Here's an article worth reading. This girl sounds like she has a LOT of spunk and determination. A noteworthy role model for young students across the world.
Fatuma Omar Ismail: A scholar born into squalor
Quoted from the text:
"School is not a priority at Dadaab – girls don't have an equal chance," says Ms Wachuka. "Fatuma has triumphed in very difficult circumstances."
From the age of 12 she "had a dream" of going to a national school in her host country and wasn't going to be put off by naysayers who told her that refugee girls could not go. "It can be done," she says. "I've done it."
Her eventual aim is to study medicine and one day return to Dadaab as a doctor. "If there is peace in Somalia," she adds, she would like "to go and help people there where there are not enough qualified people."
The teenager understands that she is a role model and has a simple message for other young Somalis.
"You know education is the key to success. First go to school, work hard and choose a career. Work hard, aim higher and be nice to people."
...
She admits that her new life is not always easy. She misses her seven brothers and sisters and speaks to her mother by telephone only once a month. Her scholarship pays for boarding fees and uniforms but nothing more. There was no money to pay for the nine-hour bus ride to Dadaab during the Easter holiday, so she stayed in Nairobi.
Faced with the brightest girls in Kenya Fatuma is no longer "number one". In her first term, she lagged behind in the two national languages, English and KiSwahili.
But there is plenty of reason to think she will catch up. Remarkably, she came near the top of her class in computer education, having never seen one before; and has taught herself to swim butterfly, having never been in a pool before reaching Nairobi. But it's not enough for her.
"I don't feel good. In my school I used to be the best," she says. This is followed by a note of polite defiance that lands somewhere between a promise and a warning: "They are not brighter than me. They are just better at the moment."
Showing posts with label news articles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label news articles. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Monday, November 5, 2007
mighty mouse to mighty man
This is pretty shocking news. Scientists have created a kind of "super mouse" that can eat twice as much as a normal mouse yet not gain weight, as well as run twice as fast for much longer than your average rodent.
I happened to see this news on TV the other night. To illustrate, they showed two mice running on a treadmill at 20m/min. The mouse furthest from the front of the screen was the wild mouse, and the one at the front was the PEPCK-mouse. As time wears on, you can observe the normal (wild) mouse tiring, as it starts sliding towards the back of the treadmill. Numerous times the wild mouse almost falls off the treadmill, only to force its way back on by running hard, continuing to try and keep pace. Eventually the mouse falls off, and only the 'mighty mouse' is left running.. and running.. and running. It's like a Duracell ad with the energetic toy rabbit. The mighty mouse runs faultlessly for a good 4.9km at the 20m/min speed! It's incredible!
And I thought they'd only created one mighty mouse, but it turns out they've already created at least 500 of these freakish beings. I couldn't help but think "What the hell are they doing?!"
I discussed this story with a few mates of mine last night and we all think it's pretty messed up. Especially because this raises questions for the human race, questions which have already been asked by the scientists. One day, there may not be one superman, but a whole city of supermen, women, and children! Kind of like the Incredibles from the Pixar film. To me this is like playing God to the extreme. It's pretty scary, the speed at which science is advancing in this realm. If this technology DOES flow into the human medical arena, I can only imagine the level of controversy it may generate between the Church and the scientists. Not only the Church, but all those who believe this altering of enzymes is an unethical practice.
A response to the article "Mighty Mouse – he’ll make champions of us all"
I happened to see this news on TV the other night. To illustrate, they showed two mice running on a treadmill at 20m/min. The mouse furthest from the front of the screen was the wild mouse, and the one at the front was the PEPCK-mouse. As time wears on, you can observe the normal (wild) mouse tiring, as it starts sliding towards the back of the treadmill. Numerous times the wild mouse almost falls off the treadmill, only to force its way back on by running hard, continuing to try and keep pace. Eventually the mouse falls off, and only the 'mighty mouse' is left running.. and running.. and running. It's like a Duracell ad with the energetic toy rabbit. The mighty mouse runs faultlessly for a good 4.9km at the 20m/min speed! It's incredible!
And I thought they'd only created one mighty mouse, but it turns out they've already created at least 500 of these freakish beings. I couldn't help but think "What the hell are they doing?!"
I discussed this story with a few mates of mine last night and we all think it's pretty messed up. Especially because this raises questions for the human race, questions which have already been asked by the scientists. One day, there may not be one superman, but a whole city of supermen, women, and children! Kind of like the Incredibles from the Pixar film. To me this is like playing God to the extreme. It's pretty scary, the speed at which science is advancing in this realm. If this technology DOES flow into the human medical arena, I can only imagine the level of controversy it may generate between the Church and the scientists. Not only the Church, but all those who believe this altering of enzymes is an unethical practice.
A response to the article "Mighty Mouse – he’ll make champions of us all"
Friday, October 12, 2007
African evolution
Article: Out of Africa, But Into What?
The "out of Africa" theory for human origins dominates modern science, beating out a competing theory that modern humans may have evolved in a few locations. But that does not mean the Africa-first theorists are sitting on their laurels.
Anthropologists and geneticists who study African origins are making the theory as robust as possible. They also are trying to answer a few contested questions: After Africa, where did early humans go first, and how does that explain the seeming anomaly that humans fossils at times suggest more than one origin?
This summer, two researchers at Cambridge University, the geneticist William Amos and biologist Andrea Manica, presented what they believe is a definitive answer: The evolution of skulls match up with previously found genetic evidence that pinpoint human origins to central or southern Africa before their rapid migration around the world.
The researchers analyzed the shapes of 4,666 male skulls from 105 places around the world, all of them less than 2,000 years old. As expected, they found that skulls nearer to Africa showed a higher degree of difference, reflecting the early evolutionary branching of modern humans. Human skulls found at great distances from Africa showed less change within their own groups, reflecting a loss of genetic diversity.
"What you find is a very nice linear decline of variability as you move farther away from Africa," Amos said. This pattern in the skulls also matched research in genetics showing more diversity in older African populations, and less at greater distances, the team reported in July in the journal Nature. "We failed to find evidence of a second origin," they said. Discoveries of skulls that suggest second origins are anomalies, since the preponderance of data show an out-of-Africa pattern.
Although the Cambridge team of skull experts confirmed their findings with previous genetic evidence, a debate has raged for a few decades on which is the best test of evolutionary branching: fossils or genetic samples from modern creatures?
The Cambridge researchers said the skulls often have the best advantage in the study of human origins. "There are so many of them and they come from populations that are not very well represented genetically," said Amos. Although genetic samples for aboriginal Americans and Australians are rare, for example, skulls are in abundance. The global skull data can "open up lots of nice testable hypotheses" on which routes early humans took when they left Africa, Amos said.
Many geneticists have argued that genetic samples are the best proof of migrations, and they are hard at work trying to trace human migrations as well. Since last year, the National Geographic Society in Washington, D.C., has led this research. "Every drop of human blood contains a history book written in the language of our genes," said Spencer Wells, a population geneticist. Wells is lead scientist in National Geographic's five-year project to analyze approximately 100,000 DNA samples from people across the globe.
Anthropologists and geneticists tend to agree that modern humans left Africa between 50,000 and 70,000 years ago, but a number of mysteries remain. Scientists are not sure which are the oldest populations in Africa, for example. They also wonder about the role a 5,000-mile network of trade routes called the Silk Road played in dispersing genetic diversity across the Middle East, India, and Asia. The number of times that humans migrated to the Americas is also up for debate, as is the time when they first arrived in the arctic regions.
Despite these mysteries, few experts doubt the out-of-Africa scenario in broad terms, said Erik Trinkaus, a physical anthropologist at Washington University in St. Louis. "The issue is how much modern humans spreading out of Africa after 50,000 years ago interbred with regional groups of archaic humans, where and when," he said. The new studies "reinforce the idea of a special isolation of modern humanity from anything less 'pure,'" meaning an avoidance of mating with other archaic humans.
---
This work is so fascinating - I remember watching a National Geographic documentary titled "The Journey of Man" when I was in high school - unfortunately I don't remember much of it because I was really tired and fell asleep on the couch watching it. But just the idea that we all come from Africa.. it's really exciting.
And with evidence like this, I can't help but wonder how people don't believe in the concept of human evolution. Or perhaps we've got the wrong story, i.e. the Bible is more limited than we think. Maybe, because it wasn't until we developed as homo sapiens that we were able to read and write, our documentation of religion and God is missing the hundreds or thousands or millions of years when God also existed in the earlier humans' presence, when they didn't understand who He was, nor have any means of recording their experiences for future generations to comprehend.
Were Adam and Eve actually a pair of early, early humans, living in a lush Garden of Eden in Africa? Hmmm..!
A response to the article "Out of Africa, But Into What?"
The "out of Africa" theory for human origins dominates modern science, beating out a competing theory that modern humans may have evolved in a few locations. But that does not mean the Africa-first theorists are sitting on their laurels.
Anthropologists and geneticists who study African origins are making the theory as robust as possible. They also are trying to answer a few contested questions: After Africa, where did early humans go first, and how does that explain the seeming anomaly that humans fossils at times suggest more than one origin?
This summer, two researchers at Cambridge University, the geneticist William Amos and biologist Andrea Manica, presented what they believe is a definitive answer: The evolution of skulls match up with previously found genetic evidence that pinpoint human origins to central or southern Africa before their rapid migration around the world.
The researchers analyzed the shapes of 4,666 male skulls from 105 places around the world, all of them less than 2,000 years old. As expected, they found that skulls nearer to Africa showed a higher degree of difference, reflecting the early evolutionary branching of modern humans. Human skulls found at great distances from Africa showed less change within their own groups, reflecting a loss of genetic diversity.
"What you find is a very nice linear decline of variability as you move farther away from Africa," Amos said. This pattern in the skulls also matched research in genetics showing more diversity in older African populations, and less at greater distances, the team reported in July in the journal Nature. "We failed to find evidence of a second origin," they said. Discoveries of skulls that suggest second origins are anomalies, since the preponderance of data show an out-of-Africa pattern.
