I have never really felt remorse for anything, nothing at all compared to this.
I never was moved by the consequences of my own actions before. My arrogance and pride always told me I was okay. I was not okay. You won’t believe me if I tell you I am different already, how that my arrogance has been shown to me as a paper-thin shell over not very much to hold up the size of my ego. “Just different from other people” is a bad excuse for bad thoughts. I’m getting help to understand why I’m the way I am, and to improve; I can’t be the same. I had moved on from what I did, but I was still not okay inside and God, my (new) Pastor, and (soon) my Doctor(s) are all helping me to understand. I have over 2 hours on the road daily and I do a lot of thinking these days. You were right. I was wrong.
Yes, me. Here I sit in the County Reformatory* at the old Red Ranch as I have begun to serve a sentence of unknown duration, until the Authorities agree I’ve got my mind right. The first meeting with a counselor starts in just under an hour as I write this and I don’t know how many doctors I’m going to need.
They don’t let you see your victim or your family here, including specifically my wife which is
***to be perfectly clear***
the hardest thing. Everything else that ever befell in my entire life that led me to be kindof a hard man, combined, was not as hard as the blow I gave myself last week. Like the song says,
“I can’t go with you and stay where I am”
If there is any hope of restoration of what I broke, I have to change. I know that, now. There’s things from long ago that I need to deal with. I shoved it all down deep inside and built up around it, but it was still there, and now I stepped in it and it stinks.
Next time you see me, you won’t recognize what you knew was wrong, because i’ll be better. I’m taking big steps already, believe it or not. I had already moved past the worst of the worst, mentally, and I was dragging my feet. #1 kept telling me “YOU need therapy!” and I told her “nah, I’m good.” Well bby u were correct and I was wrong on that. I’m gettin’ it.
I have to improve or there’s no chance of getting back into what I am missing out on right now. You may have heard of my hatred of paperwork. I actually sought it out today, so I could figure out how my insurance is going to play into paying for this mess. They make you pay if you talk to actual doctors. I told my dad everything, and his DW almost everything and he probably filled her in on the gaps. I told my new minister everything too. God already knew but he had to step on me a bit for me to own up; but He doesn’t give up. I wish I could tell one more person how far I’ve already come but that looks impossible right now.
*I’m not actually locked up, y’all. It only feels like it.
-Prison: A place for the confinement and punishment of persons convicted of crimes, especially felonies. -Reformatory: A penal institution for the discipline, reformation, and training of … offenders
There are some things which are sin, with no gray area. No one will be excused if he believes Jesus is not the way to Heaven. Most all of us will acknowledge killing someone with no good reason is wrong. To the Puritans, showing an ankle was sin . . . but here and now, we have women in short dresses in our churches without condemnation because to us it is (arguably) not sin.
Brother Paul was able in good conscience toward God to eat meat sacrificed to idols; it was no sin. So the question then becomes “It’s not sin so why should Paul not eat” and the answer is another guy was offended in his conscience. Seeing the example of Paul could cause someone else to sin, is the idea of “I will eat no flesh“. Some people would eat the same meat from the same plate and commit sin because their faith was weak. It is not charitable in some contexts for “Paul” to “eat meat”. So we stop when it is plain it offends someone else in this way.
Did Paul owe an explanation to anyone as to why he stopped? In context, I think not, but he would have been happy to explain . . .
. . . if . . .
. . . someone would try to have a conversation about it specifically.
I went into the garden a few days ago to photograph some flowers. I ended up disappointed because some bug or other is eating the petals of the flowers I wanted to take pictures of, so they were ugly. I took some pictures of grass instead.
It was early in the morning and the dew was pretty on the grass, eh? It reminded me of the description in the Bible of how the plants were watered before the flood in Noah’s day. Then I thought, “hey I have my fancy new lens DW bought me for Christmas, lemme see what it can do with this dew” so I took some pictures and . . . ran into a limitation. The zoom in question is Nikon’s 18-140mm 3.5-5.6G DX and it is an outstanding walking-around lens. I have satisfied myself that in some situations when carefully applied it can beat a good prime lens. This was not one of those times.
Here is a nifty picture of a blade of grass with two little marbles of dewdrops on the edge. Very nice. Okay what else can I shoot this morning?
