Friday, October 20, 2017

@JimJefferies ) True #Creation: when the Combination is #GreaterThanTheSumofitsParts ( @AdamConover @VerhoevensTweet

I woke up early this morning, so I watched a few shows ... and maybe had a 'revelation' (or two or three) from watching:
  • First was Adam Ruins Everything—Adam Conover, revealing that most (especially 'New Age') medicine is reliant on The Placebo Effect ... so-much-so that The Placebo Effect is actually a crucial part of standard medical practice (right up there with The Immune System).
  • 1990's Total Recall ... there's the brain-stuff to meditate-on, but it really reminded me of something I learned from ...
    • Data (the Android) in STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION ... he said that 'you aren't really "sucked out into space" when the space-ship is open, so much as you are "pushed."'

      Maybe that's good to keep in mind (if you're ever in that situation), but I think the actual truth is somewhere in between—nature seeks a balance, and all the 'loose particles' (which includes you) are "balanced out" of the space-ship ... the same way water shoots out of an aquarium's window if a hole is blasted through the glass.
    • Kind of like The DOCTOR WHO Doctor studying the universe-map at 'The Shadow Proclamation' (about 15 minutes in)
  • And Jim Jefferies talked about the news
    • the Harvey Weinstein trouble—it's not "good" or "excusable" that Weinstein was 'taking care of his problems' the way he did, but–like with ALL 'powerful' men who did sick-sick-sick things that have hurt people (Stefani "Lady Gaga" Germanotta's PTSD was the result of such sickness)–there may have been some 'good' that Harvey was able to give us as a result of the bad (?)

      Don't get me wrong; no one should ever do the terrible things that Harvey should still pay for having done (and not just the "million-per-violation" that was in his contract, but the reputation-payment that's being rendered in all the minds that see the Internet!) But neither should anyone hear about 'the terrible things' unless they are personally involved in some way (because Weinstein did some high-quality work in Hollywood, and I don't want people to think any-less of those works just because they were written by "a guy who does that kind of thing to women").
    • 'fake news'—media has ALWAYS BEEN make-believe ... from the drawings on cave-walls to the bedtime-storytelling to the stage-dramas to the radio to the television to the movies to the Internet itself.

      e.g. Yes, I'm a real person thinking these things and typing them into Blogspot's database; but once I click "Publish," it's totally virtual—'0's & '1's stored in a file on Blogspot's computer. The code is called-up and sent to your ISP, who sends it to your computer, which interprets it back into the words and ideas I think I'm writing.

      You read those words and understand what I think I witness & process & understand & communicate, and see if that matches with what what you know was witnessed & processed & understood & communicated before; and THAT is where you find 'real news.'
Thinking of a few of those things all at once, a couple 'NEW ideaS' come to mind—that "news" isn't necessarily 'truth,' but is just 'new things.' The 'good news' of the Gospel is not good because it's "true"; it is true, but the main reason you believe it's true is because you believe the people who tell you about it and it brings you peace-of-mind. (That's the Placebo Effect—not only is the news actually true, but you feel like it's true.)

You Create The News

The true sense of the word "Create" (Creation) is "to Grow, Make, Bring Forth, Produce, Beget."

Sunday, October 8, 2017

Thou Shalt Bow to No Other 'Vlogs' before @JaclynGlenn, the Origin of All Ideas Ever! (pshh)

... because her topics are soo 'unimaginable to anyone but her!'—ideas like "paying for services from a business and commenting on those services" ... how ever shall we repay her for such an unconceived-of concept!

She's a relatively-new atheist (I think ... you may want to check on that); but you can see how she echoes 'the being she knows is imaginary,' who said to his followers "Thou shalt bow to no other gods before me." And you can see where he & She are coming-from—one originally creates something & places it in public, one naturally wants to be the only one whom the creation's users thank for the creation.

I remember the early `00's, when I was carrying-around a new cell-phone and 'impressing my friends' with its 'hyper-connectivity' ('e-mail without a computer!' ... wowee 👀); here it is the late `10's, and I'm for-some-reason not receiving a percentage of every digital device sold!

@BobSchieffer Reminds Us that a Journalist is #Responible for More than 'a Journal,' & He Declares a New Era

You know that 'print journalism' has evolved from 'the one town-paper & the handful of major TV-networks' to 'the thousands of sources fed to your Facebook-"news feed" and the hundreds of TV-channels available.'* Bob Schieffer compares it to 'the invention of the printing-press,' mostly to remind us of the decades of religious warfare that followed that event.

... the religious warfare that was/is resolved when the
 dangerous invention is tamed by Responsible Journalists!

The Journalists' job–says the well-known news-professional–is not just 'to journal their perceptions,' but to verify leaders' messages (be they elected- or appointed-officials, musicians, thespians, philosophers or etc.) and to guarantee the messages' veracity!

His new book Overload outlines why Journalists have more responsibilities than 'just journal-ing'—Journalists are 'the lighthouses on the coasts, shining the light to mariners lost in the overwhelming deluge of short-sighted and/or dishonest media-messages.'

The true sense of the word "Responsible" (Respond) is "Back (Re-) + to Pledge (Spondee)" (Accountable for one's Actions, Reliable, Trustworthy, Obligated).

A 'writer/editor of a journal' has no 'obligation' to anyone but themselves; but when that journal is to go through publication, there comes a responsibility to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth—'so help me God'"

The true sense of the word "Publication" (Public) "Make 'Pertinent to the People'."

*Maybe there is/was some 'radio-broadcasting' in that history, but I don't recall Schieffer mentioning it in the interview.

Saturday, October 7, 2017

@StephenAthome @ColbertLateshow, @NickKroll, @Lin_Manuel & I portray The Power of Prayer! #PuertoRicoRelief

No, they didn't do anything "religious" ("gracious" & "charitable," yes; but not verbally claiming to do it 'in the name of a Divine Entity'), but the recent "#PuberMe #PuertoRicoRelief" fundraiser worked in very-much the same way 'prayer' works!
It probably sounds like I'm 'over-complicating it,' but I'm kinda simplifying it from ...

I 'simplify it' like I did, because there's a big misunderstanding of "prayer." I see it constantly on Facebook—troubled-friends asking friends to pray for them, and then coming back when that trouble is over & thanking them for the prayers!

That troubles me. It's great if my friends think their friends' wishes are magical and can help make their own dreams come true–whatever sets their minds at peace–but THAT'S NOT HOW PRAYER WORKS!

How Prayer Works

  • The pray-er hears God's promises.
    • those are mostly 'covenant' promises—sort of "guaranteed contracts," where 'if you fulfill the first term-of-contract, God fulfills the second' ... except there's no "penalty" if God doesn't fulfill God's end, and no 'penalty' if you don't fulfill your end (except that you are less-trusted by the world)
  • The pray-er calls upon the promises and receives the promises' fulfillment.
    • Christians misunderstand this as, "Ask in prayer in Jesus' name, and your wish will be granted!" but the truth is more like 'Fulfill your promises to God, and you'll find the help you need!'
  • That fulfillment feeds the pray-er and his fellow pray-ers, & the blessings overflow!

Friday, October 6, 2017

Why Do We Think #Journalism is #News? @MSNBC @ABC @CBSNews @NewsHour @FoxNews @POTUS @realDonaldTrump

At a recent support-group meeting, the group-leader told us why it's such a good idea for us stroke- and 'brain injury'-survivors to keep journals ... mostly so that 'people can see not only "how our conditions make us look" but also "what our feelings-&-thoughts are about our conditions."'

That makes me think of a couple things (I'm not sure which to discuss
 first): the original writers of The Bible, and the art/science/industry of Journalism.

'Journalism' is a realm inhabited by the users of the first five Twitter-accounts above (and numerous others, including–honestly–the last one-or-two above). I feel I should here make clear 'my understanding' of the difference between "News" & "Journalism." Oh, we get most of our 'news' from 'journalists'; but that doesn't necessarily mean 'they deliver "The News" to us!

If they just 'delivered The News,' we would get bored of it quickly (as it would consist almost-entirely of "'what's-his-name' said 'thus' to 'what's-their-face,' and did 'thusly' with 'what's-her-name,' who said 'thisly' to 'who's-that-guy,' who ... etc.')

What the Journalists do: they 'witness' the news (or 'hear about it from someone they discuss it with'), digest the information, and regurgitate it into the waiting audience.

I suspect that–though they may have every intention of 'doing it in order to help their audience understand the latest political- and sports- and weather- and entertainment-happenings of the day'–they have to include "their personal thoughts and feelings and understandings" in their 'regurgitating the news' ... if only because that's how they're trained to "Journal."

The true sense of the word "Journal" (Journalism, Journalist) is "Account-Book, Day-book" (to Shine ... one who Writes or Edits Public newspapers or journals).

reminds me of 'a ship's Log,' the book in which the captain records (along with the
 crew's activities etc.) the ship's distance
 traveled according to the speed measured by
 tying a Log to a rope, dropping it off the stern & seeing how long it took for the rope to go taut. 

How are we to know the journalists' words are not more than just 'the way they feel about what they heard'? I would guess we know when 'the words of unconnected journalists bring us to the same conclusion,' but–the way today's technology instantly connects everybody to any available source they choose–how do we know any journalist is not 'just repeating the opinions of their fellow journalists'?

I guess we do it by 'judging whether that News makes sense.' But of course, most people can only hear 'a certain number of agreeing opinions' before they decide "it must be true!" (for instance, "homosexuality is a quality of genetics" ... umm, no—at least not according to the scientists' "journals" I've read; but 'people' keep insisting & insisting & insisting that "Science says" that 'homosexuality is a quality of genetics.')

The true sense of the word "News" is "New Things."