Political Fatigue

There was a time when I was really into politics. This began around the age of 22 or so - I began seeing the world in a different light.  My interest was piqued around the 2004 re-election of president Bush.  I read blogs about politics - wrote my own - watched documentaries about the election and about politics in general.  (Yes, even Michael Moore's demonized documentaries.)  The new picture of my world was bleak. It was then that I realized that adults are actually just kids with wrinkles with [sometimes] better grammar. I was always told to respect your elders but these elders often spoke with venemous tongues in a fashion that was reminiscent of schoolyard banter. Fighting for change is a common mantra and rebelling against the system seems to go hand-in-hand with the mindset of the youth trying to make sense of the world around them. It's cool to protest against something, it seemed. I don't know what's changed within me these past few years. It's almost as if it's pointless when I realize an injustice of some sort has been done, yet all that I can do is become upset about it. At the end of the day I have all of this knowledge about political misdeeds and what I had to show for it was nothing but pent up anger and disgust.

Maybe it's good to be angry and disgusted about something to a certain degree - but maybe the cynic in me believes that democracy is an illusion and the energy and anger I feel toward the system leaves me with just that at the end of the day. We are quick to question the validity of elections in other countries unless the new leader is someone we'd gladly rather deal with.  We are quick to invade another country when there's an opportunist incentive to do so, yet we turn a blind eye to many far worse situations out there.  Money is what makes the world go 'round. Politicians can be bought and operate smoothly, and invincibly as if they possess the Ring of Gyges.

But then I begin to feel that 'they've won' if I let this get to me.  To quote someone named Adolf Hitler, he said, "How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think."  That's the problem in a nutshell.  Many people do not think.  Even those that do are overwhelmed by the majority that don't.  You see people voting against their own economic interests yet they don't think twice about it because the stuff they're spoon fed often goes down easier when they're assured it's aligned with their Christian faith anyway.  Politicians know they can exploit the fundamentalists.  You often hear of politicians running on a family values platform and then getting caught fucking their secretary.  I am sure that some of it is because of the two-faced religious politicians but I think a majority of it is that they're actually just clever politicians that just got caught.  They're smarter than we think they are--they use religion as their platform because people eat that shit up.  Then when they get caught being a human being, we understandably throw them under the bus.

I think it's just that I'm fed up with the sophomoric dialogue.  The talking heads talk their shit and get a paycheck, often contradicting themselves so much that they begin contradicting their contradictions.    They run on a conservative family values platform, fuck their secretaries, harass their pages, and solicit sex in men's rooms.  Now all that to me sounds kind of fun and I might be more apt to give you a pass if you weren't a bigoted fuck who represented himself as a saint to get into office.  So you have to understand why it makes sense to point out why you're a dick.  This goes double if you've actively hampered the progress of those who want sexual equality and you get caught trying to fuck men yourself.

It's a big sideshow out there.  Maybe that's part of what turns me off.  I can't see myself having the tenacity to keep at writing posts like these.  They drain me, though admittedly there's something sort of satisfying about letting it all out.  Maybe that's a good enough reason to keep up with the drama even if it feels hopeless?  I don't know.

Blatant Lies

Can we all agree that Fox news intentionally represents misbehaving Republicans as Democrats?

Afterall, Fox "News" has a history of doing this over...



...and over...



...and over...


...and over again.


Desperate and pathetic. Not to mention, it mocks the judgement and intelligence of their loyal viewers. Actually, it's sad when they probably feel that their viewership are too dumb to notice.

A Day With The Dead

The other day we visited Atlanta's Oakland Cemetery, which holds many bodies belonging to confederates, Jews, blacks and some others of significant importance. I shouldn't have to mention that most of these types were buried in separate areas. (The dead can be pretty particular about whose elbows they're rubbing up against, never mind anything else that goes on six feet underneath the ground with a decomposing corpse.)


I won't bore you to tears about the cemetery, but I'll share a few pics with you. Margaret Mitchell was one of the ones I wanted to see since she's of course the author of "Gone With The Wind" and a former resident of Atlanta. It's unfortunate that the demise of such a romantic woman would be caused by something as mundane as a traffic accident (she was hit by a taxi), but I suppose there are more fascinating ways to die that I wouldn't wish on many.



I then stumbled across this burial plot of a little girl, who if I remember correctly, was one of four sisters to die of diphtheria.


It's amazing how far we've come in regard to scientific advances in the medical field which prevent us from dying of common and ubiquitous illnesses which would have easily killed a lesser prepared population of yore. I find it particularly interesting that many say we're playing God when we try to 'artificially' prolong life and decide that prayer is instead the route one should take. Are you playing God if you visit a doctor? Are you playing God if you take medication? Are you playing God if you get your child vaccinated? You are, after all, essentially improving your health which may aid you in circumventing nasty little diseases that perhaps God may have placed there to begin with. How dare you attempt to live a long and fruitful life!

Unfortunately, many do believe that the aforementioned points should be taken seriously and are devoutly against any form of medical help and that a death [actually] caused by their negligence is rather [presumptuously] a show of their lack of faith. They didn't pray or believe enough, they say.

I didn't intend to go on a diatribe about stupidity, but I suppose I shouldn't lose my head over this - kinda like this creepy statue. I wonder if the family knows that the tornado that ripped through here recently caused this, because it would be an unfortunate coincidence if this is how the person actually died.

