NEWT GINGRICH, MARIJUANA AND THE DODO - POLITICS 2012 - PART 2

Imagine... there are no predators. You have wings, but it becomes unnecessary to fly. Your wings slowly disappear, to make you flightless. That is the Dodo bird.

Source: Wikipedia

A "chicken" that stood there to let you kill it... that was the Dodo.

First discovered by Dutch sailors in 1598, by 1681 the Dodo was hunted to extinction.

That is the inconceivable wish that the Federal government has with regards to users/affectionatoes of cannabis/aka marijuana. Eradicate marijuana users, as the theory goes, and you erraticate all "illegal drug users".

If you ask newt Gingrich, illegal drug users are users of cocaine and heroin. If you ask him if cannabis users should be arrested and jailed, he'd say "no". He has absolutely no cognizance of the average cannabis user. He firmly believes that not only are cannabis users unable to provide to a society, but they ultimately go onto harder drugs. Not true. It's all a boogeyman to him.

Hate to tell you Newt, a little late with the sermon... people have been using, what you call "drugs", for millennia. And, cannabis is not a "gateway-drug", so you can forget that line of drivel. Cannabis users, like the Dodo, feel safe in the USA.

You make clear they're not. And they're not. But do you expect to get elected having threatened a good 50% of the population with your "death-threats"???

Cannabis users aren't Dodos... they've been under attack since 1937... and are now victims of a undeclared war. The difference is... cannabis users statistically are well educated. Not stupid by any stretch!

Question for Newt (January 4, 2012 at Concord, NH Town Hall Meeting):

“I’m a recreational drug user, should I arrested?"

Gingrich: "No you shouldn’t be arrested, but you also shouldn’t do it.”

Newt's another one of these "born again politicians" that used to use cannabis and other "drugs", and has reformed their ways.

“Gingrich’s response to questions about his youthful drug experimentation (“That was a sign we were alive and in graduate school in that era”) was uncharacteristically graceful and in perspective and mature… ”

1 May 1995, New York Magazine, page 42: SOURCE:

Initially, in Newt's early years, during the 1980's he was pro-legalization, at least for medicinal purposes. In the 1990's he did a reversal... sponsoring a bill that would make marijuana smuggling a felony with a sentence of death.

H.R. 4170 (Drug Importer Death Penalty Act of 1996) to the House of Representatives, which sought to “provide a sentence of death for certain importations of significant quantities of controlled substances”.

Section 2: Increased Penalties For International Drug Trafficking

Section 1010 of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 960) is amended by adding at the end the following:

(e)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall sentence a person convicted of a violation of subsection (a), consisting of bringing into the United States a mixture or substance--

(A) which is described in subsection (b)(1); and

(B) in an amount the Attorney General by rule has determined is equal to 100 usual dosage amounts of such mixture or substance;

to imprisonment for life without possibility of release. If the defendant has violated this subsection on more than one occasion and the requirements of chapter 228 of title 18, United States Code, are satisfied, the court shall sentence the defendant to death.

(2) The maximum fine that otherwise may be imposed, but for this subsection, shall not be reduced by operation of this subsection.'

September 25, 1996, 104th Congress (1995 - 1996), H.R.4170

So How did Newt go from supporting legalization of cannabis to outright hostility?

"See, when I smoked pot it was illegal," he reportedly told the Wall Street Journal's Hilary Stout in 1996, "but not immoral. Now, it is illegal AND immoral. The law didn’t change, only the morality... That's why you get to go to jail and I don't." reportedly Newt said.

So, okay, change of morality. But is Newt God? I guess in a way the way I read him he thinks he is. He implies, marijuana use is now a violation of morals? Holy Batman on that one... how does he validate that statement???

Several quotes summarize his position, courtesy of NORML:

“If you import a commercial quantity of illegal drugs… it is because you have made the personal decision that you are prepared to get rich by destroying our children. I have made the decision that I love our children enough that we will kill you if you do this.”

August 27, 1995, New York Times, Gingrich Suggests Tough Drug Measure

“I don’t have a comprehensive view. My general belief is that we ought to be much more aggressive about drug policy. And that we should recognize that the Mexican cartels are funded by Americans. In my mind it means having steeper economic penalties and it means having a willingness to do more drug testing.”

(Yahoo! News Interview, November 28th, 2011

“I think that we need to consider taking more explicit steps to make it expensive to be a drug user. It could be through testing before you get any kind of federal aid. Unemployment compensation, food stamps, you name it.

It has always struck me that if you’re serious about trying to stop drug use, then you need to find a way to have a fairly easy approach to it and you need to find a way to be pretty aggressive about insisting–I don’t think actually locking up users is a very good thing. I think finding ways to sanction them and to give them medical help and to get them to detox is a more logical long-term policy.”

(Yahoo! News Interview, November 28th, 2011

So, if you like to use marijuana, newt mandates detox...

He would like to see an increase in enforcing the War on Drugs.

Much like Mitt Romney, he's another "prehistoric thinker..." but what really gets to me is this quote:

“I think Jefferson or George Washington would have rather strongly discouraged you from growing marijuana and their techniques with dealing with it would have been rather more violent than our current government.”

(New Hampshire Voter Event, January 2012

I don't think so Newt! Especially Thomas Jefferson. Both probably even used it... it was a common herb and medicine even back then - far from being illegal, immoral, or discouraged.

Neither President believed infringing on the rights of adult individuals was good governing. But somehow Newt, you believe otherwise. Maybe that's why the Dodo bird appears in Lewis Carroll's - "Alice In Wonderland". Newt's in his own wonderland.

Think the casual cannabis user, generally with a college degree, is going to listen to Newt? Not likely.

Sorry Newt... but you're also a prehistoric thinker, like Mitt Romney.

Prohibition doesn't protect children. It endangers them.

MITT ROMNEY, MINISKIRTS AND MARIJUANA - POLITICS 2012

Here begins my 2-Cents towards the upcoming Presidential Election. I'm the guy on the fence, a member of neither party. Even the Libertarian Party, though I like the Jeffersonian (ref towards: Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the US, 1801-1809) approach to politics, I feel we've grown far beyond what a Libertarian gov't could provide and accomplish.

What I'd like is a Party that's Not a Party. I'd like a government that is rational, realistic, fair and humane, believes in the US Constitution, Human Rights, Personal Rights and Liberties. One that serves and protects.

The question is who qualifies... Obama? Or one of the ever dwindling stock of Republican contenders? The only modern, really intelligent man I see is, Ron Paul, and his own party won't endorse him. The most conservative of the bunch, and he's seen as too libertarian.

