Divine inspiration or inspired divinity?

God talks to me... but I can't understand what's being said.

The big question in my mind now is, do I really want to know?

I think it's a great responsibility on the man (or woman) that God chooses to speak to. However, it's probably an even greater responsibility on other people to believe that God has spoken through someone they see every day.

If I ever declare publicly that God speaks to me, those who know me will probably come to a faster conclusion that I am a kook than people who know nothing about me. In the end, alas, most everyone would think I'm a kook (other than, perhaps, other kooks who imagine that God speaks to them too!)

Okay, let me be honest now. God DOESN'T talk to me (but then chances are most people had already come to that conclusion before my BIG confession.)

So imagine how it had been for people who actually were prophets and mediums through whom the Lord above spoke and guided. Naivety isn't what it used to be, people are less and less wiling to take things at face value – especially if one talks about divine guidance. We have become so cynical these days that even if Jesus were to make a second appearance, who'd believe that it's really Him? I mean, it'd definitely be far from proper to just ask the “supreme being” for His identification or to perform a “miracle” on request.

Before I dig myself any deeper, I would like to divert the flow of this post towards the idea that I had originally hoped to present: I think the difference between a kook and an eccentric is defined by the amount of money being spent (and whose money it is).

When someone says that God speaks to them, you look at them funny, quickly move away and even quicker(ly) label them a 'kook.' However, when this same person decides to use millions of his own money to build something of biblical portions, like, say, an Ark for example – we redefine our label to read “eccentric,” or, better still, “eccentric millionaire.”

(Definitely more poetic and forgiving than “kook.”)

Let me give an example: We may think Bruce Wayne as an “eccentric millionaire,” but probably Harold Camping, of the end of the world is nigh fame, as a certifiable “kook” (unless of course, October 21, 2011 really is the end... in which case, let me be the first to apologise. “Sorry Pastor Camping. Happy Rapturing!”)

A Dutch man has recently fallen into the “eccentric millionaire” category for building the 'Ark' to exacting Biblical portions. Why? Because 20 years ago he dreamt that is native Holland was engulfed in a flood. Considering that the very existence of the low-lying country is based on strategic canals and dykes holding the water back, his dream was pretty close to ground reality.

His immediate reaction to a frightening prospect was not to pursue a stronger anti-global warming agenda, but to build an Ark!

He built an Ark to replicate Noah's efforts on the waterfront shipyard of his home town. While the design and size pay strict tribute to the original (as specified in the holy book), he has opted to currently populate the Ark with inanimate models of the actual animals (in pairs, naturally).

Almost complete, so far he has put in US$1.6 million (and two years) into the project, and hopes to open it up for tourists. He plans to make the floating faux zoo a first-class tourist attraction, complete with two conference rooms that will hold up to 1,500 people – which, in my mind, safely removes him from any possibility of his name ever being added to the list of 'kooks.'

He is also currently negotiating with London authorities to take the sea worthy craft onto the Thames as part of the 2012 Summer Olympics celebrations.

Click on the video below to watch the msnbc report on 'Johan's Ark.'

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

All things are never equal

People are generally very conscientious of their environment and their actions (or reaction) are reflected on how they perceive it.

I love it when people start a statement with the words “all things being equal” and then follow it up what they WOULD have done but didn't, to justify their actions to the contrary.

It is not a Talatism epiphany that “all things are never (if ever) equal”; what is though is that perceptions of things are always equal to the person's pre-conceived perpetuity index (or PPPI), which is again directly related to the 'association vanity index' or AVI (click for relevant post on AVI).

These two indices prompt us react the way we do... blame it on conditioning (and contradiction, insecurity and hypocrisy).

For example last week a New Mexico football player was offloaded from a US Airway flight from San Francisco International Airport and arrested, for refusing to follow crew member's requests to hike up his saggy pants.

Let me say immediately that I do not think saggy pants are in any way a fashion statement, rather a ploy by underwear marketing people to sell their over-priced wares and get free advertising to boot. Think about it.

Saggy pants are an abomination to good taste and decency – the 'gansta' look has equally ominous roots and is derived from prison inmates caught with trousers too big and no belt.

But I digress.

The offending football player

US Airways spokespeople justified their action to remove the football player from the flight because “while the airline does not have a dress code... we do ask that our passengers dress in an appropriate manner to ensure the safety and comfort of all our passengers.”

The collegian's expulsion (from the plane) and subsequent arrest would not have been much to write about had it not been for another similar story, about a passenger's "dress code," from the same airline (albeit different airport) resulting in a different turn of events.

In addition, this incident took place without fuss from anyone... six days BEFORE the saggy pants issue. US Airways allowed a man to board a flight in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, wearing an outfit that consisted in basically women's underwear and a short (and see-through) cover-up shirt.

The more acceptable man

In this case he was allowed to board and complete his flight. Seemingly there was clearly no concern for potential passenger “safety or (dis)comfort” here.

A US Airlines spokesperson defended the one against the other that “In the case of the gentleman flying of out San Francisco, it was ultimately not a matter of baggy pants. It was a matter of him not complying with crew instructions.”

Which simply means that real difference was that the crew had just failed ask the Florida man to cover up. Of course, how he would have reacted if he had been asked is up to speculation.

[WARNING: The image you see in this post is a doctored version (this a decent blog after all). Should you wish to see the actual image please click here.]

In my view a man with his (brand name?) underwear showing above his pants in public is still a lot more acceptable than a man in women's underwear (in public AND otherwise).

Bottom line the PPPI was too negative in the first case – after all, it seems, 'gangsta' out weighs 'pervert' when it comes to flying. (Perhaps the reasoning was that 'gangsta' is trouble for everyone; in comparison 'pervert' is only trouble for whom he or she targets).

