queerplanet.net by GaySocialites.com

the latest gay headlines from around the world

Tag Archives: facts

Things that make you go hmmm: How was Bill Clinton impeached, yet he served two full terms as President of the United States?

Q: How was Bill Clinton impeached, yet he served two full terms as President of the United States?

A: Bill Clinton, President of the United States, was impeached by the House of Representatives on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice on December 19, 1998, but acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999. With a two-thirds majority required for conviction, only 45 senators voted guilty on the perjury charge and 50 on the obstruction charge.

What prompted these charges? In taped phone conversations, Monica Lewinsky, a former White House Intern, discussed having oral sex with Clinton. Details were also pulled from her e-mails and hard drive. Apparently, Bill’s hard drive couldn’t resist the temptation. At the deposition, Clinton claimed “sexual relations” meant only vaginal intercourse. Really, Bubba? No wonder Hillary never looks very happy – maybe it’s time to buy a new dictionary or copy of the Kama Sutra. Clinton also contended that his statement that “there’s nothing going on between us” had been truthful because he had no ongoing relationship with Lewinsky at the time he was questioned.

So Bill Clinton was indeed impeached by the House, but acquitted by the Senate and, therefore, was able to complete his second term as president.

Looking back, my advice to Monica Lewinsky would have been to keep her mouth shut on the phone and when she’s on her knees in the front of the president.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

Charles On… you don’t have to be a homo to be queer


I’m pleased to once again have the chance to reach you once again via queerplanet.net. This isn’t my first time publishing here at queerplanet.

When I made the move from television to online media in 2003, I was very lucky to have the opportunity to write for queerplanet. In 2005, I left to start my own company, GaySocialites.com. I guess you could say things have come full circle for me as we acquired queerplanet.net over the summer.

Way back when I first started writing for queerplanet, my editor encouraged me to “think outside of the box” since queer doesn’t necessarily mean you have to be gay.

She used queer as a term to describe those that others may call odd. She told me that she wanted queerplanet to be a place where anyone would feel welcomed, especially those who might not feel comfortable anywhere else. That comment really stuck with me, and that’s why I want to make the new queerplanet.net more than just a gay news outlet.

If you’re looking for topics of gay interest, I’d recommend GaySocialites.com where you will find several of the former queerplanet contributors.

Here at the new queerplanet.net, our coverage will focus on abnormal news and odd information. We hope to add a brighter side to your day as we foster an environment where everyone can feel at home.

The term “queer” is what you take it for. Just because you’re queer doesn’t mean you’re a homosexual. As a matter of fact, some of the biggest queers and unusual people I know are heterosexuals.

For me, the term queer isn’t derogatory. In my opinion, a is queer someone who is unusual, extraordinary and not afraid to stray from the norm.

As that bumper sticker on my car during the late 90s read… “why be normal?” We’re here, were queer and we’re proud of it! We hope you’ll hang around too, and enjoy the fun!

["Charles On..." is a syndicated column that runs three times each week on three of the websites in our group. It sums up the thoughts of our President and Editorial Director, Charles Winters. Start your week off with a look at the odd things on his mind at queerplanet.net, an uplifting twist on Tuesdays at GaySocialites.com and his commentary on issues facing New York's Financial District on Wednesdays at www.FiDiNYC.info.]

Things that make you go hmmm… Can Sarah Palin really see Russia from her home in Alaska?

Can Sarah Palin really see Russia from her home in Alaska?

No.  Sarah Palin can not see any part of Russian land from her house in Alaska, that is unless she’s watching TV, looking at a picture or maybe on a globe.  However, Palin actually never claimed to be able to see Russia from her house.  It was actually Tina Fey who made that statement while she was playing Palin in a Saturday Night Live skit.

However, there are some places in Alaska where you can actually see Russia.  Alaska and Russia are seperated by the Bering Strait.  At the most narrow portion, pnly 55 miles seperates Russia from Alaska.  It might be a stretch to catch a glimpse of Russia while standing in Alaska there, but there are two small islands located within that body of water.  The Little Diomede is in Alaska and the Big Diomede is in Russia.  With only 2.5 miles separating the two, it is possible to see to from one to the other.  Here’s the view from Alaska to Russia:

Even more interesting, looking at the Big Diomede from the Little Diomede is like looking into the future.  That’s because the Big Diomede is on the other side of the International date line making it hours ahead of the Little Diomede!

It was, however, the proximity of these to Islands that Sarah Palin used to explain her experience in foreign affairs.  Ms. Palin told ABC’s Charlie Gibson that she had experience working with foreign leaders since you could see Russia from Alaska.

 

 

 

 

Things that make you go hmmm… is there really an ingredient in turkey that makes people sleepy?

Today’s installment of “Things that make you go hmmm…” hopes to answer the age old Thanksgiving question…. “Does turkey really contain an ingredient that makes you sleeping after eating it?

Here’s the answer to that question compliments of the folks at about.com:

Unless a microwave dinner is your idea of a Thanksgiving feast, you probably have had firsthand experience with the after-dinner fatigue that sets in after the meal. Why do you want a nap? To escape the dishes? Perhaps, but the meal itself plays a big part in the way you feel.

The turkey is often cited as the culprit in after dinner lethargy, but the truth is that you could omit the bird altogether and still feel the effects of the feast. Turkey does contain L-tryptophan, an essential amino acid with a documented sleep inducing effect. L-tryptophan is used in the body to produce the B-vitamin, niacin. Tryptophan also can be metabolized into serotonin and melatonin, neurotransmitters that exert a calming effect and regulates sleep. However, L-tryptophan needs to be taken on an empty stomach and without any other amino acids or protein in order to make you drowsy. There’s lots of protein in a serving of turkey and it’s probably not the only food on the table.

It’s worth noting that other foods contain as much or more tryptophan than turkey (0.333 g of tryptophan per 100 gram edible portion), including chicken (0.292 g of tryptophan per 100 gram edible portion), pork, and cheese. As with turkey, other amino acids are present in these foods besides tryptophan, so they don’t make you sleepy.

So while it might not be the turkey that makes you pass out at the end of the day, you probably don’t want to stuff yourself with too much of anything else either.  It might just be that eating so much food can just wear people out!

If you want to learn more about nutrition, a nutrition degree online may
be an option for you.

Things that make you go hmmm… Does the human body really lose 21 grams at the time of death? If so, what is it? where does it go?


[Editor's Note: This is our first installment of our first regular column here at the new queerplanet.net.  "Things that make you go hmmm..." is a chance to answer some of those question that you can't typically find or to settle a debate between you and someone you know.

If you've got a question that you want us to try and answer or a queer fact that you want to share, then e-mail us at hmmm@queerplanet.net.  We'll feature the best questions or most interesting facts here at queerplanet.net with the rest of our abnormal news and world wide weirdness. Now, here's our first installment of "Things that make you go hmmm..."]

Question:  Does the human body really lose 21 grams at the time of death?  If so, where does it go?

Answer:  This seems to be one of those controversial tidbits that leaves us guessing.  Evidently, there have been several studies that show the body does loose up to 21 grams at the time of death.  The hard part is explaining what those 21 grams are and where they go.  Many people seem to have accepted the fact that this is the human soul, and that it instantly leaves your body upon death.

There was even a movie made about this question in 2003 called “21 Gramm.”

Here’s more from ABC Science:

People have believed that the “soul” has a definite physical presence for hundreds, and possibly thousands, of years. But it was only as recently as 1907, that a certain Dr. Duncan MacDougall of Haverhill in Massachusetts actually tried to weigh this soul. In his office, he had a special bed “arranged on a light framework built upon very delicately balanced platform beam scales” that he claimed were accurate to two-tenths of an ounce (around 5.6 grams). Knowing that a dying person might thrash around and upset such delicate scales, he decided to “select a patient dying with a disease that produces great exhaustion, the death occurring with little or no muscular movement, because in such a case, the beam could be kept more perfectly at balance and any loss occurring readily noted”.

He recruited six terminally-ill people, and according to his paper in the April 1907 edition of the journal American Medicine, he measured a weight loss, which he claimed was associated with the soul leaving the body. In this paper, he wrote from beside the special bed of one of his patients, that “at the end of three hours and 40 minutes he expired and suddenly coincident with death the beam end dropped with an audible stroke hitting against the lower limiting bar and remaining there with no rebound. The loss was ascertained to be three fourths of an ounce.”

He was even more encouraged when he repeated his experiment with 15 dogs, which registered no change in weight in their moment of death. This fitted in perfectly with the popular belief that a dog had no soul, and therefore would register no loss of weight at the moment of demise.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
%d bloggers like this: