Thursday, November 12, 2009

So...World's NOT Ending?


Great...so what am I supposed to do with all my stockpiles?

Here's the article from NASA. Although, how much can we trust NASA? Who knows...

2012: Beginning of the End or Why the World Won't End?
11.06.09


Remember the Y2K scare? It came and went without much of a whimper because of adequate planning and analysis of the situation. Impressive movie special effects aside, Dec. 21, 2012, won't be the end of the world as we know. It will, however, be another winter solstice.

Much like Y2K, 2012 has been analyzed and the science of the end of the Earth thoroughly studied. Contrary to some of the common beliefs out there, the science behind the end of the world quickly unravels when pinned down to the 2012 timeline.

Below, NASA Scientists answer several questions that we're frequently asked regarding 2012.

Question (Q): Are there any threats to the Earth in 2012? Many Internet websites say the world will end in December 2012.
Answer (A): Nothing bad will happen to the Earth in 2012. Our planet has been getting along just fine for more than 4 billion years, and credible scientists worldwide know of no threat associated with 2012.



Q: What is the origin of the prediction that the world will end in 2012?
A: The story started with claims that Nibiru, a supposed planet discovered by the Sumerians, is headed toward Earth. This catastrophe was initially predicted for May 2003, but when nothing happened the doomsday date was moved forward to December 2012. Then these two fables were linked to the end of one of the cycles in the ancient Mayan calendar at the winter solstice in 2012 -- hence the predicted doomsday date of December 21, 2012.



Q: Does the Mayan calendar end in December 2012?
A: Just as the calendar you have on your kitchen wall does not cease to exist after December 31, the Mayan calendar does not cease to exist on December 21, 2012. This date is the end of the Mayan long-count period but then -- just as your calendar begins again on January 1 -- another long-count period begins for the Mayan calendar.



Q: Could a phenomena occur where planets align in a way that impacts Earth?
A: There are no planetary alignments in the next few decades, Earth will not cross the galactic plane in 2012, and even if these alignments were to occur, their effects on the Earth would be negligible. Each December the Earth and sun align with the approximate center of the Milky Way Galaxy but that is an annual event of no consequence.



Q: Is there a planet or brown dwarf called Nibiru or Planet X or Eris that is approaching the Earth and threatening our planet with widespread destruction?
A: Nibiru and other stories about wayward planets are an Internet hoax. There is no factual basis for these claims. If Nibiru or Planet X were real and headed for an encounter with the Earth in 2012, astronomers would have been tracking it for at least the past decade, and it would be visible by now to the naked eye. Obviously, it does not exist. Eris is real, but it is a dwarf planet similar to Pluto that will remain in the outer solar system; the closest it can come to Earth is about 4 billion miles.



Q: What is the polar shift theory? Is it true that the earth’s crust does a 180-degree rotation around the core in a matter of days if not hours?
A: A reversal in the rotation of Earth is impossible. There are slow movements of the continents (for example Antarctica was near the equator hundreds of millions of years ago), but that is irrelevant to claims of reversal of the rotational poles. However, many of the disaster websites pull a bait-and-shift to fool people. They claim a relationship between the rotation and the magnetic polarity of Earth, which does change irregularly, with a magnetic reversal taking place every 400,000 years on average. As far as we know, such a magnetic reversal doesn’t cause any harm to life on Earth. A magnetic reversal is very unlikely to happen in the next few millennia, anyway.



Q: Is the Earth in danger of being hit by a meteor in 2012?
A: The Earth has always been subject to impacts by comets and asteroids, although big hits are very rare. The last big impact was 65 million years ago, and that led to the extinction of the dinosaurs. Today NASA astronomers are carrying out a survey called the Spaceguard Survey to find any large near-Earth asteroids long before they hit. We have already determined that there are no threatening asteroids as large as the one that killed the dinosaurs. All this work is done openly with the discoveries posted every day on the NASA NEO Program Office website, so you can see for yourself that nothing is predicted to hit in 2012.



Q: How do NASA scientists feel about claims of pending doomsday?
A: For any claims of disaster or dramatic changes in 2012, where is the science? Where is the evidence? There is none, and for all the fictional assertions, whether they are made in books, movies, documentaries or over the Internet, we cannot change that simple fact. There is no credible evidence for any of the assertions made in support of unusual events taking place in December 2012.



Q: Is there a danger from giant solar storms predicted for 2012?
A: Solar activity has a regular cycle, with peaks approximately every 11 years. Near these activity peaks, solar flares can cause some interruption of satellite communications, although engineers are learning how to build electronics that are protected against most solar storms. But there is no special risk associated with 2012. The next solar maximum will occur in the 2012-2014 time frame and is predicted to be an average solar cycle, no different than previous cycles throughout history.

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Happy Veterans' Day








Thank you to all my loved ones who have served our country so faithfully and sacrificially. I am proud and honored to know you.

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Kabbalah Girl Power

This is from the Babylonian Talmud, a widely used 4th century Kabbalah text.

See how marvelous is a good woman! For it is in her that the Divine Will is exemplified.

Sunday, October 25, 2009

Mysteries


All the greater and wiser thinkers, even if they be not Christians, believe that the reason in man, instead of rejecting all this is deep and mysterious, cannot be satisfied without mysteries; that the reason requires truths which are above itself, just as the eye delights in looking upon an immense expanse of sea and sky.

-F.D. Maurice

Friday, October 23, 2009

Anniversary!

Today is Matt's and my 16th anniversary! Happy anniversary, sweetie!

I can honestly say that marrying my husband was the best thing I've ever done. I'm a better person because I'm with him than I could have been without him. It hasn't been perfect, and there were a few rocky years, especially in the beginning, but I wouldn't change anything. Even the difficult stuff made us closer and stronger.

I hear other women complain about the men in their lives, and I certainly know that some men can't be trusted or depended upon. And some men leave human destruction in the wake of all they do...things that their daughters and sons will be paying for for generations. I see it, hear it, know that it's out there, but it's very far from my experience. There's nobody in the world I trust more or enjoy more than my husband.

I do a lot of premarital and marital counseling, and one thing I tell my couples is that marriage can be everything you're dreaming of right now. It can be that ideal of friendship, support and passion that we all go into it hoping for. It doesn't happen overnight and it doesn't happen on its own, but it can happen. And it gets better every year.

And, it's not even 1:00 and it's already been a great day. Life is so good.

I love you, sweetie.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Would You Rather...

The youth group at my church has a book that's full of "Would You Rather" questions. Some of them are kind of goofy, but some are pretty thought-provoking. So, here's today's question:

Would you rather be rich or famous?

This seems like a no-brainer to me. I mean, what's fame for, if it's not to ensure wealth? What's the point of being a famous poor person?

So, obviously, I would rather be rich, if those were my choices. If I were rich, then I could quit my jobs and Matt and I could work on our books (which are terribly hard to complete when have to keep leaving the computer to go to work...) and then we could get famous that way.

But we don't particularly want to be famous, anyway. We mostly just want to be left alone. I don't really need to be rich, either--all I want is to have enough with some occasional extras: a night out, a vacation, a book or CD bought on the spur of the moment...

So, what do y'all think? Would you rather be rich or famous?

Friday, October 9, 2009

Is This a Joke?


When my sweetie woke me up this morning with the ominous words, "There have been some overnight developments," I had no idea. He said, "President Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize."

I kind of snorted and said, "Yeah, right."

He said, "That was my first reaction, too. I read it on Yahoo, and I had to check the header to make sure I hadn't accidentally gone to The Onion."

I was still kind of sleepy, so I said, "It's not true. Someone has made a mistake or something."

He said, "No, it's true," and he turned on NPR. Steve Inskeeep was in the middle of saying, "...this prize will be controversial to many who do not feel his accomplishments have merited it..."

I was awake then. "For what?" I sorta shrieked. "What has he actually done?"

"Apparently," said my sweetie, "it's for bringing hope to the world and promising to work with other nations. They actually decided it just a couple of weeks after he took office."

"So he gets the Nobel Peace Prize for running for president?" I snapped (as though it were sweetie's fault--he gets to take a lot of my irritation with public figures). "He gets a Nobel Peace Prize for campaign promises?"

Sweetie nodded glumly. "I feel like I've fallen into Wonderland."

He's not the only one. This article, from the Times, says pretty much the same thing. The headline reads: Absurd Decision on Obama Makes a Mockery of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Ya think?



The award of this year’s Nobel peace prize to President Obama will be met with widespread incredulity, consternation in many capitals and probably deep embarrassment by the President himself.

Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration, approval for the election of America’s first black president and hope that Washington will honour its promise to re-engage with the world.

Instead, the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronising in its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely begun his period in office, let alone achieved any tangible outcome for peace.





I can only hope that the president will be embarrassed by this. If he has any class, and integrity, he will decline this award and express his intention to earn it at a later date. I don't have any confidence that he will do that, though, especially after reading this from ABC News:



The president will travel to Oslo in December to accept the prize in person, the White House confirmed.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, who woke the president to tell him the news, said Obama was "humbled."

White House press aides said they had heard from news reports weeks ago that the president was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize but they do not believe Obama himself knew of his nomination. The deadline for nominations is Feb. 1, meaning the president was nominated after being in office for just 11 days.




Has everything lost meaning? The Committee guy told Diane Sawyer today:



"President Obama has changed very dramatically international politics," Lundestad told "GMA's" Diane Sawyer today. "We feel he has emphasized multilateral diplomacy, he has addressed international institutions, dialogue negotiations. He has inspired the world with his vision of a world without nuclear arms. He has changed the U.S. policy dramatically. There's a whole list."




So, he's getting a Nobel Peace Prize for not being George Bush. Wow, I'm not George Bush, either, do I get one next?