Although the Cambridge team of skull experts confirmed their findings with previous genetic evidence, a debate has raged for a few decades on which is the best test of evolutionary branching: fossils or genetic samples from modern creatures?
The Cambridge researchers said the skulls often have the best advantage in the study of human origins. "There are so many of them and they come from populations that are not very well represented genetically," said Amos. Although genetic samples for aboriginal Americans and Australians are rare, for example, skulls are in abundance. The global skull data can "open up lots of nice testable hypotheses" on which routes early humans took when they left Africa, Amos said.
Many geneticists have argued that genetic samples are the best proof of migrations, and they are hard at work trying to trace human migrations as well. Since last year, the National Geographic Society in Washington, D.C., has led this research. "Every drop of human blood contains a history book written in the language of our genes," said Spencer Wells, a population geneticist. Wells is lead scientist in National Geographic's five-year project to analyze approximately 100,000 DNA samples from people across the globe.
Anthropologists and geneticists tend to agree that modern humans left Africa between 50,000 and 70,000 years ago, but a number of mysteries remain. Scientists are not sure which are the oldest populations in Africa, for example. They also wonder about the role a 5,000-mile network of trade routes called the Silk Road played in dispersing genetic diversity across the Middle East, India, and Asia. The number of times that humans migrated to the Americas is also up for debate, as is the time when they first arrived in the arctic regions.
Despite these mysteries, few experts doubt the out-of-Africa scenario in broad terms, said Erik Trinkaus, a physical anthropologist at Washington University in St. Louis. "The issue is how much modern humans spreading out of Africa after 50,000 years ago interbred with regional groups of archaic humans, where and when," he said. The new studies "reinforce the idea of a special isolation of modern humanity from anything less 'pure,'" meaning an avoidance of mating with other archaic humans.
---
This work is so fascinating - I remember watching a National Geographic documentary titled "The Journey of Man" when I was in high school - unfortunately I don't remember much of it because I was really tired and fell asleep on the couch watching it. But just the idea that we all come from Africa.. it's really exciting.
And with evidence like this, I can't help but wonder how people don't believe in the concept of human evolution. Or perhaps we've got the wrong story, i.e. the Bible is more limited than we think. Maybe, because it wasn't until we developed as homo sapiens that we were able to read and write, our documentation of religion and God is missing the hundreds or thousands or millions of years when God also existed in the earlier humans' presence, when they didn't understand who He was, nor have any means of recording their experiences for future generations to comprehend.
Were Adam and Eve actually a pair of early, early humans, living in a lush Garden of Eden in Africa? Hmmm..!
A response to the article "Out of Africa, But Into What?"
Thursday, October 4, 2007
playing God?
So I read this article on SMH about how a doctor is developing a 'personalised' approach to treating cancer, and as I reading the article I couldn't help but wonder if the very act of being a doctor is like playing the role of God. After all, wasn't it Jesus who healed the sick and the blind? And for an illness such as cancer, which is quite life-threatening or terminal at times, treating a patient with a "gene chip" sounds like a much better way to cure cancer, rather than chemotherapy.
But has anybody complained about it?
Research for a cure for cancer is a noble piece of work in my opinion. Yet those scientists involved in stem cell research, or genetic research, who are equally as determined to try and cure patients of terminal illnesses etc, seem to cop a lot more flak from the general population. Or maybe it's just a controversial topic because there isn't a great deal known about stem cell (etc) research, considering that humans fear the unknown.
I mean, I'm not too sure what my stance is on genetic engineering. It does seem a bit too much like the scientists are trying to "play God". But at the same time I can't help but think, if I was severely ill wouldn't I desperately want any kind of cure available? Wouldn't everybody else be the same?
A response to the article "Gene Chip Helps Cancer Treatment"
But has anybody complained about it?
Research for a cure for cancer is a noble piece of work in my opinion. Yet those scientists involved in stem cell research, or genetic research, who are equally as determined to try and cure patients of terminal illnesses etc, seem to cop a lot more flak from the general population. Or maybe it's just a controversial topic because there isn't a great deal known about stem cell (etc) research, considering that humans fear the unknown.
I mean, I'm not too sure what my stance is on genetic engineering. It does seem a bit too much like the scientists are trying to "play God". But at the same time I can't help but think, if I was severely ill wouldn't I desperately want any kind of cure available? Wouldn't everybody else be the same?
A response to the article "Gene Chip Helps Cancer Treatment"
Sunday, September 30, 2007
incredible inspiration
Before you read any further, please take a look at the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWs9G-c_pcs
---
"In this country of 25 million people where the average income is $3,490 a year, the youth music program's budget is $29 million annually, most of it from government funding.."
"Young musicians in Sarria are not allowed to take their instruments home because of the risk of being mugged, and some come to class with headaches because their families cannot afford food."
"The talented musicians of the National System of Venezuelan Youth and Children's Orchestras are a source of national pride, like football stars in other Latin American countries."
"When a poor child begins to play an instrument in his home, it begins to transform the household and the neighbors, and his dedication becomes a model for other children," the bespectacled, balding maestro said. "When he leaves the slums and starts playing in public places wearing a uniform, it builds his self-esteem."
"Poverty generates anonymity, loneliness. Music creates happiness and hope in a community, and the triumph of a child as a musician helps him aspire to even higher things."
---
I was in the car one evening, on my way home from work (or was I heading to/from the driving range? I don't remember) or vice versa, listening to ABC Classic FM. I must have switched on partway through a conversation; a lady was commenting on a youth orchestra that she thought was amazing and inspirational, or something to that effect, and I was intrigued enough to want to know more.
So when I recalled this commentary I'd heard, I did a quick search on YouTube for the Venezuelan Youth Orchestra (she mentioned there was a YouTube clip available). I found what I was looking for - their performance of Bernstein's "Mambo", one of the symphonic dances from West Side Story. And it was spectacular to say the least.
These kids are a real inspiration. The amount they have achieved, and continue to achieve, despite the troubles and hardships they face in their immediate environment - it puts people like me to shame. I go on and on about how I wish I was a musician, or how I'd be a better musician if I only had the time and the freedom to rehearse.. but it can't be true. If I really meant it, surely I'd be living the dream right now?
But this isn't about me.
What I want to say is, music changes lives. It really does. This is a clear example of the fact. Music transcends all the barriers we've built for and against one another.
Music makes the world go around with a sway and and a smile.
Additional reading:
"Venezuela youths transformed by music"
"For Venezuela's poor, music opens doors"
----------------
Now playing: John Mayer - Why Georgia (live)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWs9G-c_pcs
---
"In this country of 25 million people where the average income is $3,490 a year, the youth music program's budget is $29 million annually, most of it from government funding.."
"Young musicians in Sarria are not allowed to take their instruments home because of the risk of being mugged, and some come to class with headaches because their families cannot afford food."
"The talented musicians of the National System of Venezuelan Youth and Children's Orchestras are a source of national pride, like football stars in other Latin American countries."
"When a poor child begins to play an instrument in his home, it begins to transform the household and the neighbors, and his dedication becomes a model for other children," the bespectacled, balding maestro said. "When he leaves the slums and starts playing in public places wearing a uniform, it builds his self-esteem."
"Poverty generates anonymity, loneliness. Music creates happiness and hope in a community, and the triumph of a child as a musician helps him aspire to even higher things."
---
I was in the car one evening, on my way home from work (or was I heading to/from the driving range? I don't remember) or vice versa, listening to ABC Classic FM. I must have switched on partway through a conversation; a lady was commenting on a youth orchestra that she thought was amazing and inspirational, or something to that effect, and I was intrigued enough to want to know more.
So when I recalled this commentary I'd heard, I did a quick search on YouTube for the Venezuelan Youth Orchestra (she mentioned there was a YouTube clip available). I found what I was looking for - their performance of Bernstein's "Mambo", one of the symphonic dances from West Side Story. And it was spectacular to say the least.
These kids are a real inspiration. The amount they have achieved, and continue to achieve, despite the troubles and hardships they face in their immediate environment - it puts people like me to shame. I go on and on about how I wish I was a musician, or how I'd be a better musician if I only had the time and the freedom to rehearse.. but it can't be true. If I really meant it, surely I'd be living the dream right now?
But this isn't about me.
What I want to say is, music changes lives. It really does. This is a clear example of the fact. Music transcends all the barriers we've built for and against one another.
Music makes the world go around with a sway and and a smile.
Additional reading:
"Venezuela youths transformed by music"
"For Venezuela's poor, music opens doors"
----------------
Now playing: John Mayer - Why Georgia (live)
making the most of life
While searching for news articles related to my gen. ed. subject at uni (Science & Religion), I came across this interesting article about 4 guys in America, who are literally trying to live out their dreams* while helping others do the same*.
*to some extent.
These guys are roughly my age, i.e. one or two years older than me. Like me, they've realised life is too short. Unlike me, they're doing something about it.
So they came up with a list of 100 things they wanted to do before they die. When I read through the list, I figured that most of the items were fairly trivial. But having a second think about it, I suppose these things mean a lot to those guys, in one way or another.
You don't have to have a life-changing experience for something to mean a lot to you - for instance, having fun and being happy means a lot to me. Might not happen as much as it used to, but that's a result of my own decisions, and external influences. As much as I could blame it on somebody or something else, ultimately I claim responsibility over who influences me or affects me with their opinions and commands etc.
But again, I digress.
Back to the topic - I visited the guys' site (www.theburiedlife.com) and decided to read the blog posts from the very beginning. I kept having mixed emotions, because I was initially attracted to their mission after reading that they're helping other people achieve [some of] their dreams where they can.. but at the same time, the guys are having a blast on the road, being supported by sponsors, doing crazy things like successfully passing through security and making their way into the MTV awards, etc etc. Essentially, the message I'm getting is that they're not selfless (a la charity/relief organisations), but they're not selfish either. When they say they're "4 regular guys", they mean it.