Mr. Obama is a good man. He's smart. He's made some good decisions and at least things haven't gotten worse, yet. He's had the worst Congress perhaps in history to deal with, and overall, he's taken action in stride, not fumbling. But he's done some things in office that give me serious mis-givings. He's not done enough for the average guy/gal. He's not pushed for common sense, science based laws; protection of civil liberties, an end to the War on Drugs.

Now a part of me feels he's got the potential to do a lot of good if elected to another four years as President. Another part of me also realizes, he's not exactly the man who campaigned for President in 2008. It's like he was given a script, told to follow it when he was elected, and he's done what he can to both follow the rules and achieve his goals.

Would I vote for him again? Well that depends upon who's running against him. I wouldn't if Ron Paul was the nominee. More on that in my next post perhaps. What if, Mitt Romney was the nominee, as is now being predicted?

Mitt Romney:

Ex-Governor of Massachusetts. A state with a mandated health care-law that he created. The same law he now denounces as bad... this in response to President Obama's health care law. A state where marijuana was decriminalized for several years ago. Mitts state...

What's Mitt's views on marijuana? If you ask me my opinion, marijuana to Mr. Romney is a lot like a woman in a mini-skirt. Remember the 1960's? If not, here's a peek:

This gorgeous gal, circa 1960, is rocking the planet, from gov't perspective, same as marijuana and hippies.

Others felt a woman dressed like this was "begging to be raped". And that's no joke. Some people still believe it today. Just like some people today still believe marijuana is the gateway drug, to hard drugs.

Mitt Romney:

October 4, 2007, Romney speaking to students at St. Anselm Institute of Politics in Manchester, New Hampshire

“I believe marijuana should be illegal in our country. It is the pathway to drug usage by our society, which is a great scourge -- which is one of the great causes of crime in our cities, and I believe we are at a state where, of course, we are very concerned about people who are suffering, and there are various means of providing pain management.”

or:

“People talk about medicinal marijuana, and, you know, you hear that story: People who are sick need medicinal marijuana. But marijuana is the entry drug for people

trying to get kids hooked on drugs. I don’t want medicinal marijuana. There are synthetic forms of marijuana that are available for people who need it for prescription.

Don’t open the doorway to medicinal marijuana.”

Sorry Mitt... it's already open.

In this country maybe we've pretty much gotten over the min-skirt madness era... but in other parts of the world they have not. It's very much like politicians in this country do not want to understand, marijuana is much like a min-skirt. Using marijuana doesn't cause crime. In the majority of the cases it doesn't lead to hard drugs. It's safer than prescription forms of the plant, and in fact much safer than what most humans ingest. The Marijuana Myth is Broken!!!

In Malaysia, in the news recently, was the alleged attacks by street vendors on women wearing trousers and mini-skirts. The men in question assaulted the woman and stripped them naked. They claim they were enforcing the law.

Man In Military Fatigues Undresses a woman in public. 2012

SOURCE: BULAWAYO NEWS 24

The law they are speaking of, "The Decency in Dress Act", 1973, was repealed in 1993. It did in fact make it a crime for women to wear trousers or mini-skirts in public.

This is what a cannabis user feels like when accosted by inane laws. Laws with no more basis in reality than women should not wear mini-skirts or trousers.

I don't believe Mitt Romney seriously knows what is a danger to society today. I think he pretends to know. There may be hope for him, just as there may be hope yet for President Obama.

By now most everyone is aware the of the fact that use of marijuana does not lead to hard drugs or increased crime. It's been legal for years in CA, NY, CO, ME, CT, AZ... and a number of other states. The nations rate of homicides I read recently is down, to # 16, the first time since the 1960's. And in MA, people are not jumping out of windows, nor has there been an increase in crime. CA is still more likely to fall into the ocean than it is to get overrun by hoards of rabid cannies/cannabinoids. Time for this country to get real... deal with real problems, and let people alone that aren't harming others.

A woman wearing a mini-skirt is not an invitation to rape, anymore than a marijuana user is a future user of hard drugs or or a threat to society.

50,000 dead in Mexico, and 100'000's Americans with criminal records, or incarcerated because

of the noble cannabis plant. Thousands more either dead in the US because cannabis is a thriving underground business, with many shady and dangerous players. The War on Drugs is like a war on the mini-skirt. There's no Just Cause to make war on people because of what they wear, read, express or ingest.

This link to The Women's Center for Change (WCC) Panang offers an excellent "Myth Vs. Reality" when it comes to the myth about the mini-skirt, as well as other worthwhile reminders; the point being - a woman wearing clothes is not inviting rape, just as a person using marijuana is not asking for trouble, nor likely to harm society just because... it's a mindset people have, and when the laws cause more harm to society than the perceived goal and/or validity of a law, it's time to stop. As they did in Malaysia.

Not that Malaysia has a great Human Right's record, but then neither does the US.

When voting for President I want someone with for the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and a respect of an individual's pursuit of "Life, Liberty and Happiness".

Mitt Romney is a prehistoric thinker. It's time he and others realize the year is 2012. It's not 1912... Mitt Romney is not a man who thinks like a 21st Century thinker. He's stuck in the past, and we really need a future of real change. The kind President Obama promised.

Think FREEDOM, Legalize cannabis! Vote to Stop The Hurt!

And Save the Mini:

Source: Photobucket: http://s192.photobucket.com/albums/z229/Swinging_Sixties/1960s%20-%20Mini%20Skirts/?start=all

Jane Birken, c 1960's

Twiggy, c 1960's

Amsterdam Cannabis Cup Winner: White Widow

THE WAR ON SEMEN - SPECIAL REPORT

SPERM:

It's come to that.

The FDA has determined your gonads are factories, "manufacturing cells"... and as such, the FDA believes that what your gonads produce/manufacture is a controlled substance. Under their control. Imagine that while it's pending. The goal of the FDA is your well-being, naturally; I suspect that may not be true. Decide for yourself...

*

Originally this topic was going to be an interlude, a break for a bit before I tackled a more difficult topic... it was to be light-hearted satire to warn against the encroachment of government on human freedom. A humorous topic, I thought!

*

Seriously. The FDA has declared a "war on semen"...

Case in point:

Trent Arsenault:

Tim has his own blog where he advertises free "donor sperm". He runs it as a business, a not-for profit business. He provides full medical disclosure to potential clients. He's fathered 14 children, and the FDA recently raided his home, and attempted to ... they, the FDA is conducting some kind of investigation... determining what crimes Trent committed. Odd thing is, semen is in high demand. Who would have guessed? Click the image for the story or here:

CBS San Francisco News - "FDA Cracks Down On Fremont Man’s Sperm Donations".

Trent is not alone.

Here's a link to a forum Post-It Board where anyone can ask for, or advertise, they're seeking, or willing to donate sperm:

VOY_FORUMS.COM

*

I simply never thought of myself as a "factory".

