Woodcreek is putting on a benefit show next Wednesday, I think. Either Wednesday or Thursday. It should be pretty fun, I'm playing Edge of Seventeen with some guys. I'll let you know what day for sure when I find out!
So, I've been working on a new background for my myspace for quite a while, but decided I liked the old one quite a bit, so I put up the new one on here! This is HARDLY worth making a post about, but I figured I'd direct some attention toward it. The focus of the picture is hidden by all the blog posts, but oh well.
Let me know if there's anything your artistic eye sees that may be a good change. I know, for starters, the banner and the background and the kaleidoscope background sort of clash. I ran into super difficulties putting them up, so once they got to work I didn't worry about them too much.
I was looking around the news today and saw an article from July 26 that I laughed hard about, I figured I'd share.
This post is from www.worldnetdaily.com
WEAPONS OF CHOICE
Don't shoot the Lawn-Boy
Man faces 6 years for armed assault on mower
 Keith Walendowski |
It just wasn't Keith Walendowski's day.
After having a few drinks before 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, he noticed his grass was overgrown.
So he tried to fire up his 21-inch Lawn-Boy.
Nothing doing. It wouldn't start.
He did what any 57-year-old southside Milwaukee native would do. He pulled out his sawed-off shotgun and blew the mower away.
"I'll tell you the truth," a criminal complaint quotes an apparently inebriated Keith Walendowski. "I got p----- because my lawn mower wouldn't start, so I got my shotgun and shot it. I can do that. It's my lawn mower and my yard, so I can shoot it if I want."
But the police weren't having any part of it.
After shooting the mower, he went in his basement, where he was arrested by police, the complaint says.
Police recovered the shotgun, shells, a handgun, rounds for the handgun and a stun gun.
Dick Wagner of Wagner's Garden Mart told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel shooting the mower didn't help Walendowski's chances of getting it repaired.
"Anything not factory recommended would void the warranty," he said.
"No matter what the cause."
Alright! Sorry it took so long, I figured since multiple people were asking, it would be easier to make one post here instead of going to each page and commenting them. So, basically. If you click on that little "Customize" link on the top right of your page, you'll go to a screen that looks like this (click on the little picture and it'll make it bigger):
So, you want to get to that first page, under the Layout tab, go to "Page Elements."
Now, one of my page elements is that "HTML/JavaScript" one on the bottom right-ish area.
If you go to that, and click edit, it'll bring up that window up there over everything else, that's the ticket right there. You'll enter CSS in there to make the changes for your background! I made my background and things and put them in through there, so I don't know if it'll work with their default backgrounds also, but it's worth a try.
So, anyway, in that window where you can edit the HTML/JavaScript, you'll need to put this:
<style type="text/css">
body{
background-color:681012;
background-image:url('http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/3499/collage2kb3.gif');
background-attachment:fixed;
background-repeat:no-repeat;
background-position:top left;
text-align:center;
}
</style>
In case it helps, this is kind of what that all means:
The background-image part is if you want to add in your own background. That url it's got there is for the picture that's on my background right now, so you can either take that out, or put in your own.
The background-attachment: fixed is what makes it stop from moving, but for that to work, background-position has to be at "top left." (I think)
And then, background-repeat just tells it to either let the picture keep going in all directions or not, no-repeat just makes it so the picture is only there once.
Hah, I'm not much of a teacher, so let me know if I need to explain anything better for you!
All the posts previous to this were for an agriculture class I took at Sierra last semester. I'm continuing with this whole blog thing though since I found out other people use this for some interesting stuff, so, now that that's out of the way... uhh... yep.
Globalization seems to be a matter in which the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, but the advantages are very great.
For one, in some cases, the economic and social conditions of farmers are increased by globalization of agriculture. It also helps increase the efficiency of workers, and it helps improve the quality of food we receive. It keeps prices reasonable because the competition is so high.
The advantages really mainly fall around money, which isn't always a good thing, the lives of many farmers are being ruined because of this new way of doing things.
Personally, I guess I'm affected because I'd imagine a lot of what I buy could possibly be more expensive if it wasn't for the Globalization of agriculture.
Ultimately, I believe it is up to the consumer to be responsible for food safety. Too many times humans try to push the blame over to somebody else, but if consumers were more cautious about their food many of the problems would be solved. I'm not saying I don't appreciate all the programs that are in place, but the consumer should be more responsible for their selves as well.
