38th Anniversary!
Today is the Wedding Anniversary of listener and her Sweetie!! = ♥♥ =
38 years and still going strong! The bride carried a single white rose and a white Bible.
38 years and still going strong! The bride carried a single white rose and a white Bible.
listener and her squeeze are first. Of course, so is Howard! Nice combo, that.
ReplyDeleteWell OKAY!! The Supreme Court has upheld the Affordable Care Act. Not a huge suprise to me, but really, really nice to have it settled.
ReplyDeleteApparently the crucial point is that although what you pay if you choose not have healthcare coverage -- to freeload on the general public -- is described as a "penalty," it's really a tax. And Congress has power to levy such taxes.
Bill, I actually cried when I heard. Guess I didn't have that much faith in the Supremes, lol!
ReplyDeleteAw, thanks puddle! ♥♥
ReplyDeleteYES, OKAY!! So grateful to Chief Justice Roberts for the Anniversary gift!!! :-D
No need to go that far, listener.
DeleteHere's the article about the Supreme decision: http://www.vpr.net/news_detail/94999/high-court-upholds-key-part-obama-health-law/
ReplyDeleteI forgot how to make links clickable.
ReplyDeleteCan someone repost the instructions?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-B7ulxxftwqk/T7-fFAOY_UI/AAAAAAAAHI4/RlnEUWEoCw8/s1600/LINK.GIF
Deletelistener, this is a screen capture, because if you try and type it out, the software thinks it is REAL HTML. . . . I tried doing it with spaces, like the &hearts instructions, and it doesn't work.
Crisis of the day: Lost reading/computer glasses. There's always something!
ReplyDeleteBTW that's a gorgeous rose, listener.
ReplyDeleteHope you and your sweetie have been enjoying a nice day.
You know, there's a lesson in the multi-staff printing business; namely, solutions may be simpler than one expects.
ReplyDeleteI've been agonizing to the point of making myself sick over the conundrum of Mark's machine. But what if the solution is simple? We are dealing with quanta here, items which may obey certain rules but which are, by their very nature, unpredictable.
Mark builds his machine with the intention of sending Cat back in time to try and prevent the accident. He isn't altogether sure of the outcome, but he's pretty confident it will work. And, if it doesn't, he will have tried and afterwards he can finally declare himself to Cat.
That's what he tells her, well, not the second part, and that's what she expects. But the first time she has contact with the machine - it's a quantum field generator really - is on the day of the experiment. She herself provides the unknown, the destabilizing factor. She wants so fervently for the accident never to have happened, that her thought patterns or whatever are strong enough to influence the quantum field. She goes back as intended, but she also goes to a timeline in which the accident didn't happen. Mark is able to bring her forward to their present, but still in that other timeline.
It requires a lot of hand waving, but the idea is at least more or less plausible. It is said that the observer influences the outcome, and how much more so a participant? Anyone reading the story will know at once that I'm no more a quantum physicist than I'm a figure skater or opera singer. But, if a quantum flux engine or field generator were possible, surely it would be unpredictable in, well, unpredictable ways.
Sounds good *to me* Cat! Now if Bill and Alan agree, you're more than good to go, lol!
DeleteAnd glad you found your glasses!
I don't actually believe in a person's mental state influencing quantum events. But sufficiently adriot handwaving could probably enable suspension of disbelief.
DeleteWhat I don't quite understand at the moment is the relation between the Marks in the two timelines.
Bill, you just made me see a huge discrepancy I missed before. Thank you.
DeleteTalking these things over with friends is such a help!
Found glasses!
ReplyDeleteLol! Shutting down for the third time today, this guy decided to go for the gold. Tried three times before succeeding. And managed to flip every whistle available. Got a "sign in as owner" alert, which disappeared to an enormous fanfare, and then a couple more sounds I didn't recognize. And then back to: NONE OF THIS EVER HAPPENED. In all took half an hour to shut down. Good he doesn't have far to go. . . .
ReplyDeleteNew Computer has a provisional name, though I've noticed they're like dogs: you *try* and somehow it ends up not fitting, so you keep trying until one takes. Name, so far, is Clementine. . . . My car's named The Beautiful Ludmilla (from a Russian Folk Tale, and my butterflies). Did someone once say you don't own something until it has a name?
