Saturday Share - Zero Dollar Books

~*~

SHARE icon takes you to the featured site!

Being the only child that I am, sharing is not high on my list of things I enjoy doing.

Information is power!

If I keep the good stuff to myself I can feel silently superior to you.

What??

Okay ... okay ... I'll share, but I don't have to like it!

From this day forward, Saturday's will be dedicated to sharing. I might share a website I find useful, a blog I read regularly, or maybe even a recipe.

We'll see where this goes.

~*~

Although I don't anticipate ever owning an e-reader, I did recently jump into the (android) smart phone pool. I promptly downloaded the Amazon Kindle App (on my phone and my PC) figuring it might be a nice diversion during those times I get stuck somewhere that I don't want to be, for longer than I anticipate being there.

The problem? I'm cheap. I don't want to pay for e-books. And I'm LAZY. I don't want to spend hours searching for free books.

Ta-Da!

Zero Dollar Books - where they aggregate all of Amazon's best selling free eBooks in an easy to view format.

Additionally, Zero Dollar Books updates hourly to keep current with Amazon pricing, making a subscription via RSS Feed advantageous.

Where is your favorite place to find free eBooks?

~*~

(5/365)

Zero Dollar Books via lifehacker

Much Ado About Nothing

~*~

As are most things these days, Obama's evolutionary thinking ("I think same sex couples should be able to get married", just in case you weren't paying attention ... to ANYTHING) has been beaten to death by social media. So? Why not join the crowd?

For some, the Obama Hope & Change alters have been brought out again. Others see this as little more than the media machine flinging glitter at Obama's performance record.

Look!! Shiny objects!! What unemployment rates?

Does it really matter what Obama's opinion is on gay marriage? Does it really matter what my opinion is on Jell-O? That's what I thought.

When all of the fake outrage and moral judgement is set aside, it seems that all most gay marriage advocates seem to want is the same rights, privileges and protections that their heterosexual counterparts enjoy once they jump the broomstick.

Yet the sticking point for many appears the be the use of that word "marriage" - a religious based ceremony that gives special governmental preference.

Wait a minute ... I hadn't thought of it that way. Why in the hell does the government give preferential treatment to ANY citizen based on their marital status?

And then?

And then I stumbled on Lauren Taylor's No celebration for this lesbian in the Washington Post OpEd section and she said EXACTLY what I was thinking:

Here’s the thing: I don’t think we (the country, the society) should be giving rights, privileges and protections to anyone — gay, straight, bisexual or other — based on their sexual or romantic relationships. I think most of the rights and privileges gay men and lesbians are seeking by pursuing marriage rights should be granted to human beings because they are human beings, whether or not they find one person they want to spend the rest of their lives with.

A few examples:

• Everyone should be able to designate who they want to be able to visit them in the hospital. Everyone should be able to take leave to care for a sick loved one.
• Everyone should have access to health insurance. If you’re self-employed, unemployed or work for a place that doesn’t provide health insurance, you shouldn’t need to have a romantic partner who has a job that provides health benefits to get coverage.
• If a couple with a child splits, married or not, all parents should be eligible for visitation and responsible for child support.
• Everyone who pays into Social Security should be able to list who is financially dependent on them and who should get benefits when they die. Our current system shortchanges any dependent who isn’t married to a wage earner.

Can I get an AMEN??

See? These rights, privileges and protections are not available to all citizens, or even all adult citizens. They are ONLY available to heterosexual couples who are married.

Being that marriage is archaic and irrelevant, why does its practice give anyone preferential treatment?

This really isn't about the sanctity of marriage being "compromised" by same-sex couples.

This is about our government treating all humans (single people, people in long-term relationships that choose not to get married, same-sex couples, etc.) with consistency - allowing us all the same rights, privileges and protections.

Isn't it??

~*~

(4/365)

♫ Name That Tune ♫

~*~

Cam's final band/choir concert for the 2011-2012 school year was last night. Generally, I enjoy these. I suffered through four years of listening to what can only be described as unintelligible noise in the key of OMG!

High school performances are my reward for not insisting Cam give up music after the 5th grade.

Last night the performance theme was "Music In Motion". All groups who performed moved around the stage and through the aisles of the auditorium. It really was fun ... akin to an indoor marching band performance.

The choirs? Well?

They attempted a similar performance style, although limited it to setting themselves up in a different configuration on the stage prior to the start of each piece they sang.

I wish they had focused a bit more on a few of their soloists ... and by focused I mean told them they couldn't sing and selected a soloist who could sing.

What? It's petty to judge the quality of high school musicians? They did their best? Everyone should have the opportunity to stand out from the group and perform?

BULLSHIT!

Not at the high school level, and probably not at the middle school level either (although I'm a bit more tolerant of it at the middle school level).

High school music - just like high school varsity sports - is competitive. There are a select few who are excellent performers, a big chunk that are average performers, and a handful who better rethink their plans of declaring music as their college major ... unless they want to live in their parent's basement permanently.

When I was their age (Yes! I am going there!) solos were put out for audition. Musicians auditioned for the solos. The BEST performer was given the solo. If you didn't get the solo you auditioned for, you worked harder so that you had a better performance the next time.

Apparently music did not remain unscathed in the "Everyone is a winner! Everyone gets a trophy!" generation, because one or two of those solos last night? 

Let's just say that I couldn't help but scrunch my face up in hopes that it would somehow block off my ability to hear.

I considered throwing my hands up over my ears but was afraid the people sitting behind me might have been the proud parents of the tone deaf kids.

What say you? At the high school level, should the best performer get the solo? Or should anyone who shows an interest be allowed the spotlight??

~*~

(3/365)