(Click On Black Line Just Below To Customize Your View!)
***Hover Cursor Over Pic!
***Endless Scrolling!
#HowdyDadJokes
#HowdyThoughtHumor
#ProfHowdy
First Published In The Last Century - July 26, 1997!
T3H7P12H
Over 9 Million Hits!
Unlimited Scrolling!
An Amusement Park Of Ideas! #ProfHowdy Professor Howdy
Tuesday
Measuring Intelligence!
Why do UNC students put rulers on their foreheads? They want to measure their intelligence.
This article, passed on by Naomi Ragen, was written by Anne Bayefsky, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. Yes, it deals with the American election process but it is all too clear that the American election has profound implications for Israel; therefore, it is relevant in this Report to pass along articles like this - for Israel's sake and for America's. Read and consider.
"Tiny Iran" - Obama's big learning curve. By Anne Bayefsky
'It's terrorism, stupid." Nothing short of blunt talk will do in light of Sen. Barack Obama's comments this past week on Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah. They are the most significant indication to date of the looming catastrophe for American national security posed by an Obama presidency.
Here is Obama in his own words, speaking in Pendleton, Oregon on Sunday night: "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. In Iran they spend 1/100th of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance."
How does one begin a course for a presidential candidate in Terrorism 101? Where has Obama been for the past three decades during which the greatest threats to peace and security have moved beyond the sphere of state actors operating alone? After 9/11, why doesn't Obama recognize the capacity of relatively small entities to wreak havoc, at comparatively little cost, on a nation as large and strong as America?
Despite Obama's claim to be a foreign-policy realist, his fancy foreign-policy footwork contains as much realpolitik as a dancing sugar-plum fairy. Obama is keen to explain his hankering for an early heart-to-heart with Iranian President Ahmadinejad - with whom he would "be willing to meet separately, without precondition during the first year of [his] administration" or his desire to engage in "direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions." His strategy so far has been to deny the undeniable transaction costs of an unconditioned presidential get-together: the undeserved legitimacy conferred on a would-be mass murderer, the time lost while a nuclear-weapons program continues in full swing, and the betrayal of brave local dissenters.
"Tiny" and not "serious" move us another step closer to the edge.
The unfortunate reality is that Iran not only poses a serious threat already, but it does stand a chance of carrying out its dire program. Ahmadinejad, in addition to his professed affinity for genocide, is funding terrorist proxies in Lebanon and Gaza who believe they have started the job and are committed to finishing it. The message Obama sends in denying that Iran has "tried to pose a serious threat to us" is that a grave threat to the peace and security of Israel is not a threat to the peace and security of the United States. Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, of "Israel Lobby" fame, would be proud. But even the anti-nuclear-anything activists in the Democratic party should begin to worry about a president who thinks the consequences of an Iranian nuclear strike on Israel can be confined to the locals.
Official U.S. policy holds Iran to be a state sponsor of terrorism, along with Cuba, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria. Not only has Iran tried, and is trying, to pose a serious threat to us, in some ways it is a greater threat than that posed by the Soviet Union. The terrorist organizations or non-state actors whom these rogue states sponsor are not subject to the same economic and political pressures that could be brought to bear on the Soviet Union. Madmen and religious fanatics driven by a belief in the imminent reappearance of the 12th Imam following worldwide chaos, or visions of virgins in post-suicidal heaven, or who just hate us more than they love their children, are not susceptible to the rational calculus of Mikhail Gorbachev.
But according to his recently reported conversation with New York Times columnist David Brooks, Obama believes the problem with Hamas and Hezbollah is that the poor things don't "understand that they're going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims." We need to hear more about where in the governing Hamas Charter (with its overt anti-Semitism and manifest dedication to the destruction of Israel), and Hezbollah's takeover plans for Lebanon, Obama finds legitimate claims. And the solution according to Obama? "The U.S. needs a foreign policy that looks at root causes of problems and dangers."
