All of this studying of genetics is really bogging me down this morning...so here's a rambling post...but what else is new?
Had my Midterm Conference yesterday afternoon, which was surreal. I was told I had the potential to be an amazing writer one day, I had the creativity which cannot be taught, but I needed to start thinking. What a concept. I thought I was in college to daydream. Muah. My real problem with writing - and I don't know if it is a PROBLEM per se, but totally an issue. I have a very creative mind that about a dozen miles a minute, with dozens of things going on up there at one time. ADD - no. I'm too lazy for that. Bipolar - hmm...quite a possibility. I think I'm just nuts...seriously.
I was reading the Illinois Times online this morning, and I came across the fact that our dear Governor wants to change the age limit for tatoos from 18 to 21. Hmm...that's what we need a bunch of drunk kids going out to get their 1st tats on their 21st birthday. I hope you don't think that I'm anti-tatoo...I'm not. I have a lovely music note anklet on my right ankle...I love it. Yeah, painful...but very "me". My next endeavor will be either a shamrock or a celtic cross on my back. Yes, Dr. Zoom - feel free to comment on that one :)
Granted, I have not lived in Illinois for nearly 9 years now, but I just find it funny that Rod B. only decides to actually do things for the state when it's election year. Is it just me?
Hell, I seriously have no idea what I'm saying...back to genetics...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Just as long as the new tat isn't on the small of your back. 'Cause you know what THAT means!
Legislation is running amuck. I just read that Springfield is about to become a no-smoking city -- even in bars!
And soon, no drinking and no talking.
LMAO - touche, Dr. Zoom.
Like freaking Springfield is NYC or LA or something. Give me a break.
And we have Gov. Benetrichos to blame for all of this amuckness...
Yeah, Dr. Zoom... it means "bullseye". :)
Anyway...
As far as your writing, Kimmy, my dear, it's nothing I haven't already told you before.
No tats unless you're 21? Statewide? It'll never pass. Chicago alone won't let that happen. Rest easy.
A Non-smoking Springfield? Surely you jest.
I agree with you Micah. On the one hand there ought'a be some consistancy. On the other hand, it's those pesky state governments that think they can make their own laws that's mucking it up.
Oh, let's not get going on pot. That could be another blog altogether.
Even as a smoker, I'm all for banning of smoking in public places. The Hepworths are the "Cancer Family", and I'm all about smoking reformation. Sounds crazy, eh? But that's me.
Micah said...
...just a heads up, alcohol is also more harmful than pot.
And that is my point. People who go to a bar are assumedly going to participate in an activity they know is hazardous to their health. Why the concern for their health as it pertains to smoking? Why not just ban alcohol from bars?
Ooooh, I may be poking a hornet's nest here, Micah, but ... um... I gotta "Go to the tote" on this one here. There's actually no conclusive evidence that second hand smoke is as dangerous as you might be led to believe.
Personally, I'm a considerate smoker. I'll gladly sit in a non-smoking section, or even a non-smoking restuarant. I'll even stand down wind so it won't blow on your clothes. I, for the most part, generally have no problem with non-smoking buildings (although, having a beer or various other drinks and not smoking is a bit rough on this smoker). But the plain and simple truth is, the chances are very remote, in fact they're downright improbable, that you will incur any sort of cancer if I sat next to you and smoked a cigarette.
Micah, thanks for the link. To be honest, I find all of this very facinating since there are so many conflicting reports floating around out there.
I'm willing to bet you and I are very similarly minded people. Similarly minded, in that we're probably both scientifically minded. As being scientifically minded folks, we try and absorb as much data as we can to accurately draw a comparitive conclusion to ... well, whatever it is we're talking about.
As such, I'll return the favor of your link with another link in the intrest of considering all the data involved. As far as this whole subject goes, I really don't think anyone is neccessarrily right or wrong until I see some hard, thoroughly proven scientific data (not just arbitrary statistics). That means, from my end of things at least, I like to have all my bases covered.
Anyway, here's the link. :)
http://www.nycclash.com/triplerisk.html#Arteries
Post a Comment