This is just a bunch of bunk!

How Twitter was Formed

So I was thinking the other day after hearing something about Twitter. I know it's dangerous for me to be thinking in the first place, but still, I took the chance and thought....and here's what I was thinking.

I was thinking about how the inventor(s) came up with the name Twitter. Then, I thought about the word "twitter" itself and in doing so, I looked at the root of that word. And if you're having a hard time remembering your elementary school grammar/English class and what "root words" are I'll help you out. (I'm just that nice!) It's defined as follows:

root word

noun (linguistics) the form of a word after all affixes are removed.


Therefore, if you take the word twitter and "remove the affixes," you get the word "twit." And, if you look at the definition of twit you get this:

twit

–noun Informal. an insignificant or bothersome person.


Now, I know you're wondering where the heck this is going. I'm about to tell you! (Aren't you just SO excited and hanging on the edge of your seat?!?!)

Picture this:

Some people are sitting around talking about this idea where people can instantaneously let everyone in the world know what they are doing every moment of the day. Then they're thinking "Geez, these people must be twits in order to actually want to use this 'service'" Another person says, "OMG! (and they really say 'OMG' and not 'Oh my God' cause they're probably pre-pubescent teens who are now millionaires from coming up with this in the first place.) We should like call it like 'Twits-R-us' or like something like that!" (cause they can't quite say a full sentence without the required 10 'likes' in them)

Then another one says, "Let's just like call it like 'Twitter!'" Which a few kind of grumble about the suggestion and think it's too obvious that they're making fun of everyone who will use their site thus making the population not want to use their site and subsequently creating their inability to retire by 24. However, this brain trust couldn't think of anything better so, Twitter stuck.

Now, that's where we're at, a bunch of kids sitting around throwing about the word 'like' as if it was the Carbon Dioxide tearing apart our environment....oops! Guess not like that since they use that word WAY much more than the CO2 in the atmosphere. Anyway, you get my point. They come up with this idea, give it a silly name and then make TONS of money from it.


*whew* It's hard being me and thinking the way I do. Tiring, isn't it?! :oD

The following video is not for the faint of heart or youngsters. However, it should be watched and taken seriously.

The truth about PETA...

The following story is from This is True dated 17 July 2005. It is Copyright 2005 Randy Cassingham, all rights reserved, and reprinted here with permission:

"Ethical" Defined

After more than 100 dead dogs were dumped in a trash dumpster over four weeks, police in Ahoskie, N.C., kept an eye on the trash receptacle behind a supermarket. Sure enough, a van drove up and officers watched the occupants throw in heavy plastic bags. They detained the two people in the van and found 18 dead dogs in plastic bags in the dumpster, including puppies; 13 more dead dogs were still in the van. Police say the van is registered to the headquarters of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and the two occupants, Andrew B. Cook, 24, and Adria Joy Hinkle, 27, identified themselves as PETA employees. An autopsy performed on one of the dogs found it was healthy before it was killed. Police say PETA has been picking up the animals -- alive -- from North Carolina animal shelters, promising to find them good homes. Cook and Hinkle have been charged with 62 felony counts of animal cruelty. In response to the arrests PETA President Ingrid Newkirk said it's against the group's policy for employees to dump animals in the trash, but "that for some animals in North Carolina, there is no kinder option than euthanasia." (Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald) ...Oops, my mistake: that's "Playing God" Defined.

In his author's notes section, Cassingham had more to say about this story:

The more I learn about PETA, the less I think of them. The story of them killing animals isn't even unusual. According to PETA's own filings, in 2004 PETA killed 86.3 percent of the animals entrusted to its care -- a number that's rising, not falling. Meanwhile, the SPCA in PETA's home town (Norfolk, Va.) was able to find loving homes for 73 percent of the animals put in its care. A shortage of funds? Nope: last year PETA took in $29 million in tax-exempt donations. It simply has other priorities for the funds, like funding terrorism (yes, really). But don't take my word for it: I got my figures from http://www.PETAkillsAnimals.com -- and they have copies of PETA's state and federal filings to back it up. The bottom line: if you donate money to PETA because you think they care for and about animals, you need to think some more. PETA literally yells and screams about how others "kill animals" but this is how they operate? Pathetic.

And you know what I wonder? PETA's official count of animals they kill is 86.3 percent. But if they're going around picking up animals, killing them while they drive around and not even giving them a chance to be adopted, and then destroying the evidence by dumping the bodies in the trash, are those deaths being reported? My guess: no. While 86.3 percent is awful, the actual number is probably much, much higher. How dare they lecture anyone about the "ethical" treatment of animals!

(This is True is a weekly column featuring weird-but-true news stories from around the world, and has been published since 1994. Click the link for info about free subscriptions.)

Define Irony...

Sign a bill into law sends our country into a deficit greater than we have ever seen in our history and doesn't do much to actually "stimulate" our economy, but nationalize our banks, automotive industry, and healthcare as well as give more money to those who are suckling at the shriveled & dried up teat of the government (aka us)...

Then...have a summit on "Fiscal Responsibility."

A Little Socialism from the "Stimulus" Plan

Health care investments ($112.1 billion)

It will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).^[15]

• $87 billion for a temporary increase in the Medicaid matching rate for the states
• $20 billion for health information technology, including electronic medical records to prevent medical mistakes, provide better care to patients and introduce cost-saving efficiencies
• $4.1 billion to provide for preventative care and to evaluate the most effective healthcare treatments.
  

The National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure the doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective so as to reduce costs and “guide” the doctor’s decisions (p.442, 446).

Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties by the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (p.511, 518, 540-541).

The Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research ($1.1 billion)^[16] (p.190-192) will slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are expensive.

Medicare would apply a cost-effective standard set by the Federal Council for the elderly (p.464).^[17]

Drugs "that are found to be less effective and in some cases, more expensive, will no longer be prescribed."

It approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit.

Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.^[18][19]

^{So....tell me how this will stimulate our economy???}