Hezbollah Leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah couldn't have said it better himself. Oh, wait: He has said it himself. Remember Iranian proxy Nasrallah in Beirut on September 30, 2006, just after he sent 4,000 rockets into Israel: "This experience of the resistance, which must be transferred to the world, relies on faith, conviction, trust, and the moral and spiritual willingness to give sacrifices. Also, it depends on the thinking, planning, organizing, training and armament, and as is said: dealing with the root causes." Surely, Obama ought to know that invoking the language of "root causes" to illuminate the behavior of Hamas and Hezbollah plays into the nefarious strategy of these terrorist organizations and their sympathizers.
How about the tiny factor? On the one hand, we could all hum tip-toeing through the tulips along with Obama and Tiny Tim. On the other hand, we might cast our minds back to "tiny" anthrax envelopes or think about "tiny" suitcase bombs or "tiny" nanotechnology innovations in chemical and biological weapons. I also wonder how all those developing countries, allegedly ready to embrace us once again with a President Obama, will enjoy the big boy's view of their tiny status.
Coming from a man who aspires to bear the single greatest responsibility for the peace and security of the free world, the resemblance to "peace for our time" is the least of Obama's problems. The real problem is a book with a name like "Terrorism for Dummies" would have to become bedside reading at the White House.
George F. Will once remarked that, if you are going to read a liberal journal, you should read The American Prospect. I read several, but few are as stimulating (and sometimes infuriating) as TAP. Evidence of the magazine's stimulus to thought comes as it offers a May 19, 2008 essay by Courtney E. Martin. The essay demands attention -- and it is all about attention and attentiveness.
She certainly asks an important question: Do today's college and university students really care about the life of the mind?
She writes:
According to Josh Waitzkin, a 2003 graduate of Columbia University, not much. When he returned to his favorite political theory professor's course a few weeks ago, he slid into a seat in the back of the lecture hall and opened up his trusty spiral notebook. As he stared down at the sea of students, he realized how much had changed in the few short years since he'd been gone.
Professor Dennis Dalton began his lecture on Mahatma Gandhi's mass civil-disobedience campaign following the Amritsar massacre, focusing on the Indian activists' persistence in staying attuned to their own inner morals despite the crush of British imperialism. The students flipped open their laptops and started clicking away. A few solely took notes, but many flipped back and forth between multiple windows: shopping on Amazon, cruising Facebook, checking out The New York Times Style section, reorganizing their social calendars, e-mailing, playing solitaire, doing homework for other classes, chatting on AIM, and buying tickets on Expedia. Josh kept a list because he was in such disbelief.
Was it just a random day, a random classroom, a particularly restless group of college students? Or was it a profoundly sad statement about the state of our distracted minds and the biggest challenge facing all of us in this 24/7, high-tech time: the crisis of attention and intention?
Courtney Martin identifies the state of our distracted minds as the primary cause of intellectual neglect. The static and noise of everyday life and the information overload combine to rob the mind of the capacity for attentiveness -- and attentiveness is something Martin rightly believes is necessary to a happy and wholesome life. Of course, the ability to focus the mind is an intellectual skill absolutely necessary for a good education. A distracted mind is not a mind ready for the most demanding intellectual challenges and tasks.
How bad is the problem? Courtney Martin explains:
Everyone is vying for our precious attention--political candidates, Victoria's Secret, tech manufacturers, restaurant chains, YouTube, cleaning product companies, media outlets, children, The Gap, parents, blogs, friends, JetBlue, even pets. The average adult sees 1,000 advertisements a day. Internet users spend 32.7 hours per week online and about half as much time watching television (16.4 hours). Teens, not surprisingly, are most likely to participate in what tech experts call "concurrent media exposure"--using various media simultaneously. Among this crush, how well are we staying attuned to our own inner morals? How intentional are we about whom we let sap our energy, at what times, and in what ways?
Take those Facebook-surfing students, missing out on a potentially life-changing lecture about war and courage. Their diffused attention isn't criminal, but it certainly doesn't do justice to professor Dalton's lectures, their own potential for learning, or the $51,976 they or their parents are paying for a year of Ivy League education. They mirror something very real in most peoples' lives--the sense that your life is happening "to you," instead of feeling truly intentional about how, with whom, and on what you spend your time. How many times have you complained about how long you spent emailing -- as if some ambitious demon inhabited your body and kept incessantly pecking away at the keys?
