LEONARDO DICAPRIO ON MARTIN SCORSESE AND DE NIRO

Don't Study Too Much History - No One Will Understand Your References When You Talk

The other day, I noted that one of my neighbors down the block had a garage door open and some ping-pong table set up. I asked them; "are you inviting over some Chinese to do a little international diplomacy and negotiation?" They laughed with me because they understood the reference. The reality is not many would, a good number of younger people in our society were not around when Nixon was president, or they didn't follow the news recently when Warren Buffett went to Asia and played table tennis as part of an international business affair.

One thing I found is that if you study history too much, and if you know too much about it, you are liable to catch people off guard who don't understand those references. They might think you are weird, or even strange, they won't understand what on earth you are talking about. Does this mean we shouldn't study history; because no one will understand the references we talk? No, I think you should study history, and it's unfortunate that more people don't. If they didn't understand the references, but they probably wouldn't make the same mistakes over and over that humans often make.

The pattern doesn't always repeat itself, but all too often it does, history really does repeat, but if you don't study your history, or if you study a false history with politically correct blinders, then I would say that old quote is correct; "you are doomed to repeat." Maybe more people should use such references when they have intellectual conversations in public, and maybe more people who don't understand what they're talking about might ask, maybe in that way we can transfer information to others and subsequent generations can learn from us.

It might be difficult to explain a historical reference in 145 characters in a tweet, but it's not impossible to do in one-on-one conversation, you can learn a lot when you study history, or when you talk to someone who has, even better someone who's lived through it. In fact, you learn more when you talk to people who have lived through it, lived to tell about it, and came back with personal lessons and personal perspectives because of it. It changes the way we live in the future of our society in so many ways.

With all of this said, it doesn't make sense to make people look stupid in public because they don't know what you're talking about, often attorneys do this, and esoteric university professors. It's probably why people don't like to talk to them very much. But everyone likes to hear a story, and when we hear stories we tend to remember them better, sometimes better than even our own history. Please consider all this and think on it.

Lance Winslow has launched a new provocative series of eBooks on the Future of Education. Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank; http://www.worldthinktank.net

National Arts & Humanities Month PSA

The Myth of the Loch Ness Monster - Science Verses Legend

1400 years ago, so legends of Ancient Scotland claim, St Columbia encountered a giant sea monster living in Loch Ness' waters. This previously unknown local legend suddenly entered the public arena when a new road was built on the northern shore of the Loch in 1933, providing open views of the waters. Nessie sightings, as views of the friendly or not so friendly monster became known, then proliferated and drew international attention.

Series of Failed Proofs and Evidences

In 1933, the Daily Mail took advantage of the Nessie craze and hired Marmaduke Wetherell, a famous hunter, to travel to the loch, investigate the sightings and find the monster. He did not find the monster. But in December 1933, he did locate tracks-enormous footprints on the shore of the Loch leading to the water. However, the Natural History Museum sent a team of researchers to examine the tracks, and they found that the footprints were from a dried hippopotamus foot! That was pretty amazing in itself, but wasn't proof of the Loch Ness Monster.

A few months later, a respectable British surgeon, Colonel Robert Wilson, claimed that he was able to take an actual photo of the monster. He says he was driving along the new road on April 19, 1934, when he noticed something moving in the water. He had a camera with him, so he quickly stopped the car and snapped a photo. The photo showed the slender neck of a serpent rising out of the Loch. For decades, this photo-dubbed as the "Surgeon's Photo"-was considered to be the evidence of the monster's existence.

However, a kybosh was put on this evidence when Stewart Campbell analyzed the photo in 1984. He claimed that the object in the water was only two or three feet long, and concluded that it was a marine bird not the head of the Monster. Nonetheless, Campbell was also wrong. The object in the water was nothing more than a mere toy submarine outfitted with a sea serpent head. This was revealed in 1994 when Christian Spurling, Wilson's stepson, confessed his involvement in a plot involving both Wetherell and Colonel Wilson to create the infamous photo.

Wishful Thinking

Finally, the series of failed attempts at proof of the existence of the Loch Ness Monster came to an end 10 years ago on July 27, 2003. The remains of a giant sea creature were 'discovered' again in Scotland's Loch Ness, but instead of praising this discovery as evidence, scientists have finally concluded it to be a hoax.

