The internet is a funny place.
I joined Twitter ages ago. ...Well ages in terms of IST (Internet Standard Time) at least. I had done absolutely nothing with it until a few weeks ago.
I began following some profiles. Two Chester Arthur profiles to be exact. Neither had updated too often or all too recently, but the matter was of principle really. I had chosen to be @chet21fan after all.
It was about this time I realized just how many profiles there are for presidents. With people who either know a bit about them, or at least attempt to be somewhat in character.
With this newfound knowledge, I followed a James Garfield and a Millard Fillmore. More recently, I found an amazing profile: @Mr_Lincoln where someone obsesses over Abe and posts regular updates about the significance of that day in Lincoln's life, how Justin Bieber sucks and people should obsess over a dead president instead, and occasionally some modern political jabbing. Seriously, if you have an account, you should be following him.
I have a funny story about an encounter with Chester Arthur I had a few days ago. He tweeted about how he overheard a conversation where some youths were discussing the gayest president and how his name came up.
Let me take this moment to point out that Chester Arthur was not at all gay. In fact, I suspect he was straighter than half of you reading this. Ellen was a pretty lady. And Chet got it on with her at least enough to have three kids.
I replied to him with the magic of Twitter to tell him to just shout "JAMES BUCHANAN WAS GAY FOR PIERCE'S VICE PRESIDENT," and how it works every time. Historically, it's not technically proven, but just look into it a little. It's basically fact.
I squealed like a teenage girl who had just caught Elvis' scarf... thingy... when Chester Arthur retweeted that and said that he had tried but it didn't work.
So yeah, it was a pretty disappointing conversation.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
"The Listeners" by Walter de la Mare
The Poem's text can be found here
"The Listeners" by Walter de la Mare is a poem telling about a traveller reaching a secluded house and twice knocking on the door, with no answer, before leaving. The event leaves many questions, but still manages to hold a strong theme. De la Mare evokes vivid images of the setting and structures the poem to accentuate the time passing for the traveller as he waits.
At the very beginning, the traveller asks if anyone is there as he knocks on the door. Briefly a description of the surroundings is given before he knocks a second time. Now inside the house is chronicled, with those dwelling in it not answering his calls. Fed up, the traveller loudly proclaims to the house to tell that he was there, but got no answer, and that he kept his word. With that, he left, as the listeners made not a sound and let him go.
The first question this event raises has to do with the traveller's presense. Why was he at this house? What word was he keeping by showing up to this secluded house at night? The poem gives no clue to this, nothing to lead us to possible conclusions. However, we still learn a bit about the traveller as a person. He may be considered an honorable man. Whatever he promised, he has attempted to follow through by showing up to this place.
The next question to consider deals with the titular listeners. Who or what are they? This "host of phantom listeners" is never more deeply described. Are they indeed ghosts, or are they silent men? Are they actually many, or one? Or could a phantom listener be one who doesn't exist at all, and is absent from the building? All we can deduce is that the traveller expects someone or something that he has previously had contact with to be inside.
So this man, the traveller, has come out of his way to this house to keep his word, and is only turned away by the silence of the listeners. He made worthy attempt to keep his end of some bargain, but found it impossible to keep when the door was not opened for him.
Likewise, one must put all reasonable effort into each promise, deal, or relationship he or she has. Then, however honorable, there does eventually come a point at which the effort is no longer worth it. For the traveller, he knocked twice before the effort became unreasonable. After that point, it is only worthwhile to move along in life.
Yes, the traveller could well have stood by that door all night, perhaps through the day, knocking and shouting, waiting for the door to be opened. But with his two attempts, he could be sure that he was not going to get inside. The stillness of the listeners did answer his cries, and he understood that answer told him that he was not to wait around.
The listeners represent the people in life who decent people associate with. When they are faced with an honest attempt to do good, though, they don't allow this to be completed. They prevent it with their silence, by being essentially absent. The theme shows that when one comes across such listeners, one cannot be bothered to wait around forever, and that there are better things to do. It is unwise to waste time reaching to great lengths when there will be no results.
"The Listeners" by Walter de la Mare is a poem telling about a traveller reaching a secluded house and twice knocking on the door, with no answer, before leaving. The event leaves many questions, but still manages to hold a strong theme. De la Mare evokes vivid images of the setting and structures the poem to accentuate the time passing for the traveller as he waits.