I enjoy visiting their blog, it makes for some fun reading. And when my internet picks up speed again, I'll definitely be checking out their videos on YouTube (their ultimate plan is to create a film of their experiences).
Yes, they are making a difference to people's lives, here and there.
But are they inspirational? I'm not entirely sure about that.. yet.
A response to the news article "Students help others discover buried dreams"
----------------
Now playing: John Mayer - Message In A Bottle (live)
*to some extent.
These guys are roughly my age, i.e. one or two years older than me. Like me, they've realised life is too short. Unlike me, they're doing something about it.
So they came up with a list of 100 things they wanted to do before they die. When I read through the list, I figured that most of the items were fairly trivial. But having a second think about it, I suppose these things mean a lot to those guys, in one way or another.
You don't have to have a life-changing experience for something to mean a lot to you - for instance, having fun and being happy means a lot to me. Might not happen as much as it used to, but that's a result of my own decisions, and external influences. As much as I could blame it on somebody or something else, ultimately I claim responsibility over who influences me or affects me with their opinions and commands etc.
But again, I digress.
Back to the topic - I visited the guys' site (www.theburiedlife.com) and decided to read the blog posts from the very beginning. I kept having mixed emotions, because I was initially attracted to their mission after reading that they're helping other people achieve [some of] their dreams where they can.. but at the same time, the guys are having a blast on the road, being supported by sponsors, doing crazy things like successfully passing through security and making their way into the MTV awards, etc etc. Essentially, the message I'm getting is that they're not selfless (a la charity/relief organisations), but they're not selfish either. When they say they're "4 regular guys", they mean it.
I enjoy visiting their blog, it makes for some fun reading. And when my internet picks up speed again, I'll definitely be checking out their videos on YouTube (their ultimate plan is to create a film of their experiences).
Yes, they are making a difference to people's lives, here and there.
But are they inspirational? I'm not entirely sure about that.. yet.
A response to the news article "Students help others discover buried dreams"
----------------
Now playing: John Mayer - Message In A Bottle (live)
Monday, September 24, 2007
keep your friends close, but your enemies closer?
I read this article about a priest who was attacked by an intruder attempting to rob their Divine Word Mission. When interviewed, the priest said:
"I need to pray for the one who attacked me... I feel when I pray for him in the future he can be better - everyone wants to live in harmony."
It's not like it was a peaceful hit and run either. The priest goes on to say:
"At the time I was shocked. After he attacked me I didn't recognise he used a knife to attack me. He hit me but then when I saw my blood shedding I thought 'What happened?' I didn't feel any pain at the time so I was shocked. It was terrible."
Most other people would try and hunt down their attacker to ensure justice and appropriate punishment or penalty. But despite the shock and the injury, the priest chose to forgive his attacker by praying for him. To some people, such behaviour would be viewed as ridiculous. Why pray for somebody who almost killed you?
To me, I think the priest is showing God that he is capable of accepting that we must endure suffering throughout our lives, no matter how big or small, or how frequent, and it is the behaviour we portray in our most trialling moments, that illustrates our faith.
The reason I'm writing about this is because this priest's reaction to his attacker reminds me of the South African church congregation that was mentioned in the Week 8 lecture on Providence, Free Will & Suffering, where "On 25 July 1993 St James church in Capetown was attacked by men with rifles and grenades during the evening service. Several people were killed and many wounded."
And one of the church members then goes on to say that despite the tragedy, they are thankful that God thought them worthy of receiving this suffering. It's a totally different reaction to what you would expect of most people.
I have mixed emotions on this topic. Part of me respects the strength of these peoples' faiths in praying for their attackers, but another part of me feels 'odd' (for lack of a better word), because their attackers won't care about whether or not they're being prayed for. Although I suppose it's not that the victims are trying to communicate with the villains; rather, they're communicating with God in the belief or hope that God will make the villains seek repentance and therefore step away from a path of destruction and darkness, onto the road of truth and light.
A response to the article "Stabbed priest prays for attacker"
"I need to pray for the one who attacked me... I feel when I pray for him in the future he can be better - everyone wants to live in harmony."
It's not like it was a peaceful hit and run either. The priest goes on to say:
"At the time I was shocked. After he attacked me I didn't recognise he used a knife to attack me. He hit me but then when I saw my blood shedding I thought 'What happened?' I didn't feel any pain at the time so I was shocked. It was terrible."
Most other people would try and hunt down their attacker to ensure justice and appropriate punishment or penalty. But despite the shock and the injury, the priest chose to forgive his attacker by praying for him. To some people, such behaviour would be viewed as ridiculous. Why pray for somebody who almost killed you?
To me, I think the priest is showing God that he is capable of accepting that we must endure suffering throughout our lives, no matter how big or small, or how frequent, and it is the behaviour we portray in our most trialling moments, that illustrates our faith.
The reason I'm writing about this is because this priest's reaction to his attacker reminds me of the South African church congregation that was mentioned in the Week 8 lecture on Providence, Free Will & Suffering, where "On 25 July 1993 St James church in Capetown was attacked by men with rifles and grenades during the evening service. Several people were killed and many wounded."
And one of the church members then goes on to say that despite the tragedy, they are thankful that God thought them worthy of receiving this suffering. It's a totally different reaction to what you would expect of most people.
I have mixed emotions on this topic. Part of me respects the strength of these peoples' faiths in praying for their attackers, but another part of me feels 'odd' (for lack of a better word), because their attackers won't care about whether or not they're being prayed for. Although I suppose it's not that the victims are trying to communicate with the villains; rather, they're communicating with God in the belief or hope that God will make the villains seek repentance and therefore step away from a path of destruction and darkness, onto the road of truth and light.
A response to the article "Stabbed priest prays for attacker"
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
an idol of mine
"I'm not into genre," she says. "I'm a singer who tries to communicate through song. I write songs because I need to write them. It's almost like cheap therapy."
Katie Noonan.
Blessed with a beautiful voice, her new album Skin is a great album with loads of class and silky smooth grooves. I personally think it's a bit of a step away from her previous George days, as this album is more pop than not, but I really dig it. After all, how could you not love a voice as heavenly as hers?
Standout tracks:
#3. Time To Begin "Time to begin / Let the sun shine back in..." This is the first single off the album, and as such it has a nice little music video to go with it. I think it sets the tone of the album well - you can sit back and relax, unwind with these silver tunes washing over your body, or you can chat with friends at a cruising party or bar on a Friday night. The rockin' bass line gets me in that Friday night mood - in fact there's a taste of House (dance music) & Jamiroquai to the song, it's great - and the (jazz?) flute IS NUTS! Makes me wish I'd kept up with my silver woodwind.
#4. Love's My Song For You "As we lay here in the darkness, chatting away the hours, I wonder / If I could, lie here forever..." One of my boy's faves actually. She's more breathy in this song, and it's really nice and easygoing, something for a sunny day outside, or when you're indoors and the sunshine's so bright it's lighting up the whole house.
#5. Little Boy Man "You're the greatest gift / You're the sweetest kiss.." I personally find the title rather catchy. Possibly because it does and doesn't make sense, both at once, and they're the first words she sings. The groovy-sounding keyboard and the drumbeat that feature throughout most of the song, get my head nodding and my feet tapping. Every time.
#6. Sunshine "I look up, and I see that smile again / I look up, and I see sunshine again / I look up, and I see your face again..." Again, the keyboard and drums get this song going. They definitely bring the groove to this album, and complement Noonan's voice very well.
If you manage to get a hold of the special edition of this album, which includes an additional CD with b-sides, you'll find that she does a fantastic cover of the song "Crazy" (of Gnarls Barkley fame). Can't rave about it enough!
Katie Noonan. Haunting. Heavenly. Magical. Must-listen.
A repsonse to the article "Katie Noonan hits the road"
Katie Noonan.
Blessed with a beautiful voice, her new album Skin is a great album with loads of class and silky smooth grooves. I personally think it's a bit of a step away from her previous George days, as this album is more pop than not, but I really dig it. After all, how could you not love a voice as heavenly as hers?
Standout tracks:
#3. Time To Begin "Time to begin / Let the sun shine back in..." This is the first single off the album, and as such it has a nice little music video to go with it. I think it sets the tone of the album well - you can sit back and relax, unwind with these silver tunes washing over your body, or you can chat with friends at a cruising party or bar on a Friday night. The rockin' bass line gets me in that Friday night mood - in fact there's a taste of House (dance music) & Jamiroquai to the song, it's great - and the (jazz?) flute IS NUTS! Makes me wish I'd kept up with my silver woodwind.
#4. Love's My Song For You "As we lay here in the darkness, chatting away the hours, I wonder / If I could, lie here forever..." One of my boy's faves actually. She's more breathy in this song, and it's really nice and easygoing, something for a sunny day outside, or when you're indoors and the sunshine's so bright it's lighting up the whole house.
#5. Little Boy Man "You're the greatest gift / You're the sweetest kiss.." I personally find the title rather catchy. Possibly because it does and doesn't make sense, both at once, and they're the first words she sings. The groovy-sounding keyboard and the drumbeat that feature throughout most of the song, get my head nodding and my feet tapping. Every time.
#6. Sunshine "I look up, and I see that smile again / I look up, and I see sunshine again / I look up, and I see your face again..." Again, the keyboard and drums get this song going. They definitely bring the groove to this album, and complement Noonan's voice very well.
If you manage to get a hold of the special edition of this album, which includes an additional CD with b-sides, you'll find that she does a fantastic cover of the song "Crazy" (of Gnarls Barkley fame). Can't rave about it enough!
Katie Noonan. Haunting. Heavenly. Magical. Must-listen.