The making of the BBC's television documentary, "Searching for the Loch Ness Monster", involved the scanning of the shoreline from top and to bottom to search for Nessie, or traces of her if she was breathing. The scientists used 600 separate sonar beams and satellite navigation technology to ensure that not a single portion of the Loch was missed. The team surveyed the waters, and although the team did find a buoy moored several meters below the surface as a test for the equipment, in the end, no Loch Ness monster was found. Finally on July 27, 2003, the BBC finally concluded the Loch Ness Monster to be a hoax.

The BBC team claim went further. It held that that mythical monsters such as Loch Ness' own are an example of wishful thinking - when people impose their own interpretations on unexplainable phenomena that they witness. Scientists also say that the only explanation for the persistence of the 'legend' of the monster is that people see what they want to see.

But we can choose whether to accept this science or not. There is room in our imaginations for mythical creatures - in fact we almost seem to crave them. We can believe 100% in the dragons in Eragon or the powers of magic in Harry Potter. And none of the scientific evidence in the world can really put an end to a good story!

Melinda J - really Melinda Jones - is Editor in Chief of Salute the Day - Mango Salute's Magazine about celebrating global cultures, religions and justice. Check out our daily magazine at http://salutetheday.mangosalute.com. We connect people through stories & art and sell fully customizable art to make into greeting cards. Visit our site to join the conversation and to use our card wizard or send an express card. Both are created online but sent by us through the mail - with a video that you make or upload.

UWO O-Week 2011 Closing Ceremonies - Arts & Humanities

Reevaluation of the Shakespeare Authorship Question

Challenges to William Shakespeare - the actor from Stratford-upon-Avon - as the author of the famous plays attributed to him began in the middle of the nineteenth century and have continued incessantly ever since. Such challenges to this icon of English literature were not made out of malice, nor were they the result of conspiracy mania. Simply put, the background of Shakespeare, particularly his education, or lack of it, was not conducive to writing some of the most erudite plays in English history.

A search for the real Shakespeare erupted. To date, more than seventy writers of the Elizabethan Era have been proposed as the true author of the Shakespearean canon. Major candidates include the Earl of Oxford, the playwright Christopher Marlowe, and the scientist Sir Francis Bacon. Minor candidates include the aristocrat Sir Walter Raleigh, the linguist John Florio, and Elizabeth I, queen of England. But no evidence in support of any particular candidate is convincing.

Evidence in support of Shakespeare as the author of the plays is likewise not convincing. In other words, there is no evidence that could not have been fabricated by the printers of the real Shakespeare, by literary friends of the real Shakespeare, or by his contacts at the Stationers' Register and in the Royal Court of England. Obviously, the real Shakespeare would have needed friends in all such places, otherwise his use of "William Shakespeare" as a pen name could never have been kept a secret. But justification for royal protection in these circumstances is difficult to imagine. The real Shakespeare may have been an assassination target for reasons unrelated to his innocuous plays.

At this point in time, centuries after the death of all eyewitnesses and after the destruction of any incriminating records (such as school attendance records) that may have existed, convincing evidence is something that can only be found in the plays themselves, the very works that make Shakespeare famous. For example, Shakespeare was born in the town of Stratford-upon-Avon, grew up there, married there, had children there, bought a huge house there, retired there, died there, and generally spent lots of time there throughout his life. However, the massive Shakespearean canon makes no mention or allusion to Stratford-upon-Avon at all. If there were so much as a single reference to that town somewhere, anywhere, in the plays or sonnets of Shakespeare, we would have convincing evidence, and there would be no Shakespeare authorship controversy today. Even a mere sonnet dedicated to his wife Anne Hathaway or to his children would have been enough but it is nowhere to be found.

While there is no internal evidence in support of Shakespeare, there is internal evidence that argues against him. For example, the plays of Shakespeare, along with the plays of Marlowe, display direct borrowings from an unusual source: the prophecies of Michel Nostradamus. Thus, ancient names for the north wind, "Boreas" and "Aquilon," the long extinct city of "Memphis," and countless other terms from antiquity, simultaneously appear in the works of Nostradamus, Marlowe, and Shakespeare.

A few examples of this phenomena could of course be a coincidence but such examples are not few and far between. They are huge in number and often spread across two or more lines: words found in close proximity in Nostradamus will likewise appear, as the same words or slight variants thereof, in close proximity in the works of Marlowe and Shakespeare. For example, Nostradamus has "Mercury" and "Hercules" in a single line, and in Shakespeare we find "Mercurial" in one line and "Hercules" in the next line. Once again, this use of Nostradamus for constructive literary purposes is frequent in both Marlowe and Shakespeare.