The rise of mass media and the culture of entertainment shaped the minds of generations now at mid-life and older. Today's generation of college and university students faces a far greater array of attention demands -- most of them now cellular and digital. Many teenagers and college students seem to experience genuine anxiety when they miss a few minutes of digital activity. (In fairness, their Treo and Blackberry toting parents are often almost as distracted and inattentive.)
Ask any educator and you will hear the horror stories. College professors look out at the tops of heads as students are bent over keyboards. On some campuses, faculty members are in revolt over students surfing the Web and maintaining their Facebook pages during lectures. The learning experience is transformed even if the students are taking notes on their laptops. Eye contact between the teacher and the students is often almost totally lost.
As Courtney Miller reports, Josh Waitzken wrote a letter to the students he observed when visiting Professor Dalton's class. This section of his letter should be seen and savored:
I understand that your minds move quickly and we are all impacted by a fast paced culture, but do you realize the horror of shopping online while Dalton describes…mothers throwing their children into a well to avoid a barrage of bullets? What are you doing? There comes a day when we must become accountable for our own learning process…Take it on. This is your life. What is the point of neurotically skipping along the surface when all the beauty lies below? Please seize the moment and listen deeply to Dalton's final lectures. Close the computers. Stop typing madly and soak in the themes he develops…Learning is an act of creativity, not mind-numbing, tv watching passive receptivity.
This is good advice for us all, regardless of age. We are al living distracted lives that promise only to grow more complicated and distracted in years ahead. The discipline and stewardship of our attention is a matter of great and unquestionable urgency.
Join the revolution and refuse the seductions of the mind-numbing allure of all things digital -- at least long enough to think a great thought, hear a great lecture, enjoy a quality conversation (with a real, live face-to-face human being), listen to a great sermon, visit a museum, read a good book, or take in a beautiful sunset.
People who cannot maintain mental attention cannot know the intimacy of prayer, and God does not maintain a Facebook page. Our ability to focus attention is not just about the mind, for it is also a reflection of the soul. Our Christian discipleship demands that we give attention to our attention.
The U. S. Government regulations on the sale of cabbage : 26,911 Words
===============
*1883: Standard Time Zones Adopted in U.S.A.
The actual local time, or "sun time" constantly changes as one moves either east or west. With the arrival of railroad travel, the situation raised problems for railway lines and passengers trying to synchronize schedules in different cities. The need for a system of standardized time was evident, and eventually a system proposed by Charles F. Dowd, a school principal in New York State, was adopted. Under Dowd's system, North America was divided into four time zones, fifteen degrees of longitude, and one hour of "standard time" apart. At noon on Sunday, November 18, 1883, the new system went into effect. It became the basis for the international system of time zones we're familiar with today.
I used to work with someone on our team who was a fanatical fisherman! He actually told me about a boy who was starting very young down that same road, or stream as the case may be. At that point, James was only three years old, but his dad had already taught him to fish! The first time they went fishing together Dad gave him a cricket to use as bait. Well, beginners luck - James caught himself a little sunfish with that cricket. And then, just for fun, Dad decided to let his boy try some serious bait - what fishermen call stink bait. It's got something like pieces of liver in it. Now, I personally wouldn't bite on it, but they weren't trying to catch a radio host. Wouldn't you know it! Little James reeled in a seven pound catfish! When Dad tried to get him to go back to the cricket bait - no way, Dad! He had discovered what kind of bait attracts the big ones!
Our word for today from the Word of God comes from Proverbs 31:30-31. This whole chapter is actually God's description of a woman who is, in the words of the chapter, "Worth far more than rubies." Who has, as it says, "noble character," who ends up with a husband who "has full confidence in her," and who, "takes his seat among the elders of the land." Hey, she caught a good one! Well, here's her idea of attractive: "Charm is deceptive and beauty is fleeting, but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised." And then it says, "Give her the reward she has earned." The woman God praises and the woman a quality man praises is a woman who focuses on having a heart that's right.
Physical appearance, or some kind of social manipulating - that's an increasingly radical blueprint for being a woman when we live in a world that glorifies the physical, the sensual, the sexy. But, many women don't seem to understand what little James already knows - the kind of bait you offer determines the kind of catch you get!