*

I'll bet the ex-AL politician who was running a private sperm donation clinic didn't think of himself as a factory. The irony with the case of Bill Johnson, 52 of Alabama is that #1, his age. #2, he's married and his wife didn't know. #3, He donated mostly to lesbian women, yet was opposed as a politician to gay rights. In New Zealand, Bill felt generous, and fathered at least 4 children.

*

What really convinced me to take this topic seriously was when reading that Jennifer Aniston's former agent encouraged her to ask Brad Pitt for some of his semen, before he left for good. The story is here: Agent Urged Jen Aniston To Ask for Brad Pitt's Sperm Post-Split; Published December 23, 2011; FoxNews.com

*

There's the story of the Texas man who found out he was the father of twins. He always used a condom with his previous girlfriend who gave birth to his children. She stole his sperm in the condoms he used and deposited the sperm in a sperm bank. He's suing.

Story Here: "A New York man was stunned to find out that his four-year-old twins were not an accidental pregnancy after all — but that his desperate girlfriend secretly stashed away his sperm..."

*

Here's an account of what it's like to donate sperm at a "government approved facility"... THE GENIUS FACTORY, by David Plotz.

*

And to conclude an in-depth news report entitled: "You Got Your Sperm Where?" Newsweek.com. This last article goes way into the reality of donated sperm. College student can make $1200/donation, I've heard. Gosh, wish I'd known!!!

But as the article begins, one can see that all is not well being a sperm donor:

The Daily Beast: ""

*

That's enough...

It's bad enough when the government tells me what plants I may have and use. It's another when it tells me my "sperm is manufactured in a factory"! My own personal factory. So, the FDA is thinking of regulating my sperm.

*

What is it about government that as an elected entity it believes it can decide plants and semen are manufactured, and therefore, subject to government regulation? That it believes it can regulate and even prohibit certain naturally occurring substances? Taking this mindset to semen is taking it way too far. If a guy wants to donate his sperm, when has it been the government's business to interfere? We're talking about SEX. Since when has the government had the right to tell a man where he can plant his seeds? Especially since we're talking about consenting adults.

*

I'm thinking 2012 should be especially interesting...

CRITICAL THINKING 101 - GRADUATION

As I've said, "critical thinking" is not the same thing as "being critical" or even "thinking critically"... The latter two actions the result of a "reaction" or "fore-thought".

"Critical Thinking 101" is/has been about thinking before you act. To think before acting, and often to think more often than we do act. To be a successful, "critical thinker" tools are required. Tools we gain growing up; or at least hope we do, that give us an advantage as adults, as well as while growing into adults.

That is generally the job of our parents and our educational system. Both are pretty much required by law - "parents that provide..." and a system of education we accept in writing that we will subject our children to; unless the parents chose to home-school their children. Religious studies are also often provided, as with most, graduation of some kind follows.

From around age 5 to age 18 we are called kids or teenagers. We are not adults. We are not told many truths, but rather are told what we're expected to be told. We are taught the 3 R's, civility, right and wrong within our society. We are told we are kids and tempted with being adults. Mostly, narrow guidelines separate us from disaster, but that is not always followed, and the result of deviation are often severe. Often result in death.

One would think growing up would contain more common sense experience and truthfulness; but such is not the case. This would be a crucial tool, growing up, knowing the difference at any age. My first experience:

In 1963, November 23 at around 10:30 AM I was home sick from school, age 9, and watching TV. I was alone in the house. The scheduled program was interrupted with a news flash... President John F. Kennedy had been shot!

To know then what I know now would be a significant advantage. To know anything while growing up would have been an advantage. But I think "facts" were rather ignored, replaced by tradition, textbooks and propaganda. Think I'm cynical? I am.

To know I was a nine year old kid would have made a big difference while watching a news flash as big as an atom bomb going off.

It was a nexus in time... and so many things changed.

I believe it was the summer of 1970 when the Woodstock movie was shown in movie theaters. I would have been around 16yo then. We were in LI, NY for a family gathering - us with my father's side of the family. They were a rare welcome event as I have many cousins on that side of my family. My aunt, Katherine, often sided with me during family arguments. This was a much larger family, and time spent with my father's family was worlds apart from my mothers side of the family. It was like leaving a compound where strict rules and regulation applied, to a week of rational freedom. My cousins and I did it all, or most all...

We smoked and drank beer, liquor... all hidden from the parents of course. There wasn't any sex I recall, nor "drugs". yet, I felt free, and have no doubt it led to a more open mind when my time came for the initiation to adulthood, which in our case was, the ability to go into a bar and order a beer or a drink. That was it.

But I get ahead of myself. I was at a park with my cousins, in Syosset LI, and they all decided to go to town to see the movie, WoodStock. I was third oldest among the 8 of us, the oldest on my mother's side. In an ensuing argument, my mother won out against my aunt and my oldest cousin that I wasn't allowed to see the movie. My cousins went, and for the first time I felt something new, like a spark of individuality.

My mother's argument was one of tradition, and protectionist child-rearing. My aunts argument was that I was old enough. I was 16.

Being old enough? Wow, what a question. And what a question it's not. I searched Google and didn't find one post-a-ble link. But a new tool was added to my toolbox.

It was soon after my sister and I and our family were vacationing in Sarasota FL. I think I was 17. She was 16. Beginning when darkness fell, the beaches would liven up with campfires. My sister and I wandered the beach and found what were now bon-fires. This was a week where several other tools were added to my toolbox.

I smoked pot for the first time, and nothing happened. There's more, but that's it until I'm about 19. See, for the most part what I remember from age 5 to age 18 is not much, once I box up years of loneliness, years being picked on and bullied, years being told what to do, and yes, I suppose it's fairly typical. Anyways, I boxed it up as such.

I graduated HS at age 18. I had a job at a Dept. Store. I got laid-off one X-Mas eve... and hired back in the Spring, largely due to my father, who had a way of doing things. I didn't attend my graduation. I did attend the rehearsal, and that was enough. The rehearsal was one final afternoon at the HS in the auditorium. The skits were rehearsed, and two of them were etched on my brain.

#1 was a NYC junkie, reformed, who on stage described the night he was arrested, after swallowing several needles he used to inject heroin.

#2 was Elmo. He was the school custodian and the administration thought he should appear onstage. I wanted to cheer, but my classmates booed him offstage. The school custodian, disgusting!

I found an excuse not to attend graduation, and also one to move out on my own as soon as I could. Around age 19 I did that. Moved to an old converted horse-barn, made into upper and lower apartments, at the edge of the community college campus. I moved upstairs into a one room apt. sharing kitchen and bathroom with 4 other rooms. I worked still at the dept store, took classes by day at the college, and sought to attain my independence.