By and large, the writing careers of Marlowe and Shakespeare are more consecutive than overlapping. The plays of Marlowe are generally attributed to the time frame 1587 to 1593 (death of Marlowe) and the plays of Shakespeare can be attributed to the time frame 1593 (earliest entry in the Stationers' Register) to 1616 (death of Shakespeare, though many plays were first published in 1623). However, it cannot be argued that Shakespeare picked up Nostradamus from Marlowe because there are many instances of Shakespeare borrowing from Nostradamus that are not found in Marlowe. Somehow, they each managed to acquire a copy of the Nostradamus prophecies and then proceeded to make use of those prophecies in exactly the same way. Though such a scenario is theoretical possible, it is not particularly credible.

The Nostradamus connection certainly makes Marlowe (despite his alleged death in 1593) a frontrunner for Shakespearean authorship but is far from proof of that. A visit to France (to acquire a copy of the prophecies), an educational background in the French language (to read the prophecies), or an interest in astrology (underlying theme of the prophecies), cannot be demonstrated for either Marlowe or Shakespeare.

It seems that Marlowe has never been seriously challenged as author of the plays attributed to him because, unlike Shakespeare, he had some verifiable education. But that is going to change. The Nostradamus connection makes it likely that the plays of Marlowe and the plays of Shakespeare were both written by the same person, who had to have been none other than the real Shakespeare. Marlowe - through his work as a spy - had strong ties to the queen's Privy Council, which in turn implies that the real Shakespeare could have fallen under the umbrella of royal protection. And with royal protection, authorship conspiracy becomes possible.

Morten St. George has investigated diverse historical mysteries ranging from the Nazca Lines to the Voynich manuscript. Abundant illustrations of textual equivalencies in Nostradamus, Marlowe, and Shakespeare can be found at Author Conspiracies of the Rose Cross.

Art & Humanities Music Video

6 Historical Figures - Myth or Reality?

It's uncomplicated to distinguish which well-known figures of the history were genuine and which were not. Several historical explanations are unfinished or fogged up by allegory, and those that do subsist are often incongruous.

1. King Arthur
The guardian of Camelot is history's well known sovereign, however many scholars consider his story to be a fable. The valiant King Arthur is conventionally portrayed keeping away a Saxon attack on Britain. He won a sequence of 12 combat against the trespasser still he is not named in the extant history of the battle. An extensive description of Arthur did not come up until ninth century, and a report of Lady Guinevere.

2. Pythagoras
We all heard about the Pythagorean Theorem, but likewise well-designed evidence is not available for the subsistence of its name. It is said Pythagoras lived at some stage in 5th and 6th century B.C. He is kept in mind as a mathematician, but in prehistoric times he was known as the religious father of a religious group preoccupied by numerology, and concepts like transmigration.

All his well-known ideas and formulas appeared from his supporters, Pythagorean. Stories related to Pythagoras are extremely tangled with myth and the paranormal. Tales portrays him as having golden thighs; one more asserts him as the son of the god Apollo.

3. John Henry
As per a famous American folktale, a husky slave and driver -John Henry wanted to construct a railroad passageway. Henry barely won the combat amid man and machine, but then fall down and died with his sledgehammer. There is no proof that he ever participated in a race.

4. Homer
Researchers have long conjectured about the accurate basis for the classic poet Homer's "The Iliad" but the disagreement also lengthens to the rhymester himself. According to a number of assumptions, the utmost of the entire Greek author may not have lived.

5. Robin Hood
Robin Hood appeared largely in medieval myths, but are parable of a bandit who robbed the rich and provided to the poor.

6. Lycurgus
Lycurgus is known as the man who fashioned the state of Sparta into the most alarming military authority of the past world. He is supposed to have been created the agog, a laborious, training program considered to fashion Spartan boys into brave warriors.The Spartans did not document their history in script, so most of the information is contradictory.

All these are said to be existing in the past but there is no proof to support any of the above mentioned heroes existence.

More about me: http://www.sapnasaurabh.wordpress.com

Specialties: Sales Management, Preparing RFI/RFP, Negotiations, Market Research, Market Analysis, Bid Management, CRM, International Marketing

National Arts & Humanities Month PSA

Letter to Margaret Thatcher

You often said that family values are what matter, that family is the core group, and by family you meant two good people, strong and true, a nuclear unit of 2:2 with children washed and scrubbed and everything is in its proper place. The children are naturally respectful.

You scorned the notion of utopia and yet you readily illuminated a utopian vision of free-market capitalism. You spoke of practicality, of realism, and you said your concerns were pragmatic. You said you were concerned with security, with war, with economics.

You imagined a perfect global economy, a world governed by the force of law, and benignly backed by that infamous dragon, the nuclear deterrent.

You allowed for an arsenal of deadly weapons, because you believed, fervently, that such was the only protection against the enemies of freedom and the threat of aggression.

And this, of course, would be perfectly handled by our big brother overseas.

You meant well, despite your contempt for working class Britain; your world was to have been free and prosperous.

As you defined it, we were to be a united nations of freedom loving (and free-trade loving) nations. A conglomeration bound by law, living in harmony, in armament, and ruled by stable governments, all divinely on message.

The whole planet was to be policed by a benevolent yet stern leadership, (and the mythical Ronald Reagan fell nicely into the role. His persona fitted the bill. What a nice man he was).

You foresaw the larger stars - by sheer force of gravity - pulling the lesser mortals into line, (that is to say the non-English speaking minority nations). You foresaw a Star Trek Federation of liberty-loving peoples, all living happily and obediently ever after, in a blissful state of democracy.

Underneath the plummy Oxbridge voice and a life tainted with snobbery, there was a stout heart, and a sincere intellect.

You felt that the medicine you offered was harsh but ultimately right. You felt certain that people would wish to strive, as you strove, to work hard, as you worked, to make sacrifices, as you made, and pay their debts to the society you refused to acknowledge.

You felt that by taking a wrecking ball to the unions and the false security they offered you would liberate working class Britain from insane socialist ideals.

Unlike Mary Poppins, (perhaps she was a heroine of yours?) you forgot to add a spoonful of sugar to make the medicine go down.

Why, Maggie, why?

Why did you think it normal and natural to destroy the livelihoods of workers dependent on coal, steel, and manufacturing? Just as you were dependent on your beloved no. 10?

Did you not foresee that killing of those lurching industries meant a vacuum, a void.

Did you believe Maggie, that deprived workers would have the will to start 'doing it for themselves'. You spoke with great anger, great passion about the tiny well-organised minority. Were you enacting revenge for the indignity suffered by your father the Alderman? Yes, he lost his crown, but whose fault was that? Was he perhaps as high-handed with the rights and principles of others as you yourself were?

As to the tiny, well organised minority - of which you spoke with such loathing - was this the group who ousted your father? Just as you yourself would be ousted by another secret cabal?

Perhaps you avenged your father's name, but in doing so, you fell upon your sword.

Your great mistake Maggie was not dismantling the unions, or doing away with manufacturing and coal. Nor was it the deregulation of finance. The worst mistake you made was that in your haste to destroy the tiny well organised minority, you forgot to erect a plan B.

All generals, all marshals, Maggie, must have a plan B. Did you never consider the aftermath of battle? With what did you and your government seek to replace the great monoliths of industry? When dismantling the unions, did you consider the tight-knit, hard-working communities that would be left in a vacuum?

Or were you content to ignore the ferment of anarchy, anger and resentment you were creating? Did you not see that socialism, stripped of integrity and power would eventually turn fetid? Did you never consider the affront to others' dignity that would be caused by such a policy of dismemberment?

Yet, you broke the stultifying effect of the 'closed shop', and made positive changes in the society that you refused to believe in. The odious Arthur Scargill was slung out in favour of liberty, and rightly so. Who wouldn't wish to be released from the tyranny of the chewed pencil tip; who wouldn't prefer to live in a world un-shrunken and un-diminished by fear? Not I.

But you failed to rid old England of 'creeping socialism'. Instead, you and your party made it ten times worse. Abandoning the humanitarian vision of Nye Bevan, and the compassionate consciousness of the post-war period, English socialism became an altogether more virulent affair.

You yourself have admitted that our problems are now very severe. Post Thatcherism, we have Islamic militarism, central European chaos, Russian mafia, and deadly weapons now openly for sale on the free-trade marketplace.

The commonplace Marxists you scorned were less threatening than the embittered 'intellectuals' who took their place. These twisted souls have invited the militant locusts to come and destroy our freedoms. You knew very well Maggie that the mediocre purveyors of tuppence ha'penny ideologies would rather see us dead than free. You kicked them in the nuts, Maggie, and rightly so. Yet, our world is more dangerous since the collapse of the Berlin wall.