At the very beginning, the traveller asks if anyone is there as he knocks on the door. Briefly a description of the surroundings is given before he knocks a second time. Now inside the house is chronicled, with those dwelling in it not answering his calls. Fed up, the traveller loudly proclaims to the house to tell that he was there, but got no answer, and that he kept his word. With that, he left, as the listeners made not a sound and let him go.
The first question this event raises has to do with the traveller's presense. Why was he at this house? What word was he keeping by showing up to this secluded house at night? The poem gives no clue to this, nothing to lead us to possible conclusions. However, we still learn a bit about the traveller as a person. He may be considered an honorable man. Whatever he promised, he has attempted to follow through by showing up to this place.
The next question to consider deals with the titular listeners. Who or what are they? This "host of phantom listeners" is never more deeply described. Are they indeed ghosts, or are they silent men? Are they actually many, or one? Or could a phantom listener be one who doesn't exist at all, and is absent from the building? All we can deduce is that the traveller expects someone or something that he has previously had contact with to be inside.
So this man, the traveller, has come out of his way to this house to keep his word, and is only turned away by the silence of the listeners. He made worthy attempt to keep his end of some bargain, but found it impossible to keep when the door was not opened for him.
Likewise, one must put all reasonable effort into each promise, deal, or relationship he or she has. Then, however honorable, there does eventually come a point at which the effort is no longer worth it. For the traveller, he knocked twice before the effort became unreasonable. After that point, it is only worthwhile to move along in life.
Yes, the traveller could well have stood by that door all night, perhaps through the day, knocking and shouting, waiting for the door to be opened. But with his two attempts, he could be sure that he was not going to get inside. The stillness of the listeners did answer his cries, and he understood that answer told him that he was not to wait around.
The listeners represent the people in life who decent people associate with. When they are faced with an honest attempt to do good, though, they don't allow this to be completed. They prevent it with their silence, by being essentially absent. The theme shows that when one comes across such listeners, one cannot be bothered to wait around forever, and that there are better things to do. It is unwise to waste time reaching to great lengths when there will be no results.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Consolidation Plan
It is with a heavy heart that I bring the news to you that Presidential Ranting and Sciency Science Stuff will no longer exist in the world as we know it. They have been consolidated with the greater school of thought in my mind.
You see, I felt so limited by Presidential Ranting's promise of things about presidents. I often wanted to write about politics, other aspects of history, and I think I wanted to write about world flags once. None of this was technically presidential though.
In addition, Sciency Science Stuff never took off. Science isn't a great blog.
So to save my blogging abilities from destruction, these two blogs have been combined into this new Agglomerated Musings blog. I can write about ANYTHING.
That's right, no longer are my blogs about a single unifying theme, I have indeed become one of the internet masses. Now my blog in no way stands out and my audience will never expand past my circle of friends, no matter how hard I try!
The only other thing I have to say is Poetic Thoughts in Poetic Form is still separate from this.
You see, I felt so limited by Presidential Ranting's promise of things about presidents. I often wanted to write about politics, other aspects of history, and I think I wanted to write about world flags once. None of this was technically presidential though.
In addition, Sciency Science Stuff never took off. Science isn't a great blog.
So to save my blogging abilities from destruction, these two blogs have been combined into this new Agglomerated Musings blog. I can write about ANYTHING.
That's right, no longer are my blogs about a single unifying theme, I have indeed become one of the internet masses. Now my blog in no way stands out and my audience will never expand past my circle of friends, no matter how hard I try!
The only other thing I have to say is Poetic Thoughts in Poetic Form is still separate from this.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Paper Towel Absorbancy
My sister finished her science fair project today. She did the classic "Which paper towel brand best absorbs water?" experiment.
There were a number of things she did wrong.
Her procedure was basically have a square (27 cm x 27 cm) of each of the three brands and put each one into a liter of water. Then she kept it in for some amount of time, I'm not sure the exact amount, and removed it, looking at the new level of water to figure out how much was absorbed. Lather, rinse, repeat so you did each brand thrice.
My first issue is technically she should've had a control experiment where she had a liter of water and stared at it for the same amount of time to ensure that evaporation was insignificant. I do, however, acknowledge that this is probably okay to skip for a middle school science fair.
The next issue, which is significantly more major, is the container she used measured in increments of 50 mL, and the absorbency was always less than 150 mL. She should've used a more precise measuring device. Personally, I think the best way to measure how much it absorbed would be to take the weight of the dry paper towel and then wet paper towel, but we don't have any scales precise enough for that.