My motivation? Like why did I move out on my own? Might seem obvious, in that in 1973 isn't that was 19 yo men did? Well, not in my case. It's quite ironic what happened in my case. Nothing one would expect anyways.

No mater how hard you try you couldn't guess my motivation. Books that I'd read growing up were a huge motivation. Making my own decisions was another.

In one of my recent posts: http://bobkatlair.blogspot.com/2011/10/critical-thinking-101-welcome-to-second.html, my friend and fellow blogger Slam Dunks, comments:

"I think it is healthy for folks to reflect on turning points in there life--how they became what they are today. Though I can't relate to your choice, I respect the right for people to make their own decisions."

October 18, 2011 9:44 PM

Making my own decisions Key to that comment, if I may, is his admission that he "can't relate to ... (the) choice," yet he respects the right of people to make their own decisions.

After HS graduation which I didn't attend, and working at that dept store and classes at college made no sense to me... I really didn't know what to do. There was a side of me that was social, but another side of me that was quite a-social. I considered suicide, as I was not happy. I had a girlfriend, but it was more frustrating than fun. My studies were very difficult, having barely been a C avg. student during HS. Originally I did not see myself moving away from home. Literally, I had no future. Just dreams, and they were worthless I thought at the time.

No, what changed ultimately was me. An old story by now, but one I repeat, one I understand not everyone can relate to. One not everyone can believe, nor accept.

Fact is, around age 19 I smoked cannabis for the second time, and something wonderful happened. Something extraordinary and completely unexpected. My brain snapped into focus. I discovered myself. My dreams held meaning, and my future promise.

God, to live with that awakening in complete opposition to current and past prohibition of just that activity. And no end in sight as the federal government gears up to spend everything it can to continue to wage war on cannabis, in the name of "Battling Drugs"!

Critical Thinking 101 required of me my ability to think for myself, to take possession of of my spirit and my survival. To look out for #1.

Things didn't work out exactly as I'd planned after that... but I sure did make ground... progress.

So tell me again why cannabis is illegal? Why I should feel shame for my past, and why my future is filled with more of the same hypocrisy and oppression? Tell me again why the federal gov't has a patent relating to the medical benefits of cannabis, and yet refuses to remove it from it's Schedule One classification that emphasizes ZERO medical value?

Why are people allowed to get drunk after work, but not allowed to relax with cannabis?

It takes critical thinking to figure the answers out. You decide.... regardless of polls, recent legal battles to legalize pot, what benefit to society is there to ban a plant that is non-toxic, 100%natural, and safer than legally available alternatives? What spend billions of dollars a year, destroy countless individuals and families to support a law with no bearing in reality? Seriously, cannabis prohibition is without merit. Without justification. It needs to end.

That is critical thinking. To see the obvious.

CRITICAL THINKING 101 - Aliaa Magda Elmady - Egyptian Rebel

You'll notice a new addition to my "Favorite Blog List"... Aliaa Magda Elmahdy, a 20 year old Egyptian woman, a rebel. To be honest I'd been putting off writing a post about the "Petition The White-House", and the 76,000 signatures that went into a petition by NORML to legalize cannabis or explain why not. The President rebuffed the most popular petition, sending it to the ONDCP to be answered, that's the "Office of National Drug Control Policy". They're paid by us tax-payers to lie to us, if you don't believe me refer to my "Favorite Media" section.

That is still to come, before you can graduate from "Critical Thinking 101", but right now, about Aliaa...

Best to explain this woman's goal, is this link from Business and Law: Aliaa Magda Elmahdy: Egytian Blogger's Nude Pictures Trigger Heated Debate".

WARNING: This Post is for Adults Only as it contains nudity.

Aliaa published a nude photo of herself on her blog to protest oppression in Egypt. Female nudity in Egypt is akin to cannabis in this country. And there are plenty who would like to see Aliaa arrested for posting the nude picture of herself. Some reports say there were 8 nudes, but there was only one, but in addition to her nude art, she posted nude art from several other sources.

In Egypt women are by law required to live in the shadows, covered up, and their femininity never revealed. '' I read an article today where the "Public Decency Police" are to arrest women in Saudi Arabia who have sexy eyes if they are not covered. Speak about Machismo... Egyptian men are expected to sow their seed, and women, are to become shadows.

Due to Aliaa's blog... there is a good chance she will be arrested, heavily fined, and flogged in public, naked I expect.

Aliaa has beautiful eyes, don't you think? Can you see her being arrested... ?

Additional Links:

Aliaa Magda Elmahdy, Nude Blogger: In Pictures

Do I need to expose myself smoking a joint, or eating a pot-brownie, to get recognition for the reality that exists in this country? Oppression exists? In our own homes. And it shouldn't have ever come to this.

[Both alcohol and tobacco are manufactured drugs. Alcohol should be obvious, but with tobacco, try smoking organic tobacco... very alkaline, noxious to inhale, unlike tobacco cigarettes today which are created expressly to bring pleasure and addiction to it's user.]

Cannabis, like a nude Egyptian woman are both natural. No amount of "manufacturing" can change that reality. That human nudity in an artful form is wrong, not a "a human right", is wrong. Just as it's wrong to arrest people for cannabis.

You decide - should we stone Aliaa, or sit with her and smoke some cannabis?

CRITICAL THINKING 101 - The Death Of Amy Winehouse

Amy Winehouse was a performer, singer, artist. I admit, I am unfamiliar with her work, her songs, but I am keenly aware of her death; she, like myself, are fellow artists. The death of any artist effects me deeply.

*

In particular, Amy Winehouse's most poignant act might just be her death - a song she performed while dying. With all due respects... to Amy Winehouse, her family and friends, permit me, to continue. I do believe Amy sang us a final song in passing on.

*

WIKIPEDIA LINK: AMY WINEHOUSE

-

"Amy Jade Winehouse... an English singer-songwriter known for her powerful deep contralto vocals and her eclectic mix of musical genres including R&B, soul and jazz. Winehouse's 2003 debut album, Frank, was critically successful in the UK and was nominated for the Mercury Prize. Her 2006 follow-up album, Back to Black, led to six Grammy Award nominations and five wins, tying the then record for the most wins by a female artist in a single night, and made Winehouse the first British female to win five Grammys, including three of the "Big Four": Best New Artist, Record of the Year and Song of the Year."

-

"On 14 February 2007, she won a BRIT Award for Best British Female Artist; she had also been nominated for Best British Album. She won the Ivor Novello Award three times, one in 2004 for Best Contemporary Song (musically and lyrically) for "Stronger Than Me", one in 2007 for Best Contemporary Song for "Rehab", and one in 2008 for Best Song Musically and Lyrically for "Love Is a Losing Game", among other distinctions. The album is the biggest seller of the 2000s in the United Kingdom. Winehouse is credited as an influence in the rise in popularity of female musicians and soul music, and also for revitalising British music."

*

Wow!

*

How many people can claim the success she'd achieved?

-

Amy Winehouse died, July 23, 2011 at age 27. Speculation was she died of a drug overdose. After her death, the rumors began circulating. The irony is toxicology found no illegal drugs in her system; she died from consuming too much alcohol, vodka. Still, she gained a sort of notoriety in her latest album when she ranted against "Rehab"...

*

"They tried to make me go to rehab / I said, 'No, no, no.' " --Amy Winehouse, "Rehab"

*

She sang about her experiences in, "Back to Black": "released in the UK on 30 October 2006. It went to number one on the UK Albums Chart numerous times, and entered at number seven on the Billboard 200 in the US. It was the best-selling album in the UK of 2007, selling 1.85 million copies over the course of the year."

*

Critical Thinking 101 is about common-sense. About how maybe "Rehab" isn't all it's cranked up to be. It's true, in my opinion, that rehab itself is an oft abused sentence of society towards an individual. Same with "community service". The question comes down to when is it appropriate to sentence an individual to either? And does it help? The individual that is.

*

It's okay to drink alcohol and smoke tobacco (you wouldn't want to eat it), but it's not okay to use cannabis, aka, marijuana, although you can eat it, and most scientific research suggests it's not only not harmful, but beneficial too. Still, don't try to convince the ONDCP or Drug Czar of those studies, their job, by law, is to lie and do everything possible to create the worst possible scenario.

*

Drugs are a class of substances in 3 categories. 1) Over-the-counter drugs: aspirin, vitamins, cough medicine, etc. 2) prescription drugs: those your doctor prescribes that you fill at a pharmacy. 3) illegal drugs, recreational drugs, prescription drugs given to you by someone else.

*

Alcohol and tobacco are "drugs", but are never described as such, and the government makes a point of never linking those tow substances to the classification of a drug. The truth is, they are, drugs. Both have the potential to kill or cause injury, and do. Both are considered as being "regulated" by the law, and therefore, legal for adult consumption and any harmful effects or even deaths are written off as normal causes of death or in Amy Winehouse's death - "Death by Experimentation".

*

But not so with cannabis/marijuana. It is classified as a "dangerous drug" and users or local home-growers are targeted by the federal government, state governments and local gov'ts as an imminent threat to society, and actually, so dangerous to society that billions of dollars are spent every day on cannabis prohibition enforcement, eradication, and arrests of persons found to violate those laws. Yet no one dies from using cannabis, nor is any cognitive impairment equal to the danger of a few drinks. So why the prejudice?

*

Critical Thinking 101 is about looking at the law... the laws... and how they impact society.

*

In Amy Winehouses's final song she sings about injustice, about hypocrisy, about right and wrong. About freedom, pursuit of happiness and the obstacles to attaining happiness. Our government prides itself on our supposed constitutional freedoms. On adherence to the laws because our laws are constitutional and just.

*

The reality is not so simple, as laws are passed all the time that are not constitutional. Or federal laws trump state laws, where state laws - or their constitutions, are violated. An example is in NH, and it's Constitution, look at Article 83, and how it relates to agriculture, educational freedom, and how no law shall be passed that makes a commodity such as cannabis illegal.

*

When news of the death of Amy Winehouse was first released, the former Whitehouse Drug Czar, William Bennett, Washington Fellow of the Claremont Institute and special commentator for CNN news, promptly jumped on-board to scrutinize Amy's death as drug related. He went even further in criticizing her latest Grammy Award, suggesting that because of her out-spoken criticism of rehab, and suspicions of recurrent drug use, she didn't deserve such an award.

William J. Bennett... an outspoken opponent against legalizing any plants/recreational drugs such as cannabis/marijuana.

*

He commented the following on CNN:

-

CNN "With those awards, a message was sent: Mock addiction, create a rallying cry for those in its grip, blow your life up in every aspect other than financial success and name recognition, and you will be rewarded with the industry's gold medals. Today, at age 27, she is dead. The cause of death is unknown, but drugs took a toll on her life even if they did not they cause her death."

-

He continues:

-

CNN: "It now looks like Amy Winehouse joins the sad list of other talented entertainers whose lives were cut down by drug abuse. Citing the drug-fueled deaths of other troubled musicians at the same age, some are speculating there is something special, or ominous, about the age of 27. But change the age by just a few years, and you still have too much evidence of too much talent cut too short by substance abuse. From Heath Ledger to Brittany Murphy to River Phoenix to Andy Gibb to Elvis Presley, the list just goes on and on. Age is not the problem; drug abuse is."

*

Well, William J. Bennett, in my humble opinion, is a narrow-minded hypocrite whose understanding and knowledge is driven by a self-satisfying narcissism! He is a recovering gambler who lost a great deal of money gambling, is a drinker, and a man obsessed with his own ideals.

*

Brittany Murphy for example, again speculation and rumor was rampant regarding the cause of her death. Again, as William Bennett chose to believe, drugs were the cause. But again, as in the case of Amy Winehouse, drugs do not appear to be the cause of death.

*

At 08:00 (16:00 GMT) on December 20, 2009, the Los Angeles Fire Department responded to "a medical request"[33] at the Los Angeles home Murphy and Monjack shared. She had apparently collapsed in a bathroom. Firefighters attempted to resuscitate Murphy on the scene. She was transported to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, where she was pronounced dead on arrival at 10:04 after going into cardiac arrest.

*

RE: Brittany Murphy: Shortly after her death, Assistant Chief Coroner Ed Winter told the Associated Press: "It appears to be natural." An autopsy was performed on December 21, 2009. Her death certificate listed the cause of death as "deferred". On February 4, 2010, the Los Angeles County coroner stated that the primary cause of Murphy's death was pneumonia. It is suspected that Brittany died of exposure to a deadly mold, as her husband died shortly after under similar circumstances.

*

So why the fixation with drugs???

*

Incompetence and stupidity is my opinion. Ignorance and the bliss associated with such blissful blindness to the facts. For politicians it sounds good, to themselves anyways, to come down hard on what they call "drugs". It feels good to point a finger at something, even if it lacks substantial proof. Cannabis/marijuana for example - listed as a schedule one drug with severe potential for abuse and zero medical benefit, has been patented by the fedral government as an anti-oxidant and with potential to prevent or shrink cancerous tumors - see patent, #6,630,507 which reads as follows:

Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants

-

Abstract

-

Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia.