Did old age teach you anything? Did you finally consider the importance of community as you lived your last days in the Ritz hotel? No doubt served hand and foot. Did your dependency enlighten you, Maggie?

But I digress; I wanted to tackle your notion of family, for I am at odds with that notion. It strikes me, Maggie, that you were not totally convinced by your own argument. You said 'home is a place to go to when there is no more work to be done.' You slept no more than three or four hours a night. You were up with the lark, doing your 'boxes'. You thrived on work, not on family. Much of the time, (if the biographers are honest), you left your own family in the sidelines, out of necessity perhaps, but still.

Your prodigious energy, intense focus, amazing drive and ambition were admirable. You knew that laying claim to core 'family values' (a myth you exploded even as you uttered it) would have men in suits flocking to your leadership. I suspect they saw you as an alpha male, albeit in women's clothing.

Paradoxically, Margaret Thatcher, your greatest contribution to the world is the very powerful symbol of freedom that you yourself represented in person. The sight of one woman realising her true and fullest potential, irrespective of gender, class or marital status was a great spectacle of liberty. A truly remarkable achievement, and for this alone I revere your gigantic spirit.

Who else but freedom loving old England could have produced such a one?

Yet you were old-fashioned, you insisted that women be women, and men be men. You poured scorn on feminists, yet challenged the status quo. Not content with being a mere Prime Minister, you strode boldly out upon the world stage and wielded your influence in America, in Russia.

If only you had permitted such uniqueness in others. Instead you enacted that vile piece of legislation, clause 28. (What was your problem, Maggie? Why the hatred of gays?)

Though marvellous abroad, you proved less able at home. Was this because you never truly understood your own political philosophy? Where there is division, there cannot be harmony, and you were divided, at home.

It was not the ordinary, grubby business of politics that broke you in the end, nor the sneak thief in the night who stole your crown. (Although John Major snatched your seat with unseemly haste). Your achilles heel was your unconscious rejection of family, of community, of society.

"There is no such thing as society", you said. Hence the war of aggression enacted on Britain. Though manufacturing was already in decline, you sped the process along, ignoring what was at stake for the weak 'dependents', those who were suddenly on the lay by with no where left to go.

Not everyone had your great intellect, your will, or your drive. You famously said that there is always going to be inequality, but that everyone has the right to a decent life, even while living within a community of 'unequals'. Did you mean the people who depended on their 'unequal' jobs for survival?

So, in conclusion, (and let this be a warning to all great future leaders, both men and women), there is such a thing as society, there is such a thing as community, of our very natures we are community. We do not exist in a vacuum, we are not content living in isolation. Isolation breeds inhumanity, and that makes us dangerous to one another. Class boundaries are lethal breeding grounds for aggression.

We do not trample lightly upon each others rights and fundamental of these is the right to work with dignity and pride. Everyone has the right to survive on this glorious and varied planet, no matter the economics, greed, prejudice and aggression are in constant supply. To struggle is our human inheritance, and fear is the shadow that follows in our wake. Human nature is a dangerous game.

You said that the lady was not for turning, but unless we turn and face our demons the shadow must always win out in the end, just as yours did Maggie.

Rest in peace Margaret Thatcher, great warrior, visionary leader, and flawed politician.

Alice Wickham, aka Olive Onion, is a regular writer at New London Writers, find more of her writing at New London writers

President Obama Awards the 2012 National Medals of Arts and Humanities.mp4

7 Tips To Finding Your Passion For Living A Life You'll Love!

Some people grow up knowing the things they are passionate about and others have a harder time figuring it out. Passion is that thing you do that you love doing, want more of and you lose track of time while you're doing it. Living your life of passion helps uncover your life purpose.

Here are 7 tips on discovering your interests and passions.

1) Listen to the quiet voice within. What is it telling you? For instance, when you get up in the morning, are you eager to go to work or do you feel like covering your head with the pillow and pretending the world doesn't exist? If you're going for the pillow, it's telling you to make a change-this is not what you want to be doing every day!
2) Start paying attention to the things that attract you and write them down in a small notebook just for that purpose. Think about simple everyday things like what TV shows you like; what genre of books you read; what articles or pictures draw your attention in magazines; what hobbies do you do or would like to try and so on.
3) What makes you envious of other people? What are they doing or what do they have that you'd like in your life? I didn't realize how much I enjoyed renovating and landscaping my home until I became aware of being envious of the job Amy Matthews was able to do on HGTV's Sweat Equity! 