For example, if consumers were to report every time they became sick from food from a specific company, then other consumers could see these records and refuse to buy from that company. This would in turn cause the company to clean up whatever problems they may have. Even with all of the programs in place to ensure food safety, consumers can still pull their weight. For example, we read a two page guide on food safety regarding turkey. If there's a two page guide for turkey, I'm sure there are multiple precautions to take in preparing and storing any food that may be overlooked and cause problems.
In the case of a restaurant's, it's a little more difficult for the consumer to take precautionary responsibility their first time there. However, if they experience illness related to food after eating there, they can let the restaurant know, and in turn, I'm sure the restaurant would be more than happy to fix whatever it was that led to that consumer's misfortune so that the chances of it happening again are greatly reduced.
We, the consumers, control what we put into our bodies, so ultimately: we should take responsibility for those actions.
Is it good or bad for the food industry and the consumer that the term was legally defined by the federal government? Are organic foods better for people and the environment than traditionally produced food? What are the drawbacks to organic food production? How do you feel about the "big business" of organic i.e. retailers like Whole Foods??? Make sure you are supporting your claims with valid evidence....
Generally, when the Federal government steps into people's every day lives, it's not a good thing, but, in the case of organic foods, having a national standard may not be a bad thing. While "organic" doesn't mean 100% pure, it definitely guarantees that the methods for producing the product were more pure than what non-organic food consists of. People often "
Big businesses stepping in and selling organic foods is probably a good thing. Organic farmers are this way encouraged to continue their practices since they are guaranteed sales. While, as I said before, organic doesn't mean 100% pure, but it's certainly purer. So when big businesses begin to move into the organic stream of things, it's a little bit better for everybody. Some examples, from http://www.avalonhealthinfo.com/ are:
Food giants such as PepsiCo and Coca-Cola are also breaking into the organic food market. Frito-Lay, which is owned by PepsiCo, has begun selling organic salsa and blue and yellow corn chips with the brand name Tostitos.
In 2001, Coca-Cola purchased the beverage line Odwalla and is selling organic carrot, apple and orange juices.
Additionally, the spice producer McCormick & Co. has been selling organic spices, including thyme and rosemary, since 2002.
So, last week we checked out many of the different crops, both cash and food, which were genetically modified, and I think everybody will agree with me when I say it's a very positive direction for science to be going.
Some of the many benefits include:
- Genetically resistant plants; resistant to diseases, insects, weeds, and critters that could normally ruin a harvest.
- Reduced use of pesticides; people won't have to worry as much about all of the many cancers and sicknesses which some pesticides could potentially cause.
- More nutrition from everyday items, such as the enhanced beta-carotene in golden rice which the body uses for Vitamin A. Nutritional items that some people normally would miss out on would then be healthier from there on out without having to drastically change their diet.
- Some GM crops are designed to grow in no-till farming conditions, which saves the environment in fossil fuels, ground nutrients, and less runoff of soil and fertilizers.
The major cons I've seen so far are:
- People may be allergic to a certain product that has been added into a crop, but with them not knowing it's there they could be in trouble from eating these.
- If a genetically modified strand of crop was accidentally mixed with an original crop field, the original crop could be lost.
Opposition still stands, but will it forever? Biotechnology is creating major benefits to the inhabitants of our earth mother and is preventing many disasters from happening (imagine: the Irish Potato famine being completely erased from history because of earlier discoveries).
-
"Tobacco plants growing in a hospital laboratory in London, genetically modified to include an algae gene, are said to provide an effective anti-HIV drug" (http://spicycauldron.com/2007/04/30/the-gm-tobacco-that-could-save-lives/).
With new technologies progressing rapidly, it's no surprise that something previously known to kill so many has been mutated into a tool to help people with HIV. By a gene placed into the DNA of the plant, a protein is created, even though the plant has no use for it specifically.
Now, currently, it seems as though this sort of plant is only being produced in a very few areas because the creation is still relatively new (the oldest news article I've found has been dated for 2005). There is no large-scale production line of these tobacco plants, as far as I know, but there are farms around the world, such as in Kent, but the project has not yet been perfected. There are huge plans in the future, however: "Once successful, each plant will be capable of providing 20 doses of an anti-HIV drug, which is enough to protect a woman from infection for up to three months" (http://www.ecofriend.org/entry/gm-tobacco-production-in-kent-could-provide-anti-hiv-drug-to-millions/).
It's easy to point out the positive effects this new method for cheap medicine will have, but there are also disadvantages. Such as with all GM plants, there is a chance that they could "infect," so to speak, the natural population of the plants, and cause them to be extinct. Also, more specifically to this crop, some may use the new medicine expecting 100% results 100% of the time, and this may not be true, causing HIV to continue to spread regardless.
