances.

To top it all off, let's not forget to mention all of the other possible issues that would arise from this type of drug. Can you imagine the headlines? "It's not cheating! I was drugged with the love pill - I couldn't control myself!" "Student with crush at local high school drugs teacher with love pill" "Love pill parties - how they relate to the increase of STDs and teen pregnancy"...the list could easily go on.

Those maybe extreme assumptions, but they're plausible and that's enough icing on the cake for me. Whether you think this pill is a good idea or a bad idea - I'll will take my chances with true love.

K8