4) What would be your ideal living situation? If you had a magic wand and could create it in one day, where would you be living, with whom, what would you be doing, what attractions would be in this place, etc.
5) When you were little, what did you like to play? Cops and robbers? Pretend you were a horse? Pushing dirt around with your Tonka truck and bulldozer? Were you an adrenalin junky? Did you jump off a rope into the river?
6) What did you dream of being? A fireman; princess; writer; engineer, ski instructor... it could be as direct as what you dreamed of or you may have to extrapolate a little.
7) Draw a picture or use words to describe a peaceful scene that is ideal for you. Come on... you have to do it for real for this to work!

What themes can you pull together from the exercises above that point you toward a career or direction in your life? What steps can you take today to begin implementing your dream?

Now, what (or who) holds you back from living it? You can list money as an obstacle but go deeper than that. List all the action steps it will take to get to your dream. Make a list of any obstacles that are in the way of living the life you love for each step. Come up with at least one way to overcome each of the obstacles you listed. Then puts completion dates on each step, working backward the date of your final step. Brainstorm with a trusted friend if you're stuck. One who will not belittle or laugh at your dreams. One who will encourage you and support following your heart.

What are you willing to give up? What are you willing to do to make it happen? When you truly love doing something-your passion-the money will come!

Just as we do exercises to strengthen our core we need to strengthen our inner awareness to what we like, dislike, or love-that is what it means to have a "self". Not what other people expect or want us to like and dislike-but what we really feel.

I believe we start with discovering our inner being by knowing our interests and passions-that which was instilled in us by God--and is honed over time by our experiences and blossoms at the needed time. When you discover your passion and follow it, you will benefit from several things:

o It makes you happy and fulfilled
o It pleases God
o It makes others happy
o It fills a higher purpose because it will somehow be of service to other
o And, it gives purpose to your life

Every thing that has happened in your life, or to you in your life, will only make sense when you put what you learned from those experience to work. In the past or present, you may have asked, "Why God? Why did that happen to me?" There are no helpful answers to that question. The more useful question is what did I learn and what do I do with this event, situation, experience that will be helpful to myself and others?

The first step of having a new future is being aware of what you like and don't like about your present. Then you know what you need and/or want to change. The next step is to imagine the future you want. Do a vision board or write in detail what it will look like, sound like, feel like and be like. Once you have that clarity, you will almost unconsciously make decisions that lead you in the direction of the future you created. What you think is what becomes! Enjoy your future!

Email me at cyndimccaycoaching@gmail.com to share your success stories with implementing the above tool, or visit the guest book page of my website and leave a message. To learn more about coaching or how coaching can help you clarify and reach your goals visit http://www.cyndimccaycoaching.com.

Cyndi is a Certified Life Coach and Licensed Clinical Social Worker. She co-authored the best-selling book "Against The Grain" with Brian Tracy, which is available on her website or at Amazon.com. To inquire about working with Cyndi, visit her website or she can be reached at 574-292-3292 to schedule a complementary Life Clarity Session.

" Princes et Princesses " 1 TÜRKÇE

Flowers and Mythology

The flowers have appeared in mythology all around the world. Certain flowers have stories associated with them and thus bear significance in their respective culture and tradition. Let us have an insight on flowers carrying mythological significance.

Anemone: This flower associated with the demise of Adonis, a demigod of beauty, holds a special significance in Greek mythology. The myth states that Aphrodite, the Goddess of love, loved Adonis profoundly. However, Adonis died at an early age during a boar hunt. Aphrodite mourned and shrieked seeing her lover bleed to death. While Adonis lay in her arms, she sprinkled Adonis's blood with nectar, from which emerged crimson red colored anemones. Later, Christians also adopted this flower and believed that the red color of the flower symbolizes the blood shed by Jesus Christ during crucifixion.

Hyacinth: According to the Greek mythology, Hyacinth was the lover of God Apollo. When Hyacinth died, a new flower sprang from the blood stained earth. Apollo named the new formed flower as hyacinth and adjured a three-day festival in honor of his friend.

Rose: For the ancient Romans, this flower was an epitome of beauty and a symbol of death and rebirth. Christians associated the flower with Mary, the mother of Lord Jesus. Some people still like to know Mother Mary as a Mystic or Holy Rose.