*

In response to a letter I sent asking for legalization of cannabis in America, my congresswoman, Senator Jean Shaheen, replied:

"Regardless of whether a state chooses to legalize medical marijuana, I believe that we should make a concerted effort to prevent recreational drug use, especially by youth. A study by the American Medical Association recently found that young people who smoke marijuana are up to five times more likely to move on to harder drugs. At a time when America's excessive demand for drugs is fueling violent crime at home and in neighboring countries, we need to strengthen initiatives to educate young people about the risks of drug use."

*

All about young people, and more of the same about the "stepping stone" effect; and excessive drug violence; all but disproved, except maybe in Mexico. The message - better to wage war on Americans, ignore the constitutional rights of adults and make statements targeting children and young adults.

In conclusion, simple question:

*

So, you want to protect the children, you have children or you know children. You care. But shit happens, and when you're not around you cannot always control what happens - that being the unexpected. So, albeit the fact that cannabis is "illegal" for adult use, tobacco and alcohol are also illegal for those under age 18. So, the question is this?

*

Children in a home find an opportunity to search for, find, and experiment with one of 3 different drugs they might find.

*

1) Tobacco

2) Alcohol

3) Cannabis/marijuana

*

Which do you think is the safer drug for that young person to experiment with, if the worse were to happen? Which do you think is safer?

*

My opinion... I pray that kid finds the cannabis first.

*

We all contributed to the death of Amy Winehouse, since we as the people of this world are not able to distinguish between the different grays and colors of our reality. We are taught zero tolerance, passing standardized testing, accepting what we're told by those who are the authorities. We are encouraged to ask questions, but also encouraged not to question that which the authorities emphasize is unquestionable. We are herded into kennels, and raised as sheep. We are told it is for our own good.

*

Without a doubt, I don't want to see any drugs in the hands of youth, but for adults, I want to experience freedom, not oppression. I think we all do, because without freedom, how can we properly raise our children?

***

CRITICAL THINKING 101 - Welcome To Second Class...

I knew I was in trouble the next morning; when nothing bad happened.

Previously, you might recall I ended by saying I'd smoked marijuana with two good friends. I said I believed it to be the first time I'd really thought critically about a decision I had to make. It's important to understand I was very much against "drugs". And in my mind at the time marijuana was the number one worst drug out there.

So why did I do it?

Possible reasons put forth by various theories includes:

1) A need to belong; abandonment of good judgement and what's right or wrong.

2) A naive individual easy manipulated by his peers.

3) The search for truth being more important than accepting the word of others.

4) The criminal mind is just that, Criminal.

5) The desire to rebel against the system and blatant disregard for conformity and, the law.

6) Don't believe everything you're told!

I'll give you a few moments to decide what you think. You may want to go back to my previous post - "To Do or Not To Do", to get a better understanding of my question. Please do.

Without a doubt, my reason's centered on #3, and #6.

The next morning, after using marijuana - for the 2nd time, actually (the first time was 3 years earlier and I felt absolutely nothing, though it was without question marijuana), and actually experiencing "getting high/stoned, I fully expected to wake up needing heroin, or brain damaged. But I didn't. I felt fine. Better than fine, in fact. For the first time in my life I'd actually laughed my ass off, laughed so hard and good that I thought I would die (I didn't). I also got to really feel what paranoia feels like, followed by more laughter and camaraderie.

When I work up and realized I felt quite fine, I had to think about it for a few days. At the time, drinking age was 18, and I was 19. The Viet Nam War draft had ended just shy of my 18th birthday, and they had a draft lottery then, and the number picked for my DOB was 16, sweet 16, and straight out to Viet Nam, only the draft ended and then the war. The year was 1972... I was 18 and Pres. Nixon did the only good deed I'll ever remember him for, ending the war.

Promptly starting a new one, called the War on Drugs, with even more victims in the years that followed, and still do today. I my next post I will shed more of my expertise on this topic, as there is much more to it.

This topic isn't about marijuana. But without the influence of marijuana there's a good chance "critical thinking 101" would have never happened. I had never questioned anything in the past like I did from then on. That night, more than any other, defined the divide between my past and my future.

I no longer saw the world in black and white. I know longer looked at education as something I was expected to do. I no longer believed everything was as it seemed, or that those in a position of power knew what was truly right, or wrong. I began to make my own decisions, and sought knowledge and advice from people I respected when I had a question.

Ultimately I grew to understand the question was more important than the answer, that being free was a challenge, and difficult, but also worth every effort.

I was close to stopping my education prior to that night, simply because I was expected to do so, just getting a job in a factory, getting married, having children and buying that white house with the white picket fence. Staying put where I was born - in that locale, no interest in bettering myself. After-all, the only thing I heard from my parents was how I needed to succeed, get married, buy that house, etc... I was frankly overwhelmed by the expectations and sacred traditions.

I did NOT think outside the box then. I wasn't capable of doing so and would have looked at anyone who suggested it as nuts.

Sometimes I do miss the fact that I didn't simply succumb to the status quo and say NO to using marijuana. But I'm reminded that at age 16 I almost died from a overdose of alcohol, and that fact, held a wealth of information, in that, legal, didn't/doesn't mean safe to use. So why I wondered, even before I knew what I was thinking, was marijuana illegal when (I discovered later) it was "safe" to use, in the sense it being is virtually non-toxic? And why, when I woke up that morning after using marijuana, why did I feel real good, even motivated, when everything I'd been told had said I'd regret the decision the rest of my life.

When actually I didn't.

CRITICAL THINKING 101 - TO DO OR NOT TO DO?

You're presented with a present, doesn't matter from who; The reality is what matters... inside that box could be anything. ANY THING! This is not simply an obvious fact, but rather, it's Quantum Physics.

Rule #1: Nothing hidden is fixed on a quantum level until experienced on the physical level.

"Critical Thinking", the art of painting, creating, surviving with the human mind.

I think most professionals in the field of education, in particular, our public school system, as well as many private, religious, and charter schools know that "critical thinking" is key to a good education.

Trouble is, critical thinking is being pushed aside, in favor of standardized skills and standardized testing. That to be a contributing adult in the 21st century requires standardized skills, not critical thinking. The process and integration of standardized curriculum is well established already; most prominently in the Federal Government's, "No Child Left Behind", NCLB act. A noble idea maybe, gone wrong.

In addition we have a New right in schools... Today, a child can be arrested for bringing a pocket-knife to school; or a squirt-gun, even a toy soldier. If they write a story about war, murder, rage, destruction, they are suspected child-terrorist. They're not considered creative, or expressing themselves in the sense that students prior to the 1990's experienced things. Everything a student does or says today is noted and documented... if it's unconventional.

I know of one story where a student, I believe in middle-school, returned to school after Summer break, was asked to to the boring "What did you do over your summer vacation" assignment, and he wrote that he experimented "making bombs". It was a big story... he was arrested, his house searched, parents questioned, and they found pipes, matches, and other "bomb-making" materials at his house.

