Today I read an article on efforts by scientists in Australia to neutralize cow -produced-methane by transferring kangaroo bacteria to cattle and sheep’s guts. Kangaroo flatulence is methane-free due to a special type of bacteria. Given that livestock-emitted-methane accounts for 14% of emissions in Australia and nearly 50% in New Zealand, it seems like a worthwhile project in saving the world from livestock flatulence. However, it would take 3 years or so just to isolate the beneficial bacteria. Some scientists even suggested kangaroo meat as a healthier and eco-friendly substitute for beef and the meat of other ruminant mammals in human diet. This would consequently reduce human dependency on cows and other livestock and would thus reduce the green house effect due to livestock. It would be interesting I think to know the contribution of human-flatulence-induced methane to the atmosphere in comparison to that of industrially emitted gasses.
Would it be too outrageous to expect that there would be resultant ordinances requiring people and livestock to undergo emission inspection in addition to that already required for motor vehicles in some countries? I don’t even want to think on what kind of equipment is going to be used for this.

The author went on further to disentangle the strands of the cultural history of crying. He describes an example where a young woman falls on the ground weeping on her father’s feet begging for his forgiveness, a feat which few people nowadays would find it as appropriate and heartwarming as a group at an eighteenth-century British inn might have. True. I certainly would feel uncomfortable witnessing such histrionic scene. However, I could not help associating with such scene, some epic historical instances of discredited public figures offering official apology and remorse either sincerely just for the sake of it or calculatedly as a damage control mechanism. Hmm … The politics of tears or politicization of weepings. Look this term up: the politicization of science. By the same token, the politicization of weepings involves an element of “interest group/party” and an element of “influence the outcome” …

While looking up a product, i.e. Pure tears by Visine, mentioned by my facebook friend in a chat room, I ran upon a different product with a similar name and saw the following comments : Rain is known to be soothing and cathartic at the same time. Pure Tears can help wash away feelings of sadness, grief, hurt, and anger. Well, how true this is. I love rain, especially at bed time. I also get some relief from crying some times. The subject of “Tears” piqued my interest at that moment and further search yielded a document on “Crying – The Natural and Cultural History of Tears” by Tom Lutz.

In chapter 1, titled Tears of Pleasure, Tears of Grace, and the Weeping Hero, the author categorizes weepings as either genuine or counterfeit. He also distinguishes between physical crying which solely depends on the mechanism of the body and not related to any corresponding idea in the mind, nor any genuine sentiment of the heart, and moral weeping which proceeds from sentiments of the mind, feelings of the heart, and honor. Hmm. I had always thought of crying as related to the second category mentioned above. I don’t recall crying just because my body needs it. Even when I cry in my dream, I remember that it was related to some sort of sadness. I think that even a dog exhibits some sort of feelings when it appears to be crying. Do animals cry? If so, which animals? Dogs, cats, rats, mammals or only some domesticated mammals close to humans? How about chickens, worms and bugs, do they cry? I guess if you associate crying with the excretion of tears, then it would make sense to say that at least only creatures with eyes that could produce tears do cry. But, do you have to have eyes to be able to cry? If you associate crying with the expression of sadness of heart, and not necessarily related to the production and release of tears, then maybe worms can cry as well, if they can feel sadness.

Today I ran across a picture of Xerxes’ punishment of a body of water called Hellespont. Hellespont is the ancient name of a narrow strait also known by ‘the Dardanelles‘. Herodotus tells us that c. 482 BC the king Xerxes I of Persia and son of Darius had two bridges built across the width of the Hellespont at Abydos in order that his huge army, could cross from Persia into Greece. These bridges were both destroyed by a storm and Xerxes had the heads of those responsible for building the bridges cut off and the river itself whipped. Though extreme, one can see that even in the ancient times there was a great sense of accountability for building project. I wonder if any local official in Minnesota has contemplated a public flogging of the Mississippi river as a result of the  I-35W Mississippi River bridge collapse

I am into superfood nowadays, especially berries. My favorites are raspberry, Açaí berry and blackberry. Berries are good for you. They are so popular nowadays that they even have Eyesberry, a berry concoction specially designed for the health of your eyes. Why are people willing to pay the premium price for these superfood? Is it just a fad driven by consumer attitudes towards nutritious alternatives of junk food? Is the aging baby boomer generation the main driver behind it? Does superfood really work as advertised or is it just media hype? One report says that pomegranate is the superfood of the moment and apparently consumed regularly by high profile celebrities …

Decaf soy latte with monkey face please …

Take a look at the following article about the two-headed cow.

It looks like it is (they are) going to have only three horns. So, a two-headed cow with three horns! It sounds like some of the strange beasts mentioned in the Bible …

Have you read the following news on personality types and wireless phones? Personal style guru Gregg Levine says that your style is a window on who you are and it is the public face of your personal brand. Quite an interesting point. So, what does this style tell about your personality?

Or this one …

Or this one …

How about this one?

What do the strange cellphone accessories shown at this site tell you about the owner? The widespread use and abuse of cellphone technology, like the internet brings forth new level of unprecedented behaviors and ethical dilemma, pushing the boundary of law to the point of revision. Some examples of the abuses are mentioned in the WIRED magazine article “Camera Phones Incite Bad Behavior”. New terms such as “digital shoplifting” are being coined as well. It’s also interesting to notice that unsavory behaviors led to design modification of cellphones. In Japan for instance, camera phones are designed to produce a noise when the shutter button is pressed, alerting those nearby that a photograph is being taken. Well, what does a cellphone with a camera tell about your personality?

Take the quizz to see your personality type.

The photo at this link shows a dog with an abnormal olfactory organ. It says that Xingu is a two-nosed dog. I think it’s more like a two-half-nosed dog. Each half has a nostril giving a total of two nostrils for the dog. Mathematically, it’s still a one-nosed dog. Esthetically, it looks like a two-nosed dog …

I find internet social networking media such as weblog, facebook, etc antithetical at times. On one hand it brings more people closer than ever before, on the other it reduces real life contacts to virtual ones … Hmm …