Sometimes you'll hear a woman making the all too accurate complaint that "all men care about is the physical." Most women I'm acquainted with are not interested in being a sex object to men, or a thing rather than a person, or body parts rather than a whole person. They want a relationship with men, not a sexual game where they're just another conquest. And that's in line with what God wants. In I Timothy 5:2, He commands the young men to "treat the younger women as sisters with absolute purity." But apparently a lot of women don't understand how hard they're making it for good men to think pure, because a woman is more stimulated by touch than by sight. She may not understand the message that she's sending; the triggers that she's activating by what she wears, how she moves, how she flirts.
Frankly, too many women are wearing things that are too tight, too low, too high, or just not enough! Since that's the way of getting male attention, I guess they'll attract the fish that just want that kind of bait. And thus, the tragedy of our superficial, mostly physical, usually sinful, mostly doomed relationships.
In I Peter 3, God describes the package that a truly beautiful woman offers. He says, "Your beauty should not come from outward adornment. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty." Those who carry the radiance and the innocence of an inner Jesus glow offer the beauty that Hollywood can never match.
So, don't go for that bait that draws the little fish. Even a little boy knows if you want the best, you need to offer what attracts a quality catch.
To find out how you can begin a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, please visit:
http://www.yoursforlife.net/alpha or call 1-888-966-7325.
Wist u dat de God van u houdt? Avez-vous su que Dieu vous aime ? Wußten Sie, daß Gott Sie liebt? Avete saputo che il dio li ama? Você soube que o deus o ama? ¿Usted sabía que el dios le ama?
Thanks for leaving a message! All comments are posted even negative ones unless they con - tain family unfriendly words and you are smart enough to know what those are. If you are unsure what these might be, ask your Mom:O)
"Tiny Iran"???
ReplyDeleteThis article, passed on by Naomi Ragen, was written by Anne Bayefsky, a
senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. Yes, it deals with the American
election process but it is all too clear that the American election has
profound implications for Israel; therefore, it is relevant in this Report
to pass along articles like this - for Israel's sake and for America's.
Read and consider.
"Tiny Iran" - Obama's big learning curve.
By Anne Bayefsky
'It's terrorism, stupid." Nothing short of blunt talk will do in light of
Sen. Barack Obama's comments this past week on Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah.
They are the most significant indication to date of the looming catastrophe
for American national security posed by an Obama presidency.
Here is Obama in his own words, speaking in Pendleton, Oregon on Sunday
night: "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the
Soviet Union. In Iran they spend 1/100th of what we spend on the military.
If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a
chance."
How does one begin a course for a presidential candidate in Terrorism 101?
Where has Obama been for the past three decades during which the greatest
threats to peace and security have moved beyond the sphere of state actors
operating alone? After 9/11, why doesn't Obama recognize the capacity of
relatively small entities to wreak havoc, at comparatively little cost, on a
nation as large and strong as America?
Despite Obama's claim to be a foreign-policy realist, his fancy
foreign-policy footwork contains as much realpolitik as a dancing sugar-plum
fairy. Obama is keen to explain his hankering for an early heart-to-heart
with Iranian President Ahmadinejad - with whom he would "be willing to meet
separately, without precondition during the first year of [his]
administration" or his desire to engage in "direct presidential diplomacy
with Iran without preconditions." His strategy so far has been to deny the
undeniable transaction costs of an unconditioned presidential get-together:
the undeserved legitimacy conferred on a would-be mass murderer, the time
lost while a nuclear-weapons program continues in full swing, and the
betrayal of brave local dissenters.
"Tiny" and not "serious" move us another step closer to the edge.
The unfortunate reality is that Iran not only poses a serious threat
already, but it does stand a chance of carrying out its dire program.
Ahmadinejad, in addition to his professed affinity for genocide, is funding
terrorist proxies in Lebanon and Gaza who believe they have started the job
and are committed to finishing it. The message Obama sends in denying that
Iran has "tried to pose a serious threat to us" is that a grave threat to
the peace and security of Israel is not a threat to the peace and security
of the United States. Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, of "Israel Lobby"
fame, would be proud. But even the anti-nuclear-anything activists in the
Democratic party should begin to worry about a president who thinks the
consequences of an Iranian nuclear strike on Israel can be confined to the
locals.