Yet, I know of another story where a student describes "over the summer", he ordered nuclear material, experimented with explosives, a nuclear reactor, and nuclear fusion. Turns out he's a child genius, and he works for the Dept of Homeland Security. He built nuclear reactors at home!

As a kid I had occasion to experiment with building exploding things using matches, or gunpowder (secured by opening a live bullet). I've asked people my age if they did the same (men), and they answer "sure, who didn't?"

Critical Thinking 101 involves making decisions based on circumstance, knowledge, rational interpretation, and either doing something or nothing. We always have at least three choices in life: 1) Do, 2) Do Nothing, 3) Take a moment and think about it.

Situation: You're 19 years of age; you graduated from HS; You're going to the local community college pursuing an AS degree in a subject that you are led to believe is your destiny; you don't question this reality.

Good or Not Good?

A dumb question actually, as we always have at least 3 choices. It may be neither good, nor not good. It may require "critical thought and consideration". At age 19 things aren't anywhere near figured out. To blindly accept one's situation is folly.

Situation 2: You're 19 years of age; it's a Friday night, the weekend, you're spending time with two childhood friends. You're able to drink alcohol legally, being as it's early 1970's, and most staes considered 18 the legal age; you haven't decided to go to a bar this night, instead, one of your friends asks if you want to smoke some Panama red - marijuana?

In school they taught you that "marijuana is a dangerous drug". They told you it would quickly lead to harder drugs, would destroy your brain, and you'd possible jump off a roof. As a result you're very ant-drug, and you think in right and wrong. You're presented with one of the worst challenges in life. Marijuana is illegal, you'd call the police, so righteous you are, if anyone offered such a deal; but in this case, you do the most unusual thing you've ever done. You say, "sure, I'll try it".

Somehow realizing there were more than two choices here, one being calling the police, and two being abandoning everything I'd ever been led to believe about marijuana, right and wrong, by simply saying "sure, let's spark it up!" I had perhaps the longest moment in time right then. I looked at my other friend who seemed to be teetering on the same edge as was I.

I finally decided, the truth about marijuana meant more to me than any principles, or what I'd been taught in school to believe without question. I thought critically perhaps for the first time in my life about a situation, and my options. Both my friend and I decided to try it.

Next Time: My cat is addicted to Kitty-Treats... and Now What???

Additional reading:

WIKIPEDIA: Critical thinking, in general, refers to a higher-order of thinking that questions assumptions. It is a way of deciding whether a claim is true, false, or sometimes true and sometimes false, or partly true and partly false. The origins of critical thinking can be traced in Western thought to the Socratic method of Ancient Greece...

Critical thinking...the awakening of the intellect to the study of itself.

CRITICAL THINKING.ORG: "Critical thinking is a rich concept that has been developing throughout the past 2500 years. The term "critical thinking" has its roots in the mid-late 20th century. We offer here overlapping definitions, together which form a substantive, transdisciplinary conception of critical thinking."

BOBKAT'S HISTORY OF HUMANKIND, PART 3; Creationism and Gov. Rick Perry

My apology for how long it's been since I last posted. I've been a bit preoccupied - a lot is in the news these days, especially with the 2012 Presidential election looming ever closer. Much piques my interest, and it's hard to focus in on what my goals are.

Continuing my History of Humankind is one of those goals.

History is forever in the making... forever being formed, and forever investigated, disputed, explained, espoused and exploited/used everyday, often.

Our history is who we are, where we've been, what we're to become. History is both immutable and in flux, depending. It's in flux because much of history is not fixed, and open to human interpretation. On the other hand it's immutable as certain facets of history are fact, established fact; they are indisputable, immutable.

The picture to the upper-left there is Charles Darwin, 1809-1882.

*

In 1859 Charles Darwin, stunned the world with the publication of his book - "On The Origin of the Species". On that day the "theory" of evolution was born... a "theory" that's not so much a theory as it is presently, but rather a science subject to continual scrutiny and reform. It is also science that is disputed by so called "Creationist", who believe not only that "evolution" is simply a theory, but that the science behind evolution is unnecessary, and flawed.

*

It is governed by a higher power, that of the Bible, and of God who created the Earth and all living things. A God who placed man as the supreme being on earth, and a companion called woman. This God created two human beings, according to the Bible, one man, called Adam, and the other woman, called Eve. They lived in a garden, called Eden. And as long as they abided by God's rules, they could continue to live in Eden. Eden, was God's paradise...

*

In history it is noted that it was Eve who screwed things up. Eve who was twice cursed, suffered twice the guilt and shame, who at least until the 1920's AD, had little in the way of person rights or equality. They'd been pretty much viewed as men's concubines. Eve's first sin was to eat of the fruit of the "Tree of Good and Evil". The second sin was turning Adam onto the consumption of the fruit. Together they donned fig-leaf's to cover their nakedness, to flee Eden, their idyllic home, a home they could have remained at for eternity, if only Eve hadn't sinned.

*

It's quite the story. And what we've made of it as a society is even more amazing. Adam and Eve weren't created to live out life in Eden. Rather, it's a profound story of how we became who we are today, suffering feelings of guilt and shame. Of course the Tree of Knowledge was forbidden... as it was undiscovered. The story of Eden is one of self-awakening, of how Eve discovered a "fruit" that brought about enlightenment. How she shared it with Adam. How they became aware of themselves/self-aware.

*

That is "CREATIONISM". The "science" originating from the Book of Genesis, from the Christian Bible. That man and women did not evolve, but rather, were "created in God's image". As such, those who believe in creationism, believe history is immutable, and that all humankind needs to know about evolution is what is described in the Bible. And that the "theory of evolution" is just that, "a theory", and for the most part a myth, or deviation from the truth, embraced by atheists and non-believers. That we could have ascended from a linage of apes and monkeys is blasphemy.

*

A history derived from the Bible, in which Eve was tempted by an apple, from the tree of Good and Evil, and though the Bible does not specifically mention her being seduced by a serpent, to eat of the fruit, our history has it as such, that Eve was dared by a serpent to eat the fruit God forbade her to eat, thus discovering the truth. Having discovered the truth of "good and evil", Eve convinced Adam to experience the same fate, and thus they broke God's law, and were evicted from paradise.

*

It is a this point in time that "God's curse on humans" is pronounced. Man, Adam, must live by the sweat of his brow", tilling the fields, and women, Eve, are cursed to become subservient to man, and to bear children. Humankind will grow old and die. Their offspring will populate the earth and based on God's law rule the animal and plants. Catholics therefore believe it is a man's place to dominate, and a woman's place to be his slave, and to bear children. Sex is for procreation only, and no pleasure is to derived from sex except for the man, for whom his duty is to impregnant his woman, and thus fulfill the curse.

