Why the changes?

I realized that I have been neglecting my college education. You see, the State Universities of New York at Farmingdale and Buffalo trained me in the techniques of Graphic Design. I'd be doing a disservice to those public institutions if I did not recall at least a part of the knowledge that I received. It'd also be like saying to my parents that they wasted their money sending me to school 'cause I didn't lern nutin'? That being said, I learned that it is much harder to read text when it is printed in reverse print. That means that the type is lighter than the background that it is printed on. In traditional printing this was a huge technical nightmare because unless you were using an expensive press (or even if you were) you'd have to fight "bleed" or "spread." Bleeding or spreading is when the ink you use doesn't stay where it's told. The sharp edges tend to spread into the white areas a little causing fuzziness. When dealing with reverse type, especially on cheap paper, that spread causes some of the text to fill in and become illegible. Sometimes it even becomes illiterate or inedible but that's a different story. When it's reversed the eye also tends to close the space between a thin white opening between dark shaped. Serif type looses its serifs making it look "yucky." yucky for all those not trained in Graphic Design means "Icky" or "Bleh." Generally that's a negative reaction. Also, a person's eyes get tired of reading faster when reading reverse type. So if you've been falling asleep while reading my blog, blame reverse type not the content. When I chose the Blue background with reverse type I was thinking aesthetically not legibly. I want my words to sing on the web page. And they can't sing when cut out of a heavy blue background.

I've been doing some research on the issue of Intelligent Design or ID, as it is known. There's been such a big backlash in the scientific community against the teaching of ID in school and rightfully so for reasons that I have touched on. Additionally ID doesn't stand a chance when up against the scientific method. There's just a lot of fluff there. When President Bush responded "Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought . . .. You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."

Huh?

Do I have to spell it out for you people? What the heck does that mean? I have to give Bush a little credit here. After 5 years in the White House, Bush was finally able to dodge a question with the flair of a pro B.S. Artist. What a trick. I bet he learned that from Karl Rove. He may have borrowed a page from Bill Clinton. (See I can attack Democrats too when they're wrong. When they are right, I can't help but point that out as well. Here's a statement by Congressman Rush Holt:

When the tenets of critical thinking and scientific investigation are weakened in our classrooms, we are weakening our nation. That is why I think the President's off-hand comment about intelligent design as the other side of the debate over evolution is such a great disservice to Americans. He said a lot of other good stuff in the article. You should check it out. It was from TPM Cafe.

I have to thank a blog that I found that has some great ideas and links to other evolution proponents: evolutionblog This blog is located on the same hosting site as mine!

I agree that it is a great disservice to allow this dissolution of critical thought in our classrooms. Without critical thought we will be left behind as a nation. We become weak and backward. Who wants to go back to the Middle Ages? Not me. One of the greatest aspects of our national heritage is our great faith. Not only in G-d in whatever form we wish to worship him but in the critical thought that formed our country, our constitution and our independence. In the formation of our country the founding fathers wrote a document that prohibited the mixing of Church and State and for good reason. Not to undermine either but to sanctify both.

L.S.C.

Share