Ricky should have played a vampire at some point. He has amazingly pointy canines.
Dali is one of my all time favorite artists. I had an opportunity to see a couple of his works up close recently. (a couple years ago)
Printable View
Ricky should have played a vampire at some point. He has amazingly pointy canines.
Dali is one of my all time favorite artists. I had an opportunity to see a couple of his works up close recently. (a couple years ago)
When pesky/long term college loans are not an option ...
Daze with Jordan the Lion ...
David Gilmour Guitar Collection Is For Sale?
Daily Travel Vlog #1011
Published on May 14, 2019
21:36 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le86...em-uploademail
And for those who might be curious ...
David Gilmour - Talks about his vintage guitars & why he's selling them ...
14:36 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdBKvz-MaH4
Pink Floyd and Crosby, Stills, Nash...Young are the 2 bands that I came closest to ever idolizing...well, except for Santana and Satriani, of course, but they're not really 'bands'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDbeqj-1XOo
Actually, Santana ─ under that name ─ was a band up until at least the mid 1980s. Nowadays, Carlos is using his full name, signifying that he's now working as himself, rather than as a band leader. ;)
There was a similar thing with Steve Vai in the 1990s. He briefly had a band called Vai ─ with Devin Townsend on lead vocals ─ of which Steve Vai happened to be the band leader. They did however release only one album under that name ─ "Sex & Religion", which yielded several single releases ─ and then they parted ways again. This here is a song from that album. :)
I use to listen to 'Malo' also...his brother...but Santana is THE MAN. I worshipped at his altar. It also struck me as interesting that Santana seem divinely inspired and Satriana was, well Satriani sold his soul to old scratch.
Vai, yeah, he was a late entry into my musical world...I missed him completely but he is without doubt truly great...
wow, that man can play...wow
(welcome)
American and British Families Swap Lives ...
(Culture Clash Documentary)
43:33 minutesQuote:
Families from across the UK and America will swap lives for a week. They'll live in each other's homes, attend each other's schools, do each other's jobs and experience each other's social lives as they try to discover what really goes on in their twin towns.
Throughout history the UK has enjoyed a famously special relationship with the USA. We've embraced each other's culture, supported each other's foreign policy and scoffed each other's cuisine - but do we actually speak the same language?
Real Stories
Published on May 14, 2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkT9WtJ5X3g&feature=em-uploademail
"BUT" ...
Should vaccinations be compulsory? | The Pledge
9:20 minutesQuote:
Sky News
Published on May 15, 2019
Maajid Nawaz calls anti-vaxxers "selfish and unscientific" but argues that compulsory vaccination is "one Orwellian step too far". Do you think vaccinations should be compulsory?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXBxw_wwsAQ
From Pokémon ...
The mouse that roars ...
https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5...t/DC051419.jpg
“For more wild speculation about an election that’s more than
five hundred days away, we turn to Pundit Pikachu.”
Gotcha ...
Connecticut attorney general calls generic drug makers a 'private sector cartel'
5:43 minutesQuote:
PBS NewsHour
Published on May 15, 2019
Affordable health care is a persistent concern for Americans and a topic of great political debate. Typically, generic prescription drugs offer a cheaper alternative to name brands, but a new multi-state lawsuit alleges that their manufacturers have been artificially raising prices. John Yang talks to William Tong, attorney general of Connecticut, whose office has been leading the investigation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6gP1qtR_u0
Abortion is such a moral dilemma. I would never accept the notion of gratuitous abortions, that is a sin and if anyone wants their soul to burn in the fires of iniquity well then, that is their choice. But we can't decide for others what they choose to do. I know of a Catholic couple that chose not to abort the child they knew had Down's Syndrome. That is the highest of moral roads and I sincerely commend them for their courage, but not everyone's choices are so clear and not all have the 'right' stuff. We should be the master's of our own fate.
Given my Catholic upbringing, I used to be anti-abortion, but having finally shed off that indoctrination, I have come to adopt a very different perspective on things over the years. Here in Europe, there is a certain term within which abortion is legal and considered ethical, i.e. the first 12 weeks of the pregnancy. Whether true or not, those of us with a spiritual (but not religious) inclination believe that the soul will not have entered the fetus yet during those first 12 weeks, and that therefore, that which is aborted within that term cannot be considered a human being yet. And for the (entirely non-spiritual) law over here, it basically boils down to the same thing, i.e. that a fetus of not even 12 weeks old does not qualify as a human being just yet.