A repsonse to the article "Katie Noonan hits the road"
Sunday, September 2, 2007
holes in the universe / week 5 discussion post #6
A response to the article "Cosmic Blank Spot Puzzles Astronomers"
While surfing the web for news articles that could relate to my studies, I came across a really interesting article. Here's the first paragraph or two:
"Aug. 24, 2007 — Astronomers have stumbled upon a tremendous hole in the universe. That's got them scratching their heads about what's just not there.
The cosmic blank spot has no stray stars, no galaxies, no sucking black holes, not even mysterious dark matter. It is 1 billion light years across of nothing. That's an expanse of nearly 6 billion trillion miles of emptiness, a University of Minnesota team announced Thursday."
Continuing on the topic of that article, I find it really difficult to comprehend that there is something out there which is actually *nothing*. Because, for example, you have a empty jar, but when you say there's nothing in it, technically that's not true because when you closed the lid on that jar you effectively captured the air, or some carbon dioxide or whatever other gas(es) is floating around in your midst.
But to respond to Nerissa's post:
"If the voids are nothingness, I am assuming that there is no time as well. So ... if the voids are without time, and God is without time, perhaps God exists within the voids?"
Thinking along these lines, and how it's possible that there are these gaps in the universe where time does not exist - does that mean we have the ability to exist in a timeless nothingness, if we can somehow enter these voids without killing ourselves (or whatever it is that happens in space)? And if God exists within the voids as well, then we can literally 'live' with God?
This is probably totally off topic but thought I'd ask the question anyway :)
While surfing the web for news articles that could relate to my studies, I came across a really interesting article. Here's the first paragraph or two:
"Aug. 24, 2007 — Astronomers have stumbled upon a tremendous hole in the universe. That's got them scratching their heads about what's just not there.
The cosmic blank spot has no stray stars, no galaxies, no sucking black holes, not even mysterious dark matter. It is 1 billion light years across of nothing. That's an expanse of nearly 6 billion trillion miles of emptiness, a University of Minnesota team announced Thursday."
Continuing on the topic of that article, I find it really difficult to comprehend that there is something out there which is actually *nothing*. Because, for example, you have a empty jar, but when you say there's nothing in it, technically that's not true because when you closed the lid on that jar you effectively captured the air, or some carbon dioxide or whatever other gas(es) is floating around in your midst.
But to respond to Nerissa's post:
"If the voids are nothingness, I am assuming that there is no time as well. So ... if the voids are without time, and God is without time, perhaps God exists within the voids?"
Thinking along these lines, and how it's possible that there are these gaps in the universe where time does not exist - does that mean we have the ability to exist in a timeless nothingness, if we can somehow enter these voids without killing ourselves (or whatever it is that happens in space)? And if God exists within the voids as well, then we can literally 'live' with God?
This is probably totally off topic but thought I'd ask the question anyway :)
Friday, August 31, 2007
coincidence - or a messenger of God?
I read about this a while ago,
But there's this cat who was adopted by a nursing home when he was but a wee kitten, and he has a knack for predicting when people are about to pass away from this world. According to the article, once Oscar (the cat) chooses to sit by a old person's bedside, they only have a few hours left to live. And he sits with them until they close their eyes for the final time.. and then he moves on.
I'm astounded by this. I can only marvel at this feline's ability.
And as the title of this post suggests, to me it poses the question of whether this cat's talents are a sheer coincidence, inexplicable by any means, or perhaps explicable by vigorous scientific research and theorising;
OR,
whether this cat is some kind of modern angel, sent by God. An unconventional messenger, that's for sure - but the cat is considered to be one of God's creations, is it not? So there's really no reason why God couldn't have chosen an animal to bring peace and solace to people in their final hours.
In any case, this is truly bizarre, and it does raise some interesting ponderments on the existence of God (or lack thereof).
A response to the article "Nursing home cat predicts death"
But there's this cat who was adopted by a nursing home when he was but a wee kitten, and he has a knack for predicting when people are about to pass away from this world. According to the article, once Oscar (the cat) chooses to sit by a old person's bedside, they only have a few hours left to live. And he sits with them until they close their eyes for the final time.. and then he moves on.
I'm astounded by this. I can only marvel at this feline's ability.
And as the title of this post suggests, to me it poses the question of whether this cat's talents are a sheer coincidence, inexplicable by any means, or perhaps explicable by vigorous scientific research and theorising;
OR,
whether this cat is some kind of modern angel, sent by God. An unconventional messenger, that's for sure - but the cat is considered to be one of God's creations, is it not? So there's really no reason why God couldn't have chosen an animal to bring peace and solace to people in their final hours.
In any case, this is truly bizarre, and it does raise some interesting ponderments on the existence of God (or lack thereof).
A response to the article "Nursing home cat predicts death"
Saturday, July 28, 2007
on the unusual behaviour of whales
Perhaps they want to be beached.
Maybe they get stressed and agitated because the vets try to get them back to their pod, when really, they never want to see their pod again.
Maybe they just don't want to live anymore, and they just want to be left alone in peace, to pass away peacefully on a pleasant shore, their last memory being that of the blinding sun beating down on them as they drift away from this world to horizons far and beyond our own reach.
After all, don't humans get like that too, sometimes?
