For What Shall a Man Sell His Soul?

Answer: A Google ad spot. This seems like every college student's dream. Why struggle to find a job to pay for your school in addition to your already manic schedule when, with a goose-quil pen and a few drops of your life's blood, your blog that is a favorite hobby to post upon can generate some modest revenue. I guess making money off of a personal blog is like gun laws: Why enforce something new that no one shall take seriously since all that you need is already at your fingertips if you would only use it. The logic is no different for blogging. Why waste time at a mediocre occupation trying to support yourself as a full-time student when you can just manipulate a previously existing hobby to rake in some muy much wanted wampum? If the ads seem tasteless to you, don't blame me . . . it's just the stupid artificial intelligence that Google uses match ads with my postings. I'll just use the word "match" one more time to see if that ridiculous dating service, e-hormoney.com turns up as a hot link. Ah, yes! I can see it now: SWM w/ nil social skills seeking same in SWF. Preferably from Australia. That one's for you, Pecadillo.

Digging Up Frodo?

Holbytlan in Indonesia? I know this sounds pretty wierd but this story comes from CNN.com: Bone of Hobbit-like species uncovered Tuesday, October 11, 2005; Posted: 4:12 p.m. EDT (20:12 GMT) AP) -- Scientists say they have found more bones in an Indonesian cave that offer additional evidence of a second human species -- short and hobbit-like -- that roamed the Earth the same time as modern man. But the vocal scientific minority that has challenged that conclusion since the discovery of Homo floresiensis was announced last year remains unconvinced. The discovery of a jaw bone, to be reported in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature, represents the ninth individual belonging to a group believed to have lived as recently as 12,000 years ago. The bones are in a wet cave on the island of Flores in the eastern limb of the Indonesian archipelago, near Australia. In 2004, scientists announced their original, sensational discovery of a delicate skull and partial skeleton of a female, nicknamed "Hobbit" and believed to be 18,000 years old. In addition, they found separate bones and fragments of other individuals ranging in age from 12,000 to 95,000 years old. The findings have ignited a controversy unlike any other in the often-contentious study of human origins. The tiny bones have enchanted many anthropologists who accept the interpretation that these diminutive skeletons belonged to a remnant population of prehistoric humans that were marooned on Flores with dwarf elephants and other miniaturized animals, giving the discovery a kind of fairy tale quality. If true, the discovery grafts a strange and tangled evolutionary branch near the very top of the human family tree. The conventional view of human evolution is that several types of primitive ape-like ancestors appeared and faded over a span of about 4.5 million years. Modern Homo sapiens developed about 100,000 years ago, and quickly overtook other large-brained competitors like Homo erectus and Neanderthals. Modern humans wer

Honorable Scars

Just to let anyone who frequents this blog know that if I'm not always posting here, check out my other blog: Fides et Spero - Faith and Hope

Duel of the Fates, er, I Meant Blogs

Just to let anyone who frequents this blog know that if I'm not always posting here, check out my other blog: Fides et Spero - Faith and Hope

O Autumn, Where Art Thou?

It should've begun by now. Arriving with a sudden, crisp chill in the air. Hot chocolate should be an appetizing necessity by now. I would finally have the proper weather for wearing some specimens from my collection of hoodies and lumberjack flannel shirts. Yet here we are, sweltering through a mild heat wave, with a complimentary firestorm on the side. The only leaves that have turned yellow and fallen are the scorched ones. Wait, wait, this is Southern California. Even the seasons hava a lazy, no-hurries--no-worries surfer attitude. I keep having to be reminded. Well, if the seasons are having a slow (and awkward) transition, that's still no excuse to slack off of changes. Among which are a new sign-off image and a new link: scottzeller.com, blog of our recently departed ASB President, now local seminary student, and an all around Texan theologian extrodinaire. Scott was also the Best Man at a friends' wedding last week: Megan Morrow & Clint Ochoa. Best Man, hmmm. Scott must have used a fair amount of restraint to keep from stepping forward and saying, "Why do you call me the best? No one is good except God alone!" I have yet to figure out why the groom is called "the right man," etc. and yet isn't "the best man." Are we implying that the bride is getting her just desserts, that the man who is right for her is not the best for her? What kind of a slur is that upon the bride's decision of marriage? The groom is not the wrong man, he is the right man. Yet, even though he is the right man, he's still not the best man? This is another non sequitur that just pretzels my brain from time to time. I think that the title "Best Man" should be deposed and something like "Darn Fine Chap," or "Pretty Good Man" should take its place. Perhaps an acronymn could do the job: MEMATC - Most Eligible Man After The Ceremony, or MBTGAR - Middleman Between The Groom And Ringbearer. Other suggestions are fully welcome.