Sorry, you're not real.

Today I learned that there were saber-toothed squirrels in Argentina. Which is pretty cool because I'm writing a story that features squirrels the size of corgis.

I also learned the sad news that a couple from a TV show I don't watch lost a child. Well, their surrogate did. Both Dr. Jennifer Arnold and Bill Klein are little people, that is, they have a condition that causes dwarfism. They want children, but, out of concern for Jennifer's health, opted to have an embryo implanted in a surrogate mother, who would carry it through pregnancy. Very sadly, she had a miscarrige. They're devastated and so are those who were watching them and showing their support. This is my virtual hug to them. *hug*

And the rest of this post has nothing to do with them; I know nothing about their opinion on adoption, and respect them regardless. This post is inspired by the comment section of the article.

"Why would they want some stranger's kid when they are young enough to have their own, no matter what?  If you feel that way, why don't YOU go adopt one???"- superdogs

I don't know why I even read comments on news articles. Most people who comment online do it because if they stated their opinions out loud they would have no friends. It's usually pointless to reply to them because they are ignorant and therefore don't need to alter their opinions. (I am ignorant sometimes. Sorry. Per my advice here, just ignore me in those cases.)

What is it with adoption? Here is a short history: for thousands of years babies died because people had no medical knowledge. Then we had medical knowledge and tons of babies sitting around in orphanages. Now we can let other people grow our babies for us, so we can have a biological child (which is great if you have good genes) and let someone else deliver it. And that's fine. But the orphanages are still there.

"A lot of adopted kids are angry because their original parents gave them up for some reason.  Have you ever talked to an adopted child?  Have you seen how many horrible families are granted adoption rights and all they do is abuse their child?" - lavender2569

I've heard stories of many people who, like Arnold and Klein, have to go through extremely long and heartbreaking processes in order to have biological children. It's a natural desire, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting or having biological children.

Some people don't want to adopt because it's not "real". Real children come out of your own uterus. It's just not the same. And I'm sure it isn't. Difference, however, does not make something a less desirable choice. No, you won't have a direct genetic bond with an adopted child. People put too much stock in genetic relationships anyway. Choosing to love someone is worth a thousand times more than assuming that you love someone by virtue of your comparative DNA.

"You just don't get it....somepeople want their OWN  child, not a non-relative! Why don't YOU go adopt some foster-care kid?" - superdogs

 As I mentioned in my last post, there are now 7 billion people in the world. Some of those people do not have families to take care of them. Thousands are able to join families that are as real as anyone else's. Many, however, will not have that privilege because people who could have loved them did not think they were "real".

I'm still in college, and I can barely take care of myself. Someday, though, I want to adopt. (I checked, and apparently I'm not allowed to adopt everyone.) I will make my genetically-dissimilar children lasagna, take them to museums, and, if I'm not a total failure as a parent, hook them on Doctor Who and Narnia. And they will be real.

Happy birthday!

So someone said that the seventh billion person alive is going to be born today. I was hoping that it would be me, but apparently having been born previously precludes me from that honor.

Just a minute ago I became curious as to approximately how many people have ever lived on earth. My search ninja skills brought me to the Population Reference Bureau, who estimate* that around 107,602,707,791 people have been born. The current population count they have is just under 7 billion, so I took the liberty of adding the difference, and that gives us 107,615,707,791. Yes, some of the numbers are different.

Happy birthday,  107,615,707,791st person ever! I got you this blog post.

*They use the word "guesstimate" which never fails to creep me out. Is it a guess? Is it an estimate? Is it a silly buzzword? Ding ding ding!

Okay then

I just had to share this:

Talk-show host Oprah Winfrey today celebrated the opening of her first church and the founding of her new religion, titled O, The Oprah Religion.  The multi-tasking Oprah will serve as pontiff and deity for both.“Expanding on Her enormously successful enterprises in television, film, the web, and Her magazine, Oprah Winfrey brings Her positive, motivational spirit to one of the most highly anticipated new religions since Scientology,” explained spokesperson and new Archbishop for the church, Gayle King, in a press conference in Chicago today.
“O, The Oprah Religion gives confident, smart women the tools they need to explore and reach for their dreams, to express their individual style, and to make choices that will lead to a happier and more fulfilling afterlife.”
“In addition, we’ve eliminated the regressive prohibitions - such as those against shrimp, clothing made of mixed fibers, and premarital sex - that older, outmoded religions still cling to, but which no longer fit in with the lifestyles of their congregations.  In fact, Oprah loves to share a shrimp cocktail with her live-in life partner while wearing stretch-wool slacks!  Now, with O, The Oprah Religion, you can do the same, and without the threat of everlasting damnation!”

More: http://davismcdavis.xanga.com/197822930/oprah-winfrey-opens-church-founds-religion/

The funniest part, though, is the comment section.

There won't be any shortage of converts to 'O'! Wasn't it P T Barnum who famously said that every minute a sucker is born? And there are suckers aplenty in Uncle Sam's country!

 Yes. Yes there are.

I am going to miss you all...

Why will I miss you? Because this is some sort of April Fools' Day prank and I'm going to tell you that I'm taking a hiatus from the internet to focus more on the real world? Don't be ridiculous. Soon there will be no real world anymore, because the earth is going to be destroyed by an asteroid. It will be here in four days. It was nice knowing you all.

April Fools! (Although, if the world is destroyed by an asteroid in four days, do not blame me.) I love April Fools' Day. I don't know why. It's just fun seeing what Google and the gang do every year to "fool" people (and also fun, though a bit sad, to see how many people actually fall for such jokes as "Gmail Motion"). Even my classes had some April Fools' pranks today. It's just a fun day to be silly.

Some people, however, do not understand the purpose of this sacred day. They seem to think that April Fools' Day is about calling out pranksters.

"BREAKING NEWS! Herds of giant fish stampeding Botswana!"
commenter1: "lol wut is dis fer realz?"
commenter2: "April Fools! Haha! You are so gullible!"

NO.

It is supposed to go like this:

"BREAKING NEWS! Herds of giant fish stampeding Botswana!"
commenter1: "lol wut is dis fer realz?"
commenter2: "OMG! We're all going to die!!!!!!!"

The official April Fools' Rules dictate that if a witness to an April Fools' Day hoax such as this realizes that it is obviously an April Fools' Day joke, then they are bound by international law (which is sadly unenforced, much like the law against naming continents after famous cartographers) to play along with the joke. It's only common sense! Once you tell the gullible masses the obvious truth, it is no longer any fun. The only fun thing is being smug about having a healthy skepticism, which fades quite quickly because that's a pretty average ability. But if you play along, you might actually convince someone that giant fish are indeed invading Botswana, or that you can actually control the internet with your mind. And then you'll have a million people staring at their monitors trying to search Google for "Helvetica" telepathically.

I love April Fools' Day. If the earth is not destroyed by an asteroid, I'm looking forward to next year's pranks. Now, if only I can convince my school to say that Dining Services is being bought out by McDonalds.

Why I Really Should Never Ever Read Book Reviews

Have you ever noticed that there is always someone who is not happy? I could give everyone in the world free pancakes and then get hate mail the next day because one of the pancakes was burned and another one tasted like paprika. An angry group would probably threaten to shoot me, others would try to cast out pancake demons from me, and one guy would send me a picture of a bunny with a pancake on its head.

Media are similar to pancakes in this respect. I can read a fantastic book, then look it up on Amazon and catch a glimpse of a scathing review that completely disagrees with my perception of it. Then I feel like I’m a literary imbecile who would probably read any trash. I feel tempted to pore over the book searching for the terrible writing that the reviewer blathered on about. But I don’t really care.

One example is my current book, The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene, which I think is a fantastic book on physics, and quite accessible to the average reader, but upon reading reviews I discovered that apparently some people have completely different definitions of science and literature than I do (fortunately, most of the reviews were good, so I still love this book and highly recommend it).

A particularly embarrassing example is The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown, which I read in nearly one sitting on my way back to school after Christmas break. It was an exhilarating read, but when I looked it up online I found that most of the reviews were not about its shoddy historical claims (seriously, people have written dozens of books “debunking” it when anyone who knows how to use a computer can, in less than a minute, find a host of factual errors from the book), but rather about how terrible the writing was. And upon further reflection, I could see why they would think that. I still kind of like it, but in a way, reading those reviews ruined the book for me.

No matter how much I personally enjoy a book, someone, somewhere, is going to vehemently disagree with me. So, I have resolved to never read a negative book review again. I might read a positive one, but only if I’m sure that the reviewer isn’t only being positive because the book is good for fuel. Because books are important to me, and I’m not going to let anyone else ruin them for me no matter how bad they think the writing is. Even if the literary world suffocates under the weight of bloated prose. So there.

I Do Beleive

I’m sure you’re probably hyperventilating right now, but don’t worry. That typo in the title was completely intentional. All shall be explained.

It is snowing today. But that is not what I am writing about. Neither does it have anything to do (as far as I can tell) with the typo in the title.

Today’s reading assignment for Western Heritage was selected pages from “The Freedom of a Christian” by Martin Luther. A simple reading assignment, however, led to an astoundingly pointless chain of events.

I had ordered a book online for a significantly lower price, but had not yet arrived in the mail. I went to the bookstore to see if I could find a used copy that was on sale, but the only copies they had were new, and almost twenty dollars. I then debated the pros and cons of buying a copy of a book that I already (sort of) owned just to use it for two days, after which I would no longer be able to return it to the bookstore, and would end up with two copies.

I decided to see if they had a copy in the library. What luck! I checked it out and read the required pages, but it was rather confusing, because the page numbers assigned didn’t delineate any logical sections of the book. I decided that it must simply be a different edition of the book.

Fortunately, I got to class ten minutes early. As soon as I walked into the sparsely populated classroom, I sensed that something was terribly wrong, and my backpack seemed to grow heavier. As my eyes fell upon the few other students who were early, I felt confusion, and then more confusion, and then pure frustration. I had read the wrong book. And I owned the correct book. I immediately turned around and headed for the dorm, which was about 10 minutes away at a comfortable pace. I passed both of my Western Heritage teachers while I was speed-walking back to my room. One of them commented with a grin that I was going the wrong way, and I said something about having forgotten my book. Little did he know (may he never read this post) that I had literally forgotten all about my book.

I only got to class a few minutes late, fortunately. Unfortunately, I came back to a quiz for which I was completely unprepared. I’m pretty sure that I didn’t get a single question right. However, one quiz will not hurt my grade too much, so I’m not terribly worried.

After class we got back a pile of our papers from last semester that had been graded. As I looked over them, I flickered between elation (Thank goodness I mentioned Plato’s rationalism!) and despair (How on earth could I write “beleive” instead of “believe”? How could I ignore my spell checker’s fervent warnings?). See, I told you I’d explain the title. Isn’t it clever how I tied it all together?

I did notice one mistake that my teacher made, however. That comma was correctly placed, thank you. I didn’t mention anything about it to him, though; somehow I get the feeling that nobody else really cares about commas.