*

That is Creationism.

*

The state of Texas is on top of the list of states wanting to teach Creationism, and distance itself from teaching the science of evolution in schools. At the top of the list of proponents to abandon teaching the science of evolution in favor of creationism, is Governor Rick Perry, a current contender in the 2012 presidential elections.

In 2009, Gov. Rick Perry picked Gail Lowe, an outspoken supporter of Creationism to head the Texas Board of Education. Gail Lowe: thinks evolution should be taught and "kids ought to be able to hold religious beliefs and still study science without any conflict." But in 2008, she took the position that "biology textbooks which do not teach both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of the theory of evolution must be rejected by the board." She has voted against new textbooks that do not contain those "weaknesses."

During a recent campaign visit to New Hampshire, at his mother's urging, a young boy asked Gov. Perry how old the world is? His answer: "I hear your mom was asking about evolution and, you know, it's a theory that's out there," Perry told the boy. "It's got some gaps in it, but in Texas we teach both creationism and evolution in our public schools, because I figure you're smart enough to figure out which one is right."

So, how smart are we as Americans? And which is right?

*

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the earth is 4.54 billion years old. According to creationists, the earth is 6015 years old - the origin of the world as we know it today occurred at 4004 BC. That Gov. Perry doesn't know that surprises me.

*

How do I know that? "A UNIVERSAL HISTORY", published in 1855 by Emma Willard.

That's 4 years prior to Darwin's publication of the "Origin of Species". At the time, the author acknowledges that history and the age of the world, and it's history, is limited to one's understanding and the "science" derived from the Bible. In 1855 this was the textbook used by teachers to teach the history of mankind and of the world.

*

Let's explore:

Index, from the beginning, 4004 BC to 2085BC, the "Shepherd Kings", with much more to follow, obviously.

*

The facts derived from the Universal History are that little of the world is unknown by 2000 BC, that it is fact that Adam and Eve were driven out of the Garden of Eden, which is thought to be located in the area of the Mediterranean.

*

By 2348 BC, Mankind is out-of-control, and the sins of man force God to bring on the Great Flood that wipes out all of humankind, plant and animal, other than those safe in Noah's Ark. It is God's hope that mankind will exit the ark and live a life of obedience to God's rules, abstain from sin, and the women will bear children, and stop causing trouble. That those children born of Noah's sons will grow up obedient to God's laws.

*

Okay, great in theory, but hardly realistic. I also note a obvious disregard for the children of "the mother of Noah's children"... at least this author disregards them completely, but it should be noted, this is a textbook, this is what you learned at a "good Christian school".

*

Rather naive, if you ask me, and shortly thereafter, the Tower of Babel happened, 2300BC and rather confirms my suspicions mankind has an affinity towards vice and sin. What surprised me however, even more than that obvious fact, was how mankind was divided up after the waters of the Great deluge (Flood) receded, and humankind once again inhabited the earth.

*

This from the book "Universal history":

"The mosaic history informs us that of the descendants of Noah, were three peoples..."

1) The children of Japheth: the Caucasians, from the Isles of the gentiles," Children of Eden..

2) The children of Shem; moved west to Eastern and Southern Asia. The Mongols.

3) The children of Ham, Western Asia and Africa. The Blacks.

*

"Scientists of the time classified the human species by using logic based on these three distinct races":

The Mongol, the Negro, and the Caucasian.

*

The Negro race without explanation, as far as I was able to find, was "held to servitude by their brethren". But for what reason - things didn't go well in the Ark? Did Noah have more than one "wife"? And maybe he had his favorites? Ham apparently had done something to destine his children into servitude.

*

Such was the world in 1855AD, during the height of, and the unquestionable period of Creationism. Evolution at the time was if not unknown, it was scorned. And the only source of the history of humankind was extracted from the Bible.

*

It is no wonder that in the year 2011 there are those who long to go back to those simpler times... simpler in that one relied on the Bible for facts, and for reality.

*

The following are reprints from that early history from A "Universal History" by Emma Willard.

***

***

***

To Be Continued...

BOBKAT'S HISTORY OF HUMANKIND, PART 2; DARWINIAN/HOLMES WILMA

This is "WILMA"... A National Geographic composite photo of a (it doesn't specify - I'd say a 20-something year old) Neanderthal woman, assembled and rendered from 43,000 year old bones:

We begin our journey in the origin of our species, pre-humans some 4.4 million years ago. These included a broad variety of hominids, like Australopithecus. Some fossils representing this early species of hominids date back to around 6 million years ago. Two particular discoveries should be noted. In 2009, a female, named ARDI, was introduced. Ardipithecus ramidus. She had a small brain, was 110 pounds, 47 inches tall - 3.9 feet. The face of "Ardi" did not project as much as those of modern apes, but was not as flat and massive as the later Australopithecus. As noted in the article by the Nation geographic Magazine, "Ardi ... shows an unexpected mix of advanced characteristics and of primitive traits seen in much older apes that were unlike chimps or gorillas. As such, the skeleton offers a window on what the last common ancestor of humans and living apes might have been like." ARDI:

And Many of us have probably heard about LUCY, discovered 3.2 million years ago, and once considered to be the "missing link" in our evolution. There isn't any longer a theory or discussion about a missing link, or links. Human evolution is described more like a tree these days, with branches of hominid species, some isolated, others interlinked, all that to go extinct while the whole of our ancestry merges with other branches, branches like a river and all it's tributaries. The first of the genus Homo appears in Africa 2.5 million years ago, and modern humans appear around 200,000 years ago. This was during a period of glaciation, the Riss Glacier in Europe, the Illionian Glacier in North America. A period of time when the earth was cooler and dry. From around 2 million years ago to around 50,000 years ago ancestors of homo must have been migrating/relocating to different parts of the world. I have heard that around 125,000 years ago modern humans made their way out of Africa. It would have been very dry, and it's theorized humans were able to traverse distances normally covered by water in North Africa. It is the beginning of the great deserts on earth. Neanderthals died out around 25,000 years ago. But 50,000 years ago an interesting blend of humans and human cousins populated the earth. In Western Europe it was the Neanderthals, in Asia were the Denisovans - WikiLink1,

" There is DNA evidence that the three groups, humans from Africa included, interacted together and mated, producing off-spring. According to scientist studying human DNA, our genetic make-up is due in part to up to 6% Denisovan, and 4% Neanderthal. According to the source of this news, this cross-breeding gave us a boost in immunity from disease, among other traits. "Sex with Cavemen Gave Humans an Immune Boost: Study". Seems there is no such thing as a pure "White Aryan Race". Next Time: What our 19th Century relatives knew about our evolutionary history, and why, Pres. nominee Rick Perry's views on the Origin of our Species is set from that age of our history.