Official U.S. policy holds Iran to be a state sponsor of terrorism, along
with Cuba, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria. Not only has Iran tried, and is
trying, to pose a serious threat to us, in some ways it is a greater threat
than that posed by the Soviet Union. The terrorist organizations or
non-state actors whom these rogue states sponsor are not subject to the same
economic and political pressures that could be brought to bear on the Soviet
Union. Madmen and religious fanatics driven by a belief in the imminent
reappearance of the 12th Imam following worldwide chaos, or visions of
virgins in post-suicidal heaven, or who just hate us more than they love
their children, are not susceptible to the rational calculus of Mikhail
Gorbachev.
But according to his recently reported conversation with New York Times
columnist David Brooks, Obama believes the problem with Hamas and Hezbollah
is that the poor things don't "understand that they're going down a blind
alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims." We need to hear
more about where in the governing Hamas Charter (with its overt
anti-Semitism and manifest dedication to the destruction of Israel), and
Hezbollah's takeover plans for Lebanon, Obama finds legitimate claims. And
the solution according to Obama? "The U.S. needs a foreign policy that looks
at root causes of problems and dangers."
Hezbollah Leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah couldn't have said it better
himself. Oh, wait: He has said it himself. Remember Iranian proxy Nasrallah
in Beirut on September 30, 2006, just after he sent 4,000 rockets into
Israel: "This experience of the resistance, which must be transferred to the
world, relies on faith, conviction, trust, and the moral and spiritual
willingness to give sacrifices. Also, it depends on the thinking, planning,
organizing, training and armament, and as is said: dealing with the root
causes." Surely, Obama ought to know that invoking the language of "root
causes" to illuminate the behavior of Hamas and Hezbollah plays into the
nefarious strategy of these terrorist organizations and their sympathizers.
How about the tiny factor? On the one hand, we could all hum tip-toeing
through the tulips along with Obama and Tiny Tim. On the other hand, we
might cast our minds back to "tiny" anthrax envelopes or think about "tiny"
suitcase bombs or "tiny" nanotechnology innovations in chemical and
biological weapons. I also wonder how all those developing countries,
allegedly ready to embrace us once again with a President Obama, will enjoy
the big boy's view of their tiny status.
Coming from a man who aspires to bear the single greatest responsibility for
the peace and security of the free world, the resemblance to "peace for our
time" is the least of Obama's problems. The real problem is a book with a
name like "Terrorism for Dummies" would have to become bedside reading at
the White House.
The Challenge of Attention in the Digital Age
ReplyDeletePosted: Thursday, May 22, 2008 at 1:54 am ET
George F. Will once remarked that, if you are going to read a liberal
journal, you should read The American Prospect. I read several, but few are
as stimulating (and sometimes infuriating) as TAP. Evidence of the
magazine's stimulus to thought comes as it offers a May 19, 2008 essay by
Courtney E. Martin. The essay demands attention -- and it is all about
attention and attentiveness.
She certainly asks an important question: Do today's college and university
students really care about the life of the mind?
She writes:
According to Josh Waitzkin, a 2003 graduate of Columbia University, not
much. When he returned to his favorite political theory professor's course a
few weeks ago, he slid into a seat in the back of the lecture hall and
opened up his trusty spiral notebook. As he stared down at the sea of
students, he realized how much had changed in the few short years since he'd
been gone.
Professor Dennis Dalton began his lecture on Mahatma Gandhi's mass
civil-disobedience campaign following the Amritsar massacre, focusing on the
Indian activists' persistence in staying attuned to their own inner morals
despite the crush of British imperialism. The students flipped open their
laptops and started clicking away. A few solely took notes, but many flipped
back and forth between multiple windows: shopping on Amazon, cruising
Facebook, checking out The New York Times Style section, reorganizing their
social calendars, e-mailing, playing solitaire, doing homework for other
classes, chatting on AIM, and buying tickets on Expedia. Josh kept a list
because he was in such disbelief.