Interesting idear, that.
ReplyDeleteI don't know how much constitutional law expertise Socca has. Of course, I'm not constitutional lawyer myself. But the entire discussion of the Commerce Clause strikes me as dicta -- things that the court says that are not directly relevant to the actual decision rendered. And dicta do not have the force of law.
ReplyDeletePuddle, how's the energy ball thingy working with Stevie?
ReplyDeleteI've been thinking of trying it on Vivie. She was alarmingly out of it yesterday, though she seems better today. Still, I'm vaguely uneasy about her. Nothing I can put my finger on, she just doesn't seem her usual perky self.
So, you form the energy ball between your hands. Then what? How exactly do you apply it to the cat?
You spread your hands far enough apart to put "around" the cat. Right at the very edges of their fur. Then slowly move the paired hands around, keeping the body of the cat in between them. I focused on his back, hind legs, and head (I figure a lot of the problem is crappy nerve/connections). Also a top/bottom connection with the heart between them. And yes, it still seems to be working. I try and keep my hands close, but if you have to raise them some to move to a difference place, it doesn't seem to matter.
DeleteThanks. I'll give it a try.
DeleteSo glad it seems to me working!
listener, not only a lovely rose, but a really stunning picture!
ReplyDeletePrayers, please: the escape artist's been gone for almost two hours. Came close once, and ran again -- I'm trying NOT to make this a game for him. I don't LIKE playing this game. . . .
ReplyDeletePrayers ensuing!
ReplyDeleteGREAT Anniversry!
I got the results of my y-chromosome DNA typing back, and after thinking about it for a while I think there is only one credible explanation. My father's mother told part of the story--how she and her identical twin sister impersonated one another in their respective husbands' beds as a lark. What she didn't say was that she got pregnant, the truth was discovered, both marriages broke up and all the people involved dispersed. The alleged father whose family name I carry was apparently made up; there is essentially zero geographic overlap with his family name origin and my Y-DNA haplotype; ditto for my grandmother's husband. But there is a very strong geographic overlap between the DNA markers and the family name of her sister's husband. It's a rather amazing discovery to make a century after the event and despite a decades-long deliberate attempt to cover it up. A lot to get my mind around. I am searching one more place where there might be relevant contemporaneous records.
ReplyDelete--Alan in CA
I hadn't caught that it means your last name is actually something else. However, your last name is legally as it is, since any of us can legally change our name. You just have one name and another genealogy. But it's your own unique history.
DeleteHow are you feeling about it all? Maybe give yourself some time for the emotions to find their place and emerge in articulation. Meanwhile, you have my empathy! ♥
Alan, I can see where twins might do that for a lark, not foreseeing the havoc it would play with all four lives if they were discovered. I'm so sorry for all concerned, including you. It must be wrenching to discover you aren't who you thought you were.
DeleteAt the same time, you remain you, no matter what your antecedents turn out to be. Trite though it sounds, you are special. You are the only you there is. I'm sure I speak for everyone here in saying we don't care how it happened, we're just glad to have you here.
Alan, it could be worse, really. I get to live with a grandmother who becoming widowed, took her baby with her, and remarried. Abandoning TEN other children (the youngest, my mother, was three years old). The eldest took care of the littlest. They dropped out of school (my aunt in sixth grade) to do so. As they married, each took a younger sibling into that marriage. This was 1920, and so far as I am aware, NO social service agencies of any kind, and NO church help was available. The eldest ended up in a mental hospital (schizophrenia) for life. Looking at their lives, I'm amazed they all survived, and most became sterling citizens. More amazing to me as I was growing up was that they took care of her in her last thirty years of decline/early senility. If ever a mother deserved abandonment, as far as I could see, it was her. They took turns, starting with two years each, shortening to six months as she got worse. She lived until 86. . . . I *still* can't wrap my head around it.
DeleteOh, dear, I thought I had credited the photo. It isn't mine. I snagged it from the internets, having Googled "single white rose" and finding this with no copyright issue.
ReplyDeleteI added the credit to the front page.
ReplyDelete