The third issue is dripping water from the paper towels. Should the water that's pulled out but not fully absorbed count towards the absorbency? It seems far more logical to allow the paper towel to drip off back into the container for, say 15 seconds, before taking your measurements. This way, only what the paper towel is actually holding onto counts.
The fourth and most important issue is no one should do this experiment anymore unless they're working for a paper towel company and want to make claims of superior absorbency.
There were a number of things she did wrong.
Her procedure was basically have a square (27 cm x 27 cm) of each of the three brands and put each one into a liter of water. Then she kept it in for some amount of time, I'm not sure the exact amount, and removed it, looking at the new level of water to figure out how much was absorbed. Lather, rinse, repeat so you did each brand thrice.
My first issue is technically she should've had a control experiment where she had a liter of water and stared at it for the same amount of time to ensure that evaporation was insignificant. I do, however, acknowledge that this is probably okay to skip for a middle school science fair.
The next issue, which is significantly more major, is the container she used measured in increments of 50 mL, and the absorbency was always less than 150 mL. She should've used a more precise measuring device. Personally, I think the best way to measure how much it absorbed would be to take the weight of the dry paper towel and then wet paper towel, but we don't have any scales precise enough for that.
The third issue is dripping water from the paper towels. Should the water that's pulled out but not fully absorbed count towards the absorbency? It seems far more logical to allow the paper towel to drip off back into the container for, say 15 seconds, before taking your measurements. This way, only what the paper towel is actually holding onto counts.
The fourth and most important issue is no one should do this experiment anymore unless they're working for a paper towel company and want to make claims of superior absorbency.
Suggested Titles for the President
Today, we take "President of the United States" for granted. When the position was fresh, before the White House (another name we take for granted!) was even completed, when Washington was beginning to set his precedents, there was great debate over a proper title for the head of the United States of America.
John Adams, then Vice President, was a fan of more royalistic and fancy titles. "His Majesty the President" or "His High Mightiness" were two possibilities coming from him.
At this point, I want you all to imagine referring to "His High Mightiness George W. Bush."
You now appreciate this title not taking root.
There was also suggestion of "His Elective Majesty." While this title has that democratic ring to it, I want to know who exactly came up with this one and what drug they were on. That sounds like a horrible title. It's not my bias against calling the president Majesty in any form, it's just that title has no flow at all.
Now, the best suggestion of the time was "His Highness the President of the United States of America and Protector of the Rights of the Same."
I find the use of "of the Same" to be rather tacky, and think perhaps "His Highness the President of the United States of America and Protector of the Rights of the United States of America" would have been a more elegant suggestion.
Despite all this lively debate about a simple title, we know today that "President of the United States" won the debate. Why? All of this took place in the Senate. The House of Representatives quickly decided to use this title, and the Senate eventually decided to just agree with them.
While John Adams was arguably the main catalyst for this debate, the Vice President had no such debate over titles. Benjamin Franklin suggested "His Superfluous Excellency."
While he was being sarcastic, we should adopt this title ASAP.
President of the United States Barack Obama and His Superfluous Excellency Joe Biden!
John Adams, then Vice President, was a fan of more royalistic and fancy titles. "His Majesty the President" or "His High Mightiness" were two possibilities coming from him.
At this point, I want you all to imagine referring to "His High Mightiness George W. Bush."
You now appreciate this title not taking root.
There was also suggestion of "His Elective Majesty." While this title has that democratic ring to it, I want to know who exactly came up with this one and what drug they were on. That sounds like a horrible title. It's not my bias against calling the president Majesty in any form, it's just that title has no flow at all.
Now, the best suggestion of the time was "His Highness the President of the United States of America and Protector of the Rights of the Same."
I find the use of "of the Same" to be rather tacky, and think perhaps "His Highness the President of the United States of America and Protector of the Rights of the United States of America" would have been a more elegant suggestion.
Despite all this lively debate about a simple title, we know today that "President of the United States" won the debate. Why? All of this took place in the Senate. The House of Representatives quickly decided to use this title, and the Senate eventually decided to just agree with them.
While John Adams was arguably the main catalyst for this debate, the Vice President had no such debate over titles. Benjamin Franklin suggested "His Superfluous Excellency."
While he was being sarcastic, we should adopt this title ASAP.
President of the United States Barack Obama and His Superfluous Excellency Joe Biden!
Friday, April 2, 2010
Re: Chester Arthur Sucks
If it wasn't clear: APRIL FOOLS!
But it was pretty clear.
I now intend to refute every point I made yesterday, and redefend Chester Arthur's honor.