Was it just a random day, a random classroom, a particularly restless group
of college students? Or was it a profoundly sad statement about the state of
our distracted minds and the biggest challenge facing all of us in this
24/7, high-tech time: the crisis of attention and intention?
Courtney Martin identifies the state of our distracted minds as the primary
cause of intellectual neglect. The static and noise of everyday life and the
information overload combine to rob the mind of the capacity for
attentiveness -- and attentiveness is something Martin rightly believes is
necessary to a happy and wholesome life. Of course, the ability to focus the
mind is an intellectual skill absolutely necessary for a good education. A
distracted mind is not a mind ready for the most demanding intellectual
challenges and tasks.
How bad is the problem? Courtney Martin explains:
Everyone is vying for our precious attention--political candidates,
Victoria's Secret, tech manufacturers, restaurant chains, YouTube, cleaning
product companies, media outlets, children, The Gap, parents, blogs,
friends, JetBlue, even pets. The average adult sees 1,000 advertisements a
day. Internet users spend 32.7 hours per week online and about half as much
time watching television (16.4 hours). Teens, not surprisingly, are most
likely to participate in what tech experts call "concurrent media
exposure"--using various media simultaneously. Among this crush, how well
are we staying attuned to our own inner morals? How intentional are we about
whom we let sap our energy, at what times, and in what ways?
Take those Facebook-surfing students, missing out on a potentially
life-changing lecture about war and courage. Their diffused attention isn't
criminal, but it certainly doesn't do justice to professor Dalton's
lectures, their own potential for learning, or the $51,976 they or their
parents are paying for a year of Ivy League education. They mirror something
very real in most peoples' lives--the sense that your life is happening "to
you," instead of feeling truly intentional about how, with whom, and on what
you spend your time. How many times have you complained about how long you
spent emailing -- as if some ambitious demon inhabited your body and kept
incessantly pecking away at the keys?
The rise of mass media and the culture of entertainment shaped the minds of
generations now at mid-life and older. Today's generation of college and
university students faces a far greater array of attention demands -- most
of them now cellular and digital. Many teenagers and college students seem
to experience genuine anxiety when they miss a few minutes of digital
activity. (In fairness, their Treo and Blackberry toting parents are often
almost as distracted and inattentive.)
Ask any educator and you will hear the horror stories. College professors
look out at the tops of heads as students are bent over keyboards. On some
campuses, faculty members are in revolt over students surfing the Web and
maintaining their Facebook pages during lectures. The learning experience is
transformed even if the students are taking notes on their laptops. Eye
contact between the teacher and the students is often almost totally lost.
As Courtney Miller reports, Josh Waitzken wrote a letter to the students he
observed when visiting Professor Dalton's class. This section of his letter
should be seen and savored:
I understand that your minds move quickly and we are all impacted by a fast
paced culture, but do you realize the horror of shopping online while Dalton
describes…mothers throwing their children into a well to avoid a barrage of
bullets? What are you doing? There comes a day when we must become
accountable for our own learning process…Take it on. This is your life. What
is the point of neurotically skipping along the surface when all the beauty
lies below? Please seize the moment and listen deeply to Dalton's final
lectures. Close the computers. Stop typing madly and soak in the themes he
develops…Learning is an act of creativity, not mind-numbing, tv watching
passive receptivity.
This is good advice for us all, regardless of age. We are al living
distracted lives that promise only to grow more complicated and distracted
in years ahead. The discipline and stewardship of our attention is a matter
of great and unquestionable urgency.
Join the revolution and refuse the seductions of the mind-numbing allure of
all things digital -- at least long enough to think a great thought, hear a
great lecture, enjoy a quality conversation (with a real, live face-to-face
human being), listen to a great sermon, visit a museum, read a good book, or
take in a beautiful sunset.
People who cannot maintain mental attention cannot know the intimacy of
prayer, and God does not maintain a Facebook page. Our ability to focus
attention is not just about the mind, for it is also a reflection of the
soul. Our Christian discipleship demands that we give attention to our
attention.