Oh, that’s very nice! Except . . . the little white smudges on the bottom of the flowers, those are dewdrops also! If you zoom in here, you’ll see they are legit droplets of water and look pretty okay actually because this zoom lens is a cracking good one! on my camera’s LCD screen, they looked like smudges. I was dissatisfied. So I went and got an old reliable friend of min to help out: This guy. Except he can only focus to about a meter and a half or so, not very close. I have a DIY extension tube that lets it focus MUCH closer, and converts it into a prime manual macro lens. And I went back into the garden.
Yes, very nice. Proper visible drops here as well as loads of fine detail. I was unable to find a different blade of grass I had also shot, but I did find this one again. So here’s this:
Very nice. Not only do I have good detail on the subject I want to show, but the background is completely blown out of focus! This is what I had really wanted, and it makes me want to buy some (much much) more epensive autofocusing, vibration-controlling, wide-aperture-having modern macro lenses. But that’s for another day! Anyway, I mentioned this to a friend (Hi there NB!) and thought it would be informative and interesting as a standalone post, so here’s a comparison set.
These are the full frame shots from my D7000. All these shots were using the auto white balance setting and no editing has been done unless I mention it specifically. The Nikon zoom is always going to be shown on the left, the Canon prime on the right in all these. The zoom was shot at 140mm (210mm equivalent) at f/7.1 without flash. For this, the zoom had a 1/50th second exposure time and the image stabilization really saved my bacon. It works GREAT on this lens! ISO 400 equivalent. The prime was used at ISO800 and with flash, and I still had to crank it to 1/200 sec. to get what I wanted to see. Both are very nice pictures, but I was going for something specific here so the one on the left wasn’t what I wanted.
Here is a screenshot of both pictures as big as they would fit on my monitor. In the top-left of each, you can see the zoom level I had to use to get them on screen at the same size: 140% vs. 57%. At 140% the picture from the zoom lens is starting to look less great but the one from the macro lens is still shining brightly. Dig this:
Here the macro lens is at 100% zoom, looking at the level of individual pixels. To get the zoom lens’ image the same size, it’s at 250% and really not looking as good. I will say it is quite good performance still, but not really much of a comparison at this level of detail. THIS is what I wanted. I was happy with this. Photography is a hobby involving self-challenge and much fiddling with settings to get the technical result I want and this was what I wanted. For the win!…now on to the grass.
This whole thing is an apples-to-oranges comparison and here’s another example. These are the full frame images from the zoom lens all the way zoomed in and the macro lens at whatever distance worked. The extension tube, as they do, prevents this lens focusing very far away, but up close it is excellent. Both of these, again, are good pictures, but what I wanted, again, was what I got on the right from my macro lens.
These again used the auto white balance, and again the zoom was at 140mm, f/7.1, with no flash used. the vibration reduction probably helped again at 1/125sec but wasn’t as completely crucial this time, maybe. ISO 400 equivalent was used with the zoom but again with the prime to get it brighter I used ISO 800 because I was shooting at 1/250sec. No flash, this time, this is all ambient light from early in the day.
Here these are zoomed in to show about the same scene. Note that the zoom lens is zoomed in a bit more at 50% and the macro lens here is only zoomed in to 25% – there’s a lot more pixels to work with on the macro shot! Also note the level of detail in the background. This will vary with every lens and even with the choice of settings for your lens, but here I got what I wanted: bokeh on the right (vs. details on the left).
Here we are, zoomed in on what I actually was interested in, just the drops, as big as I could get them on my computer screen side-by-side for a screenshot. The macro lens is at 100%, actual-pixel level here and the zoom is at 200% to get them about the same size onscreen. The level of detail from the macro lens is really starting to show through, now! Look at the striations on the blade of grass. Notice how the smaller dew drops are actually dew drops instead of white blobs. Finally, look at the quality of the water marbles on the side. Look at the detail! The ISO800 on the right is showing up in the form of slightly increased noise, but the picture is still better at the level I care about so that’s okay.
Hold on there.
VFD, you are saying now, can’t you edit the picture from the zoom lens to get it sharper? Photoshop is magic, you know.