"It all starts off with his time as the Collector of the Port of New York. He made a salary higher than that of the president, but you know that a good portion of it never stayed with him but went instead to the Republicans and the Conkling machine."
Well, that's all true. I'm not too proud of Collector Arthur. However, it is said that even during this time, the peak of his corruption, Arthur looked out for the people working under him in the Port of New York. So while he was as much a part of the political machinery as anyone, he was still a decent man.
"He was far more corrupt than Grant's administration had been. All he ever did was work more stubbornly than the Republicans of today to continue the spoils system and allow jobs to continue on patronage. When he was Garfield's VP, he constantly fought against the president's work. Arthur wasn't looking for the nation's interests, he was looking only for Roscoe Conkling's favor."
He was a pretty awful Vice President. He reminds me of John Calhoun almost, so in conflict with his President. I can't say he was looking only for Roscoe Conkling's favor, as Conkling never wanted him to take the job at all, but he was supremely Stalwart against the views of Half-Breed Garfield.
"Then think about the time he spent as president. He found out that he was dying of Bright's disease so he probably decided it was time for him to leave a better impression of himself for history. That's when he worked to end the spoils system. He knew it could never benefit him again. Dead men get no patronage. (Surely Arthur made some dead men vote for Stalwarts in his day, though.)"
Hey, who cares why he worked to end the spoils system? Honestly, I don't believe it's due to the Bright's disease. I think he realized, as he is oft (by standards of Gilded Age presidents) quoted that he was one man and the POTUS was another. He saw the greatness of the office and worked to live up to it.
"But he also allowed a bill that completely banned naturalization and immigration of Chinese people for 10 years, subject to extension? You can't tell me that's a good bill in any way. It's discrimination, mandated by the government. Reconstruction ended two presidents ago, with Hayes, the man who fired Arthur from the Port of New York due to corruption, and now Arthur works to help support a new racial divide forming? Just because the blacks have been freed doesn't mean the country needs a new set of hated people."
Arthur first vetoed the Chinese Exclusion Act. It called for a 20 year renewable banning of immigration and naturalization for the Chinese people. This veto brought the 20 years down to 10. I've never been able to figure out why Arthur signed this version. In my opinion, the best course of action would have been a second veto. Perhaps he knew the nation's hatred of the Chinese was great and that the veto would be overridden, but still let it become law without your signature, at least. But Arthur clearly wasn't the racist one here, due to the initial veto. He had worked for civil rights of blacks as a lawyer before the Civil War, he wasn't likely to turn around and discriminate against another race.
"When you really consider it, Chester A. Arthur was a horrible man, and by far one of the worst presidents of all time.
Hell, he probably wasn't even a real American. Probably born in freaking Canada."
There's so much greatness of Chester Arthur. His years as teacher, as brigadier (acting Quartermaster) general, his turnaround from corruption as president. As for him being one of the worst presidents of all time, some may argue that. I personally find him to be generally underrated and actually a really good president for the times he was in.
I must admit however, I'm not yet convinced that he was actually born in America.
But it was pretty clear.
I now intend to refute every point I made yesterday, and redefend Chester Arthur's honor.
"It all starts off with his time as the Collector of the Port of New York. He made a salary higher than that of the president, but you know that a good portion of it never stayed with him but went instead to the Republicans and the Conkling machine."
Well, that's all true. I'm not too proud of Collector Arthur. However, it is said that even during this time, the peak of his corruption, Arthur looked out for the people working under him in the Port of New York. So while he was as much a part of the political machinery as anyone, he was still a decent man.
"He was far more corrupt than Grant's administration had been. All he ever did was work more stubbornly than the Republicans of today to continue the spoils system and allow jobs to continue on patronage. When he was Garfield's VP, he constantly fought against the president's work. Arthur wasn't looking for the nation's interests, he was looking only for Roscoe Conkling's favor."
He was a pretty awful Vice President. He reminds me of John Calhoun almost, so in conflict with his President. I can't say he was looking only for Roscoe Conkling's favor, as Conkling never wanted him to take the job at all, but he was supremely Stalwart against the views of Half-Breed Garfield.
"Then think about the time he spent as president. He found out that he was dying of Bright's disease so he probably decided it was time for him to leave a better impression of himself for history. That's when he worked to end the spoils system. He knew it could never benefit him again. Dead men get no patronage. (Surely Arthur made some dead men vote for Stalwarts in his day, though.)"
Hey, who cares why he worked to end the spoils system? Honestly, I don't believe it's due to the Bright's disease. I think he realized, as he is oft (by standards of Gilded Age presidents) quoted that he was one man and the POTUS was another. He saw the greatness of the office and worked to live up to it.
"But he also allowed a bill that completely banned naturalization and immigration of Chinese people for 10 years, subject to extension? You can't tell me that's a good bill in any way. It's discrimination, mandated by the government. Reconstruction ended two presidents ago, with Hayes, the man who fired Arthur from the Port of New York due to corruption, and now Arthur works to help support a new racial divide forming? Just because the blacks have been freed doesn't mean the country needs a new set of hated people."
Arthur first vetoed the Chinese Exclusion Act. It called for a 20 year renewable banning of immigration and naturalization for the Chinese people. This veto brought the 20 years down to 10. I've never been able to figure out why Arthur signed this version. In my opinion, the best course of action would have been a second veto. Perhaps he knew the nation's hatred of the Chinese was great and that the veto would be overridden, but still let it become law without your signature, at least. But Arthur clearly wasn't the racist one here, due to the initial veto. He had worked for civil rights of blacks as a lawyer before the Civil War, he wasn't likely to turn around and discriminate against another race.
"When you really consider it, Chester A. Arthur was a horrible man, and by far one of the worst presidents of all time.
Hell, he probably wasn't even a real American. Probably born in freaking Canada."
There's so much greatness of Chester Arthur. His years as teacher, as brigadier (acting Quartermaster) general, his turnaround from corruption as president. As for him being one of the worst presidents of all time, some may argue that. I personally find him to be generally underrated and actually a really good president for the times he was in.
I must admit however, I'm not yet convinced that he was actually born in America.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Chester Arthur Sucks
Okay, I admit it. Chester Arthur is, has been, and always will be just a joke. How could such a horrible president be my favorite?
It all starts off with his time as the Collector of the Port of New York. He made a salary higher than that of the president, but you know that a good portion of it never stayed with him but went instead to the Republicans and the Conkling machine.
He was far more corrupt than Grant's administration had been. All he ever did was work more stubbornly than the Republicans of today to continue the spoils system and allow jobs to continue on patronage. When he was Garfield's VP, he constantly fought against the president's work. Arthur wasn't looking for the nation's interests, he was looking only for Roscoe Conkling's favor.
Then think about the time he spent as president. He found out that he was dying of Bright's disease so he probably decided it was time for him to leave a better impression of himself for history. That's when he worked to end the spoils system. He knew it could never benefit him again. Dead men get no patronage. (Surely Arthur made some dead men vote for Stalwarts in his day, though.)
But he also allowed a bill that completely banned naturalization and immigration of Chinese people for 10 years, subject to extension? You can't tell me that's a good bill in any way. It's discrimination, mandated by the government. Reconstruction ended two presidents ago, with Hayes, the man who fired Arthur from the Port of New York due to corruption, and now Arthur works to help support a new racial divide forming? Just because the blacks have been freed doesn't mean the country needs a new set of hated people.
When you really consider it, Chester A. Arthur was a horrible man, and by far one of the worst presidents of all time.
Hell, he probably wasn't even a real American. Probably born in freaking Canada.
It all starts off with his time as the Collector of the Port of New York. He made a salary higher than that of the president, but you know that a good portion of it never stayed with him but went instead to the Republicans and the Conkling machine.
He was far more corrupt than Grant's administration had been. All he ever did was work more stubbornly than the Republicans of today to continue the spoils system and allow jobs to continue on patronage. When he was Garfield's VP, he constantly fought against the president's work. Arthur wasn't looking for the nation's interests, he was looking only for Roscoe Conkling's favor.
Then think about the time he spent as president. He found out that he was dying of Bright's disease so he probably decided it was time for him to leave a better impression of himself for history. That's when he worked to end the spoils system. He knew it could never benefit him again. Dead men get no patronage. (Surely Arthur made some dead men vote for Stalwarts in his day, though.)
But he also allowed a bill that completely banned naturalization and immigration of Chinese people for 10 years, subject to extension? You can't tell me that's a good bill in any way. It's discrimination, mandated by the government. Reconstruction ended two presidents ago, with Hayes, the man who fired Arthur from the Port of New York due to corruption, and now Arthur works to help support a new racial divide forming? Just because the blacks have been freed doesn't mean the country needs a new set of hated people.
When you really consider it, Chester A. Arthur was a horrible man, and by far one of the worst presidents of all time.
Hell, he probably wasn't even a real American. Probably born in freaking Canada.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)