Well, aborting a fetus because the child has Down Syndrome would be what I personally consider morally abject, especially if it happens close to or after the first 12 weeks of the pregnancy. Children with Down Syndrome may have special needs, but they are every bit as human as the rest of us ─ even if they do have 47 chromosomes. I therefore personally do not consider Down Syndrome a valid reason for an abortion ─ that reeks too much of eugenics for my taste ─ and I would qualify that under the term "gratuitous", together with all those abortions by career women whose pregnancy comes at an inconvenient time in their career.
Abortion should never be abused as a "get out of jail" card for someone's failure to assume their personal responsibility, and least of all as a form of eugenics. Contraceptives are readily available, and if you're going to have sex without them, then you know that there's a chance at pregnancy. That's how biology works. If you're going to play Russian roulette, then there's a very good chance that you're going to end up on the coroner's table, with no one to blame but yourself. And this responsibility does not just rest on the shoulders of the woman, but also on those of the man. There are all too many men who knock up women and then shrug that off as "not my problem", or worse, force the woman to have an abortion ─ I've known several women who've had abortions, and they all testified that it is a very invasive and very painful procedure.
But that all said, and taking the legally approved deadline of 12 weeks into account, there are plenty of valid and perfectly ethical reasons for abortion, such as when the pregnancy would be the result of rape, or when it jeopardizes the life of the mother, or when the fetus is unequivocally bound to end up as an individual who would be suffering inhumanly in life.
Either way, in my opinion, abortion should remain an ethical issue and should be considered on a case-by-case basis. There is no morality in either a blanket approval of abortions across the board ─ usually from libertines and feminists ─ with no questions asked, nor in any blanket prohibition across the board from ultra-conservatives and religious fanatics. And on account of the latter, I find it highly bizarre that most of the people who vehemently condemn abortion are commonly also the very same people who just as vehemently support the death penalty.
Food for thought. :eyebrows:
I guess it's better to have safe and legal abortions than unsafe and illegal ones, but there is a very serious moral dimension that people don't want to think about.
It is this: it does not matter whether someone is terminated in utero or killed after birth, they're equally gone. Of course it is not the same thing, but the end result, the absence of that person from society is the same. This comes into sharper focus, when you consider the phenomenon known as gendercide. The Economist ran a series of articles about this a few years ago. If you aren't aware of what gendercide is, it is the wholesale abortion of female fetuses in mostly third-world countries, where male children are seen as more valuable for cultural reasons. This is particularly rife in China and India. In the old days, they used to kill female babies right after they were born, but now, with ultrasound and ubiquitous abortions, they don't have to wait that long and female fetuses can be terminated with minimal fuss, before they are even formed. The end result is that hundreds of millions of girls, who would have otherwise been born are now missing from society, just in India and China. Now, it is true that aborting these female fetuses in utero does not carry the same moral dimension as killing a healthy baby girl after birth, but in the big picture it does not matter, because they are missing from this planet just the same. The gender imbalance in Asia is now a very serious issue that threatens to lead to wars and mass unrest in society, because men simply can't find girls to marry and they resort to desperate measures to find a life partner, such as kidnapping, forced marriages or turning to human traffickers who smuggle girls from even poorer countries to sell them to prospective Chinese and Indian husbands.
I also have some sympathy with the view that abortions are encouraged by the ruling elites as a mass human sacrifice to their dark, underworld gods. No war in history has terminated as many human lives as the hundreds of millions of abortions carried out just in the last few decades. I think we should all at least consider the possibility that there is a darker, spiritual agenda behind all this.
I only want to comment on this snippet here ─ I agree that the gendercide phenomenon is an aberration. But if the whole mythology of reincarnation and of souls of whatever origin seeking to incarnate as a human is true ─ and there is some evidence that it would be ─ then that person is not really gone, because they can then always choose to be born as someone else, and somewhere else on this planet. :hmm:
Also, if the abortion is carried out within the legally established term of at most 12 weeks after conception, then there is no "killing in utero", because the soul won't have entered the fetus yet. Or for those who don't believe in the concept of a discarnate soul, then there's the legally accepted moral standard, which states that a fetus of that age is not a human being yet, but merely a biological mass made up of human tissue. :hmm: