Alan Lightman on the Longing for Absolutes in a Relative World and What Gives Lasting Meaning to Our Lives — Brain Pickings [reblog]

“We are idealists and we are realists. We are dreamers and we are builders. We are experiencers and we are experimenters. We long for certainties, yet we ourselves are full of the ambiguities of the Mona Lisa and the… 4,193 more words

via Alan Lightman on the Longing for Absolutes in a Relative World and What Gives Lasting Meaning to Our Lives — Brain Pickings


I’m Here! I Promise!


Oh. HAI!!

I’m here! I’m here!
I promise!!

I’ve just been too aggravated / annoyed / irritated / etc. about #Election2016 to actually write anything.

I’m trying to change. Promise.

Till then – watch for the reblogs and maybe a random post in the next week or two.

NOTE: The posts may not all be politics, but anything that isn’t politics will have made me laugh. And that’s important.


“A joyful heart is good medicine, but a broken spirit dries up the bones.”     Proverbs 17:22

Note: GIFs from giphy! 

Should We, as Christians, Be Drinking the Pumpkin Spice Latte? – [reblog]

Remember: Jesus loves you, even if you don’t give him your Pumpkin Spice Latte.

Not Exactly Subtle

GTY_pumpkin_spice_latte_jt_150817_12x5_1600It’s that time of year when the weather begins to turn, the leaves begin to change color, and all across the nation the Pumpkin Spice Latte is back on the menu.

I would caution my brothers and sisters (let’s be honest, mostly sisters) to think before they drink.

Anytime something becomes this popular and accepted by society, we need to step back and ask if we’ve ceased merely being in the world and have, in fact, become part of it (Couldn’t find the chapter and verse, but I know it’s in the KJV).  Allow me to incredibly humbly suggest a couple of things we ought to meditate on and pray over before we imbibe the PSL.

1. A study of “Pumpkin Spice” in the original languages

When we break down the etymology of the name of Satan’s favorite drink, it shows how truly subversive the Tempter can be in trying…

View original post 437 more words

Why Millennials Must Vote Third Party in #Election2016

#Election2016 has been going on for 13+ months now. The choices from the two major parties have narrowed to Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, or Donald Trump.

I have come to a conclusion: I don’t agree with and/or like any of these people.

What’s a millennial girl to do?

Option 1:

drinking wine

Option 2:


Option 3:

take over the world pinky and brain

Option 3 sounds good…with some of option 1 thrown in for good measure.
(You can’t take over the world without alcohol. It’s scientifically-ish proven.)

So, my fellow Brains and Pinkys (and Larrys),
Shall we try to take over the world?

Because – unless we all take over the world together, the world isn’t going to change. 

There’s a reason Sen. Ben Sasse tweeted these on May 4, 2016 –

The U.S. 2 party system has left most American citizens with options that they don’t want for the 2016 presidential election – or any election. Sen. Sasse spoke to that too.

BTW – Sen. Sasse’s open letter is here – and you should read it in full.

Millennials (and Generation Z…or whatever they are calling themselves) need to do their part.

Imagine –
Every citizen aged 18 to 30 votes for a third party.
Pick one and run with it.

The U.S. has plenty of registered third parties. Scroll through wikipedia and find one you agree with. Connect with it, campaign for it, spread it all over social media – since traditional media is a snob. Go with a larger party, or an ideological party. You even have the option of protest parties and state-only parties! So many choices…

And if you want to be pragmatic – go for one of the bigger third parties – Green Party, Libertarian Party, Constitution Party – and give them a [signal] boost. The more votes a party gets in an election, the easier it is for that party to be a part of the next election.

Let’s show the ‘almighty political powers-that-be’ that we have a voice they can’t control – that we will dig beyond the two options typically presented for something more. We continually clamor for authenticity – let’s prove it, by supporting candidates that are not making rhetorical promises they will never be able to keep. Let’s blow up politics-as-usual and make Third Parties the largest vote getters in #Election2016. 

Let’s elect leaders we can be proud of – and that our kids, our siblings, and we can look up to and aspire to be.

I don’t care who you vote for, as much as I’d love you all to vote Libertarian, I don’t care if you vote Green, Socialist, Constitutionist, Libertarian, Rent-is-too-damn-high, etc. I will even forgive you if you vote Democrat or Republican – as long as it’s down ballot.

I DO care that you choose to engage in the political process – I want you to think through the candidates’ promises, the party platforms, and what you truly believe is best for the United States of America.

Because –
if we’re going to be called the most selfish, self-absorbed, entitled generation* – then let’s live up to it. And break all the rules.

mkto - thank you

MKTO, Thank You

To Ballots! To Social Media! To War!

*see here, here, and here, and HEY! we even have an Urban Dictionary entry

Even More GIF Reaction to #Election2016 #GOP Ridiculousness

I posted this on Twitter last night:

I did these after March 3, 2016:
GIF Reaction to #Election2016 #GOP Ridiculousness and
More GIF Reaction to #Election2016 #GOP Ridiculousness

Now, I shall add to it.