Sunflower: According to Greek mythology, sunflower emerged from a princess called Clytie. Sun God Apollo and Clytie loved each other. However, when Apollo abandoned Clytie, she grieved profusely. For several days and nights she sat on a rock watching Apollo as he drove his chariot from east to west. Apollo felt pity for her and transformed her into a flower known as the sunflower.

Narcissus: Greek mythology associates this flower with Narcissus, a native of Boeotia. He was extremely boastful of his beauty and disdained the advances made to him by princesses. One day while gazing at a pool of water, he fell in love with his own reflection. Unable to leave the charm and beauty of his own reflection, he sat there for several days and nights and eventually died with grief. A flower grew in the place where once his body lay. The princesses named the flower Narcissus, which became a symbol of self-indulgence and vanity.

Lotus: Lotus finds a mention in Hindu and Buddhist mythology. In Hindu mythology, it is the abode of Lord Brahma. As per Buddhist mythology, Lord Buddha first appeared sailing on a lotus. When he walked on earth, he left behind lotus flowers instead of footprints. Ancient Egyptians believed that Goddess Isis emerged from a lotus flower.

Flower inspired myths are plentiful. The story telling behind such mythological significance of flowers is incredibly amazing!

This article is written by Shrey Sehgal, Founder, FlowerAura, the pioneers in flowers delivery service in India. Remember us if you wish to send flowers anywhere in India.

Obama awards art, humanities medals

Top 5 Reasons to Support Anarchy (or Why You Should Lead a Millennial Revolution)

It's been a while since we had a good ol' revolution. I mean, 1783? Really? Come on, that's far too long. It's time to get with the program, my friends! Here are the top 5 reasons to support a 21st Century American Revolution (and an alternate ending):

5. Get Back Our Dignity!

We are Americans for Christ's sake! We waged a full-on war over paying taxes on our tea, yet we allowed our "Democratic" government to pass the Patriot Act without so much as a good old-fashioned sit-in? When did we become such wusses? Raise your ice-cold Sam Adams if you're with me!

4. Rebuild the Economy!

Arms dealers aren't making enough money! With the Obama administration pulling our soldiers out of war-torn Iraq and Afghanistan, the war-machine is in desperate need of new revenue streams. Do the economy a favor - put the people back to work with the surreptitiously passed American UPRISE Act (Undermine Plutocratic Reign in Search of Equality).

3. Share the Wealth!

The Federal Reserve needs to bailout American citizens. It's time to invade the Fed and distribute its worthless pieces of paper to the 99% along with the promise to provide everyone everywhere with their inalienable right to MacBooks and iPhones. You have a large, anonymous, volunteer army equipped to hack security clearances at your ready, and in return they will name a computer virus in your honor. E Pluribus Unum!

2. Eliminate Collective Stupidity!

The collective IQ of America has been in serious decline for decades while the youth population has continued to grow. Without a centralized government, leadership decisions will be left up to local communities where sensible people like Grandma Cyrus will beat Miley's hind-end before she goes on national TV making a fool of herself and "rocking" the vote! (Ageism is not discriminatory if you are under 30.)

1. Become Infamous!

After you are executed - martyred, if you prefer - by the "fill-in-the-adjective" reigning government, you'll go down in the history books as the "Last Anarchist". You'll be the envy of all your wannabe revolutionist neighbors and despised by modern-day "Tories" as a treasonous dissident and felon. Your name will become synonymous with traitor. Not to mention, you'll be doing Judas Iscariot a favor and as such he'll owe it to you to let you cut in line in Purgatory.

Unless of course...

You win the rebellion, in which case, the new Revolutionary regime's puppet leader will discredit your sacrifices, execute you under questionable circumstances, and revise the history books to exclude you. You will, however, be immortalized on expensive t-shirts made by penny-wage Chinese factory workers and sold in high-end retail shops to ironic counter-culture hipsters a la Che Guevera.

Contact Agatha Schreiber at agatha@ampersandh.com to inquire about guest blog posts.

An Inside Look at Five Years of Al Jazeera English

EBT Cards, Abuse, Fish, and Food Stamps Program Theory

Mention the issue of food stamps in mixed political company and you are bound to win new friends and influence people, or find yourself at odds with folks you previously considered friends or wise individuals. The political divide on this topic is like night and day, like Obama or Romney, or like atheist and Catholic. Let's just say; diametrically opposed for now. Still, let's expand this conversation if we might, let's dig deeper.