Pythagorean theorem : 24 Words
ReplyDeleteThe Lord's Prayer : 66 Words
Archimedes' Principle : 67 Words
The 10 Commandments : 179 Words
The Gettysburg Address : 286 Words
The Declaration of Independence : 1,300 Words
The U. S. Government regulations on the sale of cabbage : 26,911 Words
===============
*1883: Standard Time Zones Adopted in U.S.A.
The actual local time, or "sun time" constantly changes as one moves
either east or west. With the arrival of railroad travel, the
situation raised problems for railway lines and passengers trying to
synchronize schedules in different cities. The need for a system of
standardized time was evident, and eventually a system proposed by
Charles F. Dowd, a school principal in New York State, was adopted.
Under Dowd's system, North America was divided into four time zones,
fifteen degrees of longitude, and one hour of "standard time" apart.
At noon on Sunday, November 18, 1883, the new system went into
effect. It became the basis for the international system of time
zones we're familiar with today.
The Bait and the Catch
ReplyDeleteI used to work with someone on our team who was a fanatical fisherman!
He actually told me about a boy who was starting very young down that same
road, or stream as the case may be. At that point, James was only three
years old, but his dad had already taught him to fish! The first time they
went fishing together Dad gave him a cricket to use as bait. Well,
beginners luck - James caught himself a little sunfish with that cricket.
And then, just for fun, Dad decided to let his boy try some serious bait -
what fishermen call stink bait. It's got something like pieces of liver in
it. Now, I personally wouldn't bite on it, but they weren't trying to catch
a radio host. Wouldn't you know it! Little James reeled in a seven pound
catfish! When Dad tried to get him to go back to the cricket bait - no way,
Dad! He had discovered what kind of bait attracts the big ones!
Our word for today from the Word of God comes from Proverbs 31:30-31.
This whole chapter is actually God's description of a woman who is, in the words
of the chapter, "Worth far more than rubies." Who has, as it says, "noble
character," who ends up with a husband who "has full confidence in her," and
who, "takes his seat among the elders of the land." Hey, she caught a good
one! Well, here's her idea of attractive: "Charm is deceptive and beauty is
fleeting, but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised." And then it
says, "Give her the reward she has earned." The woman God praises and the
woman a quality man praises is a woman who focuses on having a heart that's
right.
Physical appearance, or some kind of social manipulating - that's an
increasingly radical blueprint for being a woman when we live in a world
that glorifies the physical, the sensual, the sexy. But, many women don't
seem to understand what little James already knows - the kind of bait you
offer determines the kind of catch you get!
Sometimes you'll hear a woman making the all too accurate complaint that
"all men care about is the physical." Most women I'm acquainted with are
not interested in being a sex object to men, or a thing rather than a
person, or body parts rather than a whole person. They want a relationship
with men, not a sexual game where they're just another conquest. And that's
in line with what God wants. In I Timothy 5:2, He commands the young men to
"treat the younger women as sisters with absolute purity." But apparently a
lot of women don't understand how hard they're making it for good men to
think pure, because a woman is more stimulated by touch than by sight. She
may not understand the message that she's sending; the triggers that she's
activating by what she wears, how she moves, how she flirts.
Frankly, too many women are wearing things that are too tight, too low, too
high, or just not enough! Since that's the way of getting male attention, I
guess they'll attract the fish that just want that kind of bait. And thus,
the tragedy of our superficial, mostly physical, usually sinful, mostly
doomed relationships.
In I Peter 3, God describes the package that a truly beautiful woman offers.
He says, "Your beauty should not come from outward adornment. Instead, it
should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty." Those who carry
the radiance and the innocence of an inner Jesus glow offer the beauty that
Hollywood can never match.
So, don't go for that bait that draws the little fish. Even a little boy
knows if you want the best, you need to offer what attracts a quality catch.
To find out how you can begin a personal relationship with Jesus
Christ, please visit:
http://www.yoursforlife.net/alpha or call 1-888-966-7325.
Click Here
Click Here
Wist u dat de God van u houdt?
Avez-vous su que Dieu vous aime ?
Wußten Sie, daß Gott Sie liebt?
Avete saputo che il dio li ama?
Você soube que o deus o ama?
¿Usted sabía que el dios le ama?
http://everystudent.com/menus/intl.html
Click Here
Click Here