Yes I know. I am a certifiable wizard in Photoshop, but there’s only so much you can do. Let me unsharp mask both of these:
The zoom is definitely benefiting from the sharpening filter applied. The macro didn’t seem to benefit much if it has helped at all. It’s a little bit sharper but a lot noisier, so I call it about a wash there. Let’s look closer.
The zoom is zoomed in as far as it will go before Photoshop starts showing a giant gridline around each pixel (500%) and it looks pretty bad now. The macro is only at 300%, displayed larger onscreen, and you can see even MORE detail. Crazy. This is crazy sharpness. Remember, these drops of dew on this blade of grass were maybe ~2mm in diameter.
Each of these images had about a half-dozen rejects before I got the picture I wanted. I’ve taken LOTS of pictures in my time here, and it still involves trial and error and lots of shots, even with fancy modern lenses. But it’s fun though!
When the hired whores and attention-seekers came out of the woodwork for Herman Cain, and when they came out of the woodwork for Donald Trump, I said these men were innocent of all charges until proved guilty, and they should not withdraw from public life on account of accusations, even ones that seemed truthy at the time. I still think Bill Cosby has been railroaded but at least he has a conviction to legitimately get him off the stage.
Andrew Cuomo, as a citizen of these United States, stands today a man innocent of sexual impropriety as alleged, and it is the duty of his accusers to bring proof to convince a court that he was behaving badly. Allegations, on their own, mean exactly bubkis. I can bring an allegation against you, today and make headline news. The public would be shocked, I tell you, to hear the horrible things you did.
Mind you, he should resign for general incompetence in governance, but that is expecting rather a lot for a Democratic politician these days. But the dozens of legislators and other former allies of Gov’n’r Andy? Their opinions mean nothing to either truth or Justice. If any of the allegations are proved then that’s the time we should start talking about resignations. Not before.
For those of you who think #BelieveAllWomen still applies, and that allegations should be enough to get a man off the public stage, I present three anecdotes to the contrary:
Kamala Harris is serving as Vice President to a man who she claimed in the past she believed had been inappropriate with women. #BelieveAllWomen? Right down the memory hole, apparently.
Brett Cavanaugh is sitting on the supreme Court of these United States, having succesfully went through the confirmation circus (which, recall, included the storming of the USA Capitol building by his adversaries, to the applause of legislators who later changed their mind about the virtue of such storming activities) which included obviously false claims presented as serious by the most powerful people in the most powerful legislative body in the world.
The lacrosse team of Duke University was thrashed in the press, academic and sporting careers were permanently destroyed, men’s names were dragged through the mud . . . on the basis of lies from a Woman who took advantage of #BelieveAllWomen
False allegations should not ruin a person’s life. True allegations should only be considered true by We the People after a trial has been held and evidence was presented which led to a convincing of a jury, or an admission of guilt by the accused.
That is the standard. If you think Governor Andrew Cuomo should resign because of this spate of accusations, then you are a Bad Person and a bad American.
Maybe next we can just throw darts at a phone book and decide who the next President will be. Elected politicians have divided themselves so badly into partisan camps that the most-important civil proceeding they can employ has now been used as a cudgel against someone they don’t like, based on something that is not only not criminal, not only not bad, it’s something they themselves have repeatedly done without censure.
tl;dr: There exists a previously-unknown negative feedback mechanism controlling climate on the Earth that was causing models to not match observations. Global warming climate models all fail at general predictions over the long term because they don’t match observations . . . because the scientists programming the models don’t know everything.
Forgive me for thinking we should not base global governance on half-baked science driven by agendas contrary to common sense.
RMIT University and the Australian National University, with the University of Sydney and USA’s Oak Ridge National Laboratories have proved that the planet is not 3.4 billion years old.
Hold on there.
Not quite. But they have proved that it doesn’t have to be, for there to be diamonds. These rocket surgeons have figured out how to make diamonds at room temperature by applying pressure and shear forces as has not previously been tried.
The current scientific paradigm (which, of course, eliminates all belief in Genesis chapter 1) says diamonds must have taken billions of years to form, under terrific pressures deep in the earth’s crust. The evolutionist has no problems saying “God made them LOL” but this is not acceptable to a scientist (as a person who relies on scientism). This new discovery does not explain how diamonds must have formed in nature. It tells us that “everybody knows” something which may be false, and the reality is actually compatible with young Earth history.