http://dailypost.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/daily-prompt-book-cover/ this is from the Daily Post post that link was to.
My favorite book is Animal Farm by George Orwell. I won’t get too into the book here, as I plan to do so in a later post, but basically, the premise is this: The animals on Manor Farm are sick of how the farmer treats them, and long for a day when all animals are free, and mankind is extinct. In Orwell’s book, animals are much more sentient than they are in the real world: They can talk, and sing, and open doors, and learn to read, and stuff. So, they attack the farmer and all his workers, and drive them out of the farm. They start out with a truly communist society– everyone has a say, everyone gets the same food rations, and everyone works to the absolute best of their ability. The pigs are the smartest, so they handle most administrative duties required when running a farm. This system deteriorates when one particular pig gets power hungry, and that’s where I’ll end this until such time as I decide to post a full review of the book.
The cover, or at least the cover of my edition, is rather attractive. It is a nice yellow– not too bright, not too dark. I don’t know how else to describe the font used but “jagged,” but it looks nice. There is an illustration of a few of the animals watching something burn. Some of the farmer’s things, if I recall. This illustration is nicely drawn, as are the others in the book, they give the animals character, using human facial expressions and such. Joy Batchelor and John Halas (this book’s illustrators) are very talented, from what I can tell. All in all, it is a very attractive cover.
The trouble is, I can’t get much of a feel of what it is is about from the cover, not even the back. So I must say that, coupled with what I’ve heard about the book, the cover would not set me off from reading it. But in a vacuum, with seeing the cover being my only frame of reference, I probably would not.
As I said, as attractive as the cover is, I would have trouble getting interested in it just from the cover, simply because if I didn’t know who Orwell was, and didn’t have previous knowledge with what the book is about, the cover would not tell me enough about the book to interest me in reading it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJBQH14qtHc (essentially a continuation of the first video)
If you explore the vlogbrothers channel and the rest of Nerdfighteria, (their group of channels and also other stuff) you’ll find some pretty great things, on a vast variety of topics, including, but not limited to: World history, US history, chemistry, biology, music, giraffe sex, (if I recall) comments on recent political happenings, (not very often) and mostly a lot of nerd jokes.
“But suppose God is black? What if we go to Heaven and we, all our lives, have treated the Negro as an inferior, and God is there, and we look up and He is not white? What then is our response?” ~ Robert Kennedy
I was looking for another of Bobby Kennedy’s quotes, and I stumbled upon this one. I think its great.
When an animal suffers, humans see it as our responsibility to end this animal’s misery. This is not the case, however, when a human suffers. Why not? Because humans still have potential value while suffering. All animals are good for, according to many people, is to do work. Even pets have the job of making their owners happy. Most of the time, suffering (such as a broken leg or a tumor) makes their job significantly more difficult, sometimes impossible. Humans, however, can still be productive whilst suffering. Humans still make conversation, and sometimes still provide for their families and employers, while suffering. This, along with the moral view that a human life is exceedingly more important than an animal’s life, explains why most do not condone the killing of a human because of that human’s suffering.
However, the mercy killing of a human, should the human so desire, should absolutely be legal and condoned. No human being should be forced to suffer more than that person wants to because of the moral code of other people. Accordingly, each person should keep a will regarding what action to take in the event that this person should become otherwise incapacitated, such as slipping into a coma. Presumably, in the absence of such a will, either it would be assumed that this person wants to live, or the closest family would decide for him/her.
If the scientific community discovered something that disproved the Theory of Evolution, (a scientific theory is different than a theory in other contexts) they would either trash the whole theory, or change it to fit the new discovery. That’s how science works. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be science any more.
While it is a popular belief (and one I can sort of understand, I suppose) that because we don’t know certain things about evolution, that disproves it, that just isn’t true– We technically don’t know everything there is to know about anything, but most of it is still widely accepted as true. Gravity, for example.
Furthermore, “atheist” or “agnostic” cannot be translated to “evolutionary biologist, Ph.D.” Just because I can’t answer your ridiculous questions does not mean that evolution is false. Why is it that when some peoples’ religious beliefs are questioned, they don’t need evidence, that’s why it’s called faith; but when evolution comes into the discussion, the tons and tons of evidence we have is not enough?
Well, I believe I’ve said what I meant to say here. If you want to learn to better understand evolution, here’s a fabulous video in which Hank Green explains it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3GagfbA2vo&list=PL3EED4C1D684D3ADF
P.S.: I’m considering writing short fiction stories to be posted here. What I’ll probably end up doing, if I do it at all, will be to make another site here at WordPress, and link to each new post there with a P.S. on each new post here.