*

As with the ridiculous I am reminded of a joke I read that defines in my mind the fact that things really ARE never equal:

An attractive girl goes into the doctor's rooms, chaperoned by an old crone.

“We've come for an examination,” says the attractive girl.

“Right,” says the doctor, “just go behind that screen and take off your clothes and I'll come and examine you.”

“No, it's not me. It's for my old aunt here,” replies the girl.

“Ah, I see,” says the doctor. “Ma'am, kindly stick out your tongue.”

Trigger happy for medical help

Maybe it's what I have been reading of late, but it seems that there is a sprouting new niche medical procedure that sane people would never consider; something that seems like a good idea (despite all indications that it isn't) only when one is at wit's end.

Hot on the heels of a British man using a shotgun, that allegedly he found behind the hedges, to shoot out a wart from his finger, a Maryland man fired shots in the air from his semi-automatic to get the attention of the police. Why? Because he needed help with a fishhook lodged in his buttocks!

Police responded to a noise complaint from residents that a man “living in the rear entrance of the apartment, Charles Akin Rempe (Rump?), had been making a lot of noise for several hours.”

When police went to investigate they found the man hiding in his closet because he had a “fishhook embedded in his buttocks.” He had started shooting his loaded .45 calibre semi-automatic from where he sat to gain attention to his plight. Thankfully no one was injured.

Apart from the obvious bullet holes in the room there was even evidence that a round had even gone through a side window and lodged itself in the brick wall of an adjacent window.

Rempe was prompting placed in handcuffs and taken to a medical facility for “evaluation.” Apparently criminal charges are also pending.

What I find amazing is that this Rump... sorry, Rempe fellow spent “several hours” shooting in the air to get the attention of the police, rather than dial 911 and call for medical assistance.

Also, is it only me who read the irony that the man lived in the “rear” of the apartment?

*

On that same note, it brings me “back” to the first story... that of the British man who used a shotgun to blow a wart off his finger. (He succeeded by the way in removing the offending wart but also managed to blow off his entire middle finger.)

Sean Murphy, a security guard in England, fortified himself with a good dose of anaesthetic (lager at the local pub, naturally) and used a 12-bore Beretta shotgun to “remove” the painful wart off his middle finger.

He admitted that he had tried various creams, ointments and doctor remedies to have the painful wart removed – to no avail, so he tried his own method. But while he stretched out his left arm and aimed for the wart, he did not account for the gun's recoil (which shifted the trajectory of the bullet... resulting in the collateral damage that he was probably not prepared for).

The poor fellow now has no wart, but also no middle finger and a stump in its place to show for his efforts.

Whichever way you look at it, someone named Murphy should have been more conscious of the law of the same name.

*

And finally to close on a more trigger happy (and inspiring) note, a California man has rigged up his own H20 Jet Pack invention that helps him soar above the water.

The Orange county man's version of the water-powered jet pack was inspired from a similar device he saw advertised on youtube called the JetLev. The JetLev was, however, priced at US$ 99,500 and so prompted Bob Wilson to attempt to build one of his own.

It took him less than a year to build.

As a man making his living fixing things such as sprinklers, plumbing and electric, he had leftover income to support his passion to tinker. For his hydro-powered device Wilson simply attached his jet pack to a tube that's hooked to a personal watercraft's exhaust; a pilot on the watercraft hits the throttle to power the jet pack, whose occupant then steers by pulling and pushing two handles.

Click the video below for the amazing result.



While Wilson admits that he drew inspiration from Raymond Li, the Chinese Canadian who spent a decade researching, designing and marketing the Jetlev (which has patented technology and will hit the US market this month), he is quick to conclude that his version was not a duplication, but an improvement.

Life is to make a difference

Not to make light of a grave issue but people with real conviction and a determination to do their part make a difference in their own way are a dying breed. Literally.

*

Anti-war activist Brian Haw, the man who camped on the greens of the Houses of Parliament in London for the last decade, died after a battle against lung cancer, in Germany. He was 62.

Brian Haw with the Big Ben in the background

Haw set up camp in June 2001 as an angry response to economic sanctions and British and American bombing raids on Iraq. The scope of the protest widened after the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington DC, and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq that followed.

The British officers had tried to have him removed, succeeding recently only to move his protest to the pavement after the Greater London Authority received permission from the court to evict Haw and his supporters from Parliament Square.

Justifying his presence and his conviction he told reporters last year that “We're there because our country is committing infanticide, genocide, the looting of nations. I'm determined to be there until they kill me.”

Haw has travelled around the world to various conflict hotspots to protest injustice and war.

Jeremy Corbyn, a Labour Party legislator, said on Twitter that he was always pleased to see Haw outside Parliament. “He reminded us that one person with determination can show principles while lies and distortions abound,” he tweeted.

*

Equally committed, but to fun, and doing his small part to make a difference in the lives of his buddies serving with him in Afghanistan was a Royal marine who left £100,000 in his will to send 32 of his mates on holiday.

Image from The Sun

David Hart was killed by a Taliban bomb a year ago at the Helmand danger spot of Sangin in Afghanistan. He was 23 at the time.

Hart took out a £250,000 life insurance policy before setting off to Afghanistan - £100,000 of which was left for his mates to go on holiday with their girlfriends “to go on a party trip in his memory if he died.” Thirty-two of his pals are making the trip to Las Vegas.

David, a combat medic for the 40 commando unit, also left a large sum to his family and £50,000 to his favourite charity for injured marines.

*

I have to admit I had never heard of Brian Haw or David Hart until I had read news of one' death and the other's legacy, but now I will probably never forget the level of their conviction and their commitment to live life on their own terms.

Brian Haw. David Hart. RIP.