The Los Angeles Times on May 24, 2013 had an interesting article "The Case for Food Stamps," by Christopher D. Cook, which asserted "slashing food aid makes no sense in humanitarian, economic or health terms."

Now then, I find that statement laughable. But let's take each of those issues on separately;

1. Humanitarian
2. Economic
3. Health Terms

A. Humanitarian - Last time I checked human beings were a very evolved species capable of planning, reasoning, thinking and able to take care of themselves. It is neither wise nor noble to make a capable species weak. We need to teach people to fish, not give them fish. And speaking of fish, not long ago I was in Hawaii and there was a sign at a restaurant which said "Drive Through Sushi - EBT Cards Accepted" and when I saw that I thought "ouch" there I was in a village like beach town where local Hawaiians lived, natives.

Off on the beach were several row boats parked in shallow water. These folks have been living on the Hawaiian Islands for 1,000s of years for all we know, they've been living off coconuts and fish. Why do they need free fish now? And why do they need a drive through to pick them up, isn't that the epitome of laziness, and we are doing that to them - there is no humanitarian honor in that.

B. Economic - It is not economically wise for our Federal Government to continue to boost the Food Stamp program or continue to spend 10s of billions of taxpayer's money every year giving away free food. We have huge budget deficits each year, we owe more and more money, and we have leadership with socialist tendencies and socialism has never ended well for any nation (cite: history).

C. Health Terms - Currently, we are making people fat by giving them all the food they might want to eat, so we are causing people to get Diabetes. And, again, this is exacerbating our health care system, and in the age of ObamaCare we can't afford this economically either.

Well, now it's your turn to sound off. You can put forth more left-leaning arguments for me to defeat or leave a comment on this article. Please consider all this and think on it.

Lance Winslow has launched a new provocative series of eBooks on Future Humanitarian Concepts. Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank; http://www.worldthinktank.net

The Commons and Digital Humanities in Museums | Neal Stimler

Most People Would Give If They Were Sure It Would Help - He Noted

When discussing Ayn Rand Philosophical realities with an acquaintance the other day in the lobby of an auto service company, I began to see why so many people were bothered with her theories on Objectivism. I think in some regards it isn't well understood, or it is bothersome to think of in that way. Interestingly enough, the next day I received a correspondence from another acquaintance in a different part of the country, who made a very astute comment, namely;

"In my observation, at least in my part of the country, the average person wants to do some sort of work for a living and would gladly pay a stranger $20 if they knew the stranger was going to use it to help their situation."

Okay so, right. Indeed, I think that is the case in most of our nation, and if you change the denomination, the world too. Problem is giving money is the hardest thing to do right without unintended consequences - Melinda and Bill Gates made that statement once - they are right. They've made some mistakes too, unintended crisis created by their giving.

Ayn Rand was right to say that people give because it makes them feel good to do so, it makes them feel that they have upheld their own moral code, in essence they are doing it in a major part for themselves - and what's that quote: "don't look a gift horse in the mouth."

My acquaintance from the other side of the country went further and noted another important piece to all this;

"Of course we also need to think beyond the United States because our world has shrunk to nothing with technology. The entire world needs to be able to live a happy life with a minimum amount of food and clean water for our world to ever really be a safe place with no war."

I would modify that to say; "the entire world needs to have the chance to achieve happiness" but also responsible for their actions. That's how nature works. And with safety, freedom, liberty, piece of mind, and the pursuits of happiness also comes with it; responsibility too. Lastly, our dialogue tried to make reason out of this terrible thing that humans do - killing of their own species - war. My acquaintance started off this philosophical conundrum and debate with:

"As soon as we stop creating desperate people, we will stop creating upheaval and war."

Maybe or maybe not, and I would wager to say, it's not likely because sometimes happy humans want more, want what they don't have, their neighbor's wife (a Biblical Reference I'll throw in), a bigger yacht, faster car, they want to "Surpass the Jones'" which was a famous advertisement that Lincoln Mercury ran for their luxury SUVs for many years, full page advertisements in Forbes, Wall Street Journal and Investor's Business Daily.

Well, that's perhaps enough commentary on this for today. If you'd like to share your thoughts on this, you may email me, let's talk, and I'll make that dialogue part of this on-going series of humanitarian articles. Please consider all this and think on it.

Lance Winslow has launched a new provocative series of eBooks on Humanitarian Concepts. Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank; http://www.worldthinktank.net