First – General Reactions:

Second – to the GOP:

And now – to drink –

And to plan –

applause and acclaim leads to madness

I’ll be posting my way forward soon.
…but I’ll leave you with my current status –

This is my hell - anigif_optimized-20756-1426165951-1

Cry Babies + ‘Collusion’

Donald Trump accused Sen. Cruz and Gov. Kasich of collusion.

narrowed eyes daniel tumblr_mi8875v5vv1qd6v0do1_500
ffs av1ta

malarky giphy (1)
Now that you have my opinion –
Let’s examine the evidence:

Collusion – according to Merriam-Webster – is defined as:

secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose

So, 3 elements:

  1. secret
  2. agreement or cooperation
  3. for an illegal or deceitful purpose

1 – Secret
As defined by Merriam-Webster

1 – kept hidden from knowledge or view; marked by the habit of discretion; working with hidden aims or methods; not acknowledged; conducted in secret
2 – remote from human frequentation or notice
3 – revealed only to the initiated
4 – designed to elude observation or detection
5 – containing information whose unauthorized disclosure could endanger national security – compare confidential, top secret

Given the amount of media for this alleged “collusion” between Cruz and Kasich, I’m pretty sure we can say it’s not secret. All you have to do is google it. See what I mean?

So – No, not secret. It’s the opposite of secret.

2 – Agreement or Cooperation
Agreement – as defined by Merriam-Webster  –

1 – harmony of opinion, action, or character – concord; the act or fact of agreeing
2 – an arrangement as to a course of action – compact, treaty
3 – a contract duly executed and legally biding; the language or instrument embodying such a contract

Cooperation – as defined by Merriam-Webster

1 – the act of cooperating: common effort
2 – association of persons for common benefit

Media sources are saying that there is an agreement between campaigns to divide remaining primaries/caucuses/conventions and to use campaign resources where they will get the most bang for their buck. See New York Times and Washington Examiner. The campaigns also would obviously benefit from Trump being taken down a peg or two – and since it benefits both campaigns, we have a common benefit. According to media sources, the campaigns have associated/agreed to this strategy for the common benefit of denying Trump the GOP nomination, in favor – hopefully – of themselves.

there can only be one cat

So – Yes, this is an agreement and/or cooperation. But that’s only one of the elements and probably the least important.

3 – For an Illegal or Deceitful Purpose
We need to break this down a little further…

While you must have a purpose before you can define it, the focus here is on the “illegal” or “deceitful,” which must describe the purpose in order to meet the element.

Illegal – as defined by Merriam-Webster

1 – not according to or authorized by law: unlawful, illicit
2 –
not sanctioned by official rules (as of a game)

To be clear – election law is fuzzy at best. See disclaimer*

What is clear is this –
1 – Official offices are not to be used for campaign purposes.
Example: a U.S. Congressman has at least one official office in the district and one in D.C. Those offices are to help all constituents (people living in the congressional district) equally. It cannot comment on campaign related questions, and it cannot accept donations to the campaign.

2 – Coordination is not allowed between Political Action Committees (PAC) and campaigns.
This can get complicated, but generally, a campaign for at U.S. Congressman cannot discuss strategy with a PAC (or SuperPAC) that is supporting the (re)election of the Congressman.

These are the two main rules for cooperation between campaigns.

Campaigns and Candidates can – generally –
1 – give money to each other
Example: Campaign A can give money to Campaign B (there may be limits on HOW much can be given – contribution limits)

2 – work with national political parties to cooperate on strategy and platform
Example: X National Party can endorse Candidate A who is part of X political party.
Example: Congressman from Party X endorses Candidate A who is part of X political party – and/or campaigns on Candidate A’s behalf.

Again, this can get into the weeds very quickly – but there is no rule that presidential campaigns can’t work together. They just generally don’t because they have opposing goals – get their person the nomination.

And, if anyone regulates this for the primary part of the election, it going to be the political party NOT federal/state/local election law.

So – No, this is not illegal.

But is it deceitful?

Deceitful – as defined by Merriam-Webster

having a tendency or disposition to deceive; not honest; deceptive, misleading

… The campaigns told us they were doing this, therefore not deceptive or misleading or not – honest. They literally told us – in press releases and media. See above, Cruz Campaign, and Kasich Campaign, and oh yeah – go here again.

So – No, not deceitful.

No, Kasich and Cruz agreement is not secret.
Yes, this is an agreement and/or cooperation.
No, this is not illegal.
No, it’s not deceitful.

In Conclusion:
Donald Trump can whine and cry all he wants, but just because he calls a duck a fish – or an agreement, a collusion – doesn’t make the duck a fish – or the Kasich-Cruz agreement actually a collusion.

Unfortunately, facts are the casualties of politics.

This is my hell - anigif_optimized-20756-1426165951-1

*Disclaimer: I am not an election lawyer, though I have studied the outlines of this area of law. Any mistakes in this post are my own misunderstandings.