You can hear the difference. . .

So, I am a big fan of Elton John. Here's a picture of him, to make sure that we are thinking of the same person:








Incidentally, I could have gone my whole life without seeing Elton John in a Donald Duck costume (and you could have too, had you not read this post). However, there is no going back; that time has past. We all have seen it, and it is time for us to just move on.

[The article I ripped this picture out of made me laugh. It's just talking about Elton John's latest trouble related to perversion, and then it includes that picture right in the middle like an illustration. There was no warning, nothing like "Speaking of Elton John, here he is playing the piano dressed as Donald Duck." It just pops it in and carries on as if nothing had happened. "Boom! Here he is!"]

Right, moving on. . . I was just comparing Elton John's song "Believe" with U2's "God Part 2." It's amazing to me that they can say essentially the same words "I believe in Love" and yet mean something completely different.

Elton John is essentially despairing with a smile on his face. Bernie Taupin writes "I believe in love/it's all we've got" and Elton John sees the tragedy. He puts it into a minor key. The kind of love that Elton John wants "don't mean a thing" (cf. "I want Love). This love can't be a reason for joy. It can't really be a reason for anything, if you aren't willing to give anything up for it.

U2 sings about a love that means everything. It's a powerful antidote to all the poisons of the world, and it is a perfect preamble to "Bullet the Blue Sky."

I am suspicious of backpacking

Because Rob and Dane posted their Rhetoric declamations, and mine amused me when I wrote it, I will post mine as well. So, here goes. 

        Mr. Timothy Clemans asserts that “everyone should experience the joys and benefits of backpacking.” The heart of my disagreement with him is this simple truth: not everyone should go backpacking. Sure, it’s great for your health to breathe the fresh clear air, spiced with a hint of moose dung, but what about the other side of this issue? Mr. Clemans’ logic, though full of examples, seems short on practical experience. A dozen people can’t walk through a forest, camp, and leave it better than they found it. It just won’t happen. National parks try to limit human impact on the environment, but with little success. In Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska, the National Park Service reports that nearly 10% of camping sites had severe vegetative damage, while 86% had significant human impact. Mr. Clemans himself told a story that demonstrates this. Once when backpacking, he frightened a bald eagle away from the salmon it had just caught. Though the subsequent meal, the experience, and the scenery were, I am sure, great for Mr. Clemans, the eagle was left without a meal. We can enjoy nature without destroying it by backpacking. 

        In addition, Mr. Clemans says in at least four different ways that camping miles away from civilization is therapeutic. Civilization, I would hasten to point out, includes toilets. If you’ve ever had to take care of business on a cold and wet mountain, you know that “therapeutic” is not the word to describe it. “Fun, physical, and rewarding pastime” indeed. 

Animal Rights

"Animal Rights" has always been one of my pet issues, hahahaha. But seriously now, these animals need some rights.

FACT: Animals can't vote

FACT: Animals don't have the right to free speech (suppose, for example, that a parrot tried to say something other than "Polly Want a Cracker?)

FACT: If I were an animal, I'd shoot myself - if only I had the right to bear arms.

This news video, gets at the heart of the issue.

NB: This video is an "Onion" news article. As with many other "Onions" there is some profanity, and some suggestive commercials at the end. The main video is completely harmless but the 20 sec. after it has a few words (or rather one phrase in particular) that aren't nice. Enjoy.


Should Animals Be Doing More For The Animal Rights Movement?