A response to the article "Lost and stranded whale put down"
Maybe they get stressed and agitated because the vets try to get them back to their pod, when really, they never want to see their pod again.
Maybe they just don't want to live anymore, and they just want to be left alone in peace, to pass away peacefully on a pleasant shore, their last memory being that of the blinding sun beating down on them as they drift away from this world to horizons far and beyond our own reach.
After all, don't humans get like that too, sometimes?
A response to the article "Lost and stranded whale put down"
a rift between science and hinduism
This is perhaps an example of a conflict between science and religion, in albeit a more unusual manner.
In the UK, a six year old bull who goes by the name of Shambo, has tested positive to bovine tuberculosis (or BT). Going by 'the rules', the solution appears simple enough - slaughter the animal. However! Shambo resides in a monastery as he is considered to be a sacred animal (in Hinduism).
Why do I think this is a conflict between science & religion?
Because the scientific facts provide a diagnosis, that the bull is carrier of BT. Yet from the religious perspective, this scientific evidence doesn't really bother them - BT or no BT, Shambo is still a sacred bull, and therefore should not be murdered.
I've just run a search on Wikipedia, to better understand the importance of the bovine in Hindu religious beliefs, and this is the paragraph that I took in, it may or may not be entirely complete or correct:
"In Hinduism, the cow is considered sacred and its protection is a recurrent theme in which she is symbolic of abundance, of the sanctity of all life and of the earth that gives much while asking nothing in return. Most Hindus respect the cow as a matriarchal figure for her gentle qualities and providing nurturing milk and its products for a largely vegetarian diet. Hindus do not worship the cow, yet it holds an honoured place in society, and it is part of Hindu tradition to avoid the consumption of beef." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_cow)
And so a dilemma occurs, because you have two conflicting perspectives.
1. Who in their right mind would destroy a sacred being. If this sacred bull was a human being who was diagnosed with a serious illness, the first recommendation would not be to 'put them out of their misery' and kill them. You would analyse the symptoms and do whatever is possible to try and cure the human. As a human life is precious, so this cow's life is precious to us also.
2. It's just another farm animal. Animals are subject to diseases, and infected animals pose a threat to fellow animals as well as humans. This cow is a ruminating health hazard as it has tested positive to a disease. There are hundreds upon thousands of cows in the world today. Pick another and let it be your sacred cow - we want to do away with this one.
Perhaps we should also include a third perspective, that of the in-between, the fence-sitter who understands the health risks posed by the animal, and yet respects the religious beliefs of the people who are willing to do all they can to prevent the slaughter of Shambo.
Or a fourth, who may ask
"But Shambo is a BULL. Isn't is the COW who is the sacred being?"
and
"Why is the word 'sacred' so similar to 'scared'?
The answers to these questions, I do not know.
A response to the article "Legal setback for sacred bull"
In the UK, a six year old bull who goes by the name of Shambo, has tested positive to bovine tuberculosis (or BT). Going by 'the rules', the solution appears simple enough - slaughter the animal. However! Shambo resides in a monastery as he is considered to be a sacred animal (in Hinduism).
Why do I think this is a conflict between science & religion?
Because the scientific facts provide a diagnosis, that the bull is carrier of BT. Yet from the religious perspective, this scientific evidence doesn't really bother them - BT or no BT, Shambo is still a sacred bull, and therefore should not be murdered.
I've just run a search on Wikipedia, to better understand the importance of the bovine in Hindu religious beliefs, and this is the paragraph that I took in, it may or may not be entirely complete or correct:
"In Hinduism, the cow is considered sacred and its protection is a recurrent theme in which she is symbolic of abundance, of the sanctity of all life and of the earth that gives much while asking nothing in return. Most Hindus respect the cow as a matriarchal figure for her gentle qualities and providing nurturing milk and its products for a largely vegetarian diet. Hindus do not worship the cow, yet it holds an honoured place in society, and it is part of Hindu tradition to avoid the consumption of beef." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_cow)
And so a dilemma occurs, because you have two conflicting perspectives.
1. Who in their right mind would destroy a sacred being. If this sacred bull was a human being who was diagnosed with a serious illness, the first recommendation would not be to 'put them out of their misery' and kill them. You would analyse the symptoms and do whatever is possible to try and cure the human. As a human life is precious, so this cow's life is precious to us also.
2. It's just another farm animal. Animals are subject to diseases, and infected animals pose a threat to fellow animals as well as humans. This cow is a ruminating health hazard as it has tested positive to a disease. There are hundreds upon thousands of cows in the world today. Pick another and let it be your sacred cow - we want to do away with this one.
Perhaps we should also include a third perspective, that of the in-between, the fence-sitter who understands the health risks posed by the animal, and yet respects the religious beliefs of the people who are willing to do all they can to prevent the slaughter of Shambo.
Or a fourth, who may ask
"But Shambo is a BULL. Isn't is the COW who is the sacred being?"
and
"Why is the word 'sacred' so similar to 'scared'?
The answers to these questions, I do not know.
A response to the article "Legal setback for sacred bull"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)