The Black Vote's Irony

Does anyone else find it ironic that the African-Americans of this
country finally break down some barriers and help elect a black
president only to overwhelmingly take away the rights of gays?

They say nearly 70 percent of those blacks that voted for Barack voted
yes on amendment 2:

[...]70 percent – of black voters in California ...voted for Proposition 8 and helped secure its passage, according to exit polling conducted by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International.

[...]

Latinos were 18 percent of California's voters, and through sheer numbers also contributed to Proposition 8's success. But 53 percent of Latino voters supported the measure, a much lower percentage than black voters. Among white and Asian voters, 49 percent voted for the measure.

(Source)

Every race obviously voted 'no' on it as well; though blacks disproportionately did in comparison.  (70% as
compared to around 49-55 percent of the other races.)  That's why this
comes up.  It's worth asking 'why' this is so. 

I'm sure some have their reasons, but I'd like to hear them.  No doubt it has much to do with religion.


Update:  Just read this post that mentions the Mormon church bankrolling the cause for passing prop. 8 (to the tune of 25 million). There are many saying the church ought to lose their tax-exempt status, but I don't see that happening.  There's got to be some 'rational' explanation/loophole.

A protest in front of the Mormon temple in Los Angeles was obviously in order.  I'm sure there will be more stories like this trickling in.

"Dear rest of the world"

Dear rest of the world,
We didn't fuck it up.
Signed, 
America

Well, well, well.  What can I say.  I am proud of you, America.  It's been a while since I could say that.  I know we have a lot of work to do but it feels good to be an American again.   Watching that speech last night was like watching the end of a tearjerker of an amazing movie, only it was real.  Then they go in and throw in the thing about the puppy.  (A puppy that eats terrorists and poops jobs for everyone, no doubt.)  Can we name this dog Maverick, please?  Thank you.

But seriously, this fucking rocks.  That's all I got.  It's still soaking in.

 For a more brilliant synopsis of where we go from here, check out The Onion's article, "Black Man Given Nation's Worst Job"

Who said we couldn't 'all get along?'

...and I thought seeing an Obama and McCain sticker on the same car was strange.


But seriously - is there such a thing as a rational racist?  A story on Philadelphia's citypaper.net talks about the Bradley Effect, which is a phenomenon named after Tom Bradley, a black candidate who lost an election for governor of California despite polls showing he was favored to win.  The explanation?  People tend to stray away from being publicly perceived as racist when asked to choose between a white and black candidate during polls.  Despite their actual intentions, they say they're voting for the black candidate, skewing the survey results.  Come time for election season, the least popular candidate wins, despite the overwhelming support of the other candidate in the polls.  This is The Bradley Effect.

However, The story on citypaper.net Speaks of the Fishtown Effect, which is almost diametrically opposite of The Bradley Effect.  The Fishtown Effect is named after Fishtown; an overtly racist town that wears it's racism on it's sleeve that seems untroubled about appearing racist, thus making them that much more unsusceptible to The Bradley Effect.   The locals haven't been shy about saying how they feel about a black president and their vitriolic comments have nonchalantly circulated in the town's newspaper.  What make this a special case though is that they're aware of the economic turmoil striking their city, and despite their racist attitudes, they're voting for Obama anyway.  So is this what we're witnessing in this photo here?  Who knows.  Regardless, it's still cool to see that people are actually voting on something that affects them (economy) rather than something that doesn't (i.e., race.)  Hey, it's a step.



The Fishtown Effect

Ashley Todd: October Surprise--You're Doing It Wrong

Alright now, whose got dibs on this for Halloween? Anyone? 

Ashley, a volunteer for the McCain campaign originally told authorities that a man, who initially only sought to mug her, "punched her in the back of the head, knocking her to the ground, and he continued to punch and kick her while threatening to teach her a lesson" after he realized she was a McCain supporter.  


But not only that - the attacker allegedly cut a 'B' in her face.  (We can only guess what the 'B' stands for.)  But the police began questioning her story after the footage near the ATM didn't prove she was there.  Also, they noticed how superficial the mark was on her face.  Notice also how uniform the letter is etched on her face with no considerable deviations in the depth of the laceration? Considering it was performed in the heat of an orgiastic fit of rage, you have to give the 'attacker' credit for his (or her) steady hand.  I mean it's possible that the attacker has excellent penmanship and takes great care in his carving of faces, but not exactly sure.

In the end, she ended up confessing she lied about the whole thing.  Remember kids, when you want to carve letters in your face, you want to carve it so it's reversed in the mirror. 

...and for good measure:

 

  

  

 

 
Complete story:  "Ashley Todd:  Fake Mutilation Exposed"

Flexitarianism

It would never be my intention to intentionally start a rift between my leaf loving herbivores and meat craving carnivores/omnivores-- but since I personally know some vegetarians out there with occasional fits of bloodlust who indulge on the odd turkey leg like a famished pirate in the middle of the night - there's another title you should be ascribing to yourself; flexitarian.   A flexitarian would be a vegetarian that is willing to be flexible, preferring to be meatless, yet is flexible to eating meat on occasion.

The term flexitarian isn't a new one, it's been garnering a lot more attention lately with people who either don't want to piss everyone off during Thanksgiving and dinner parties, or whose meatless diet is a preference rather than a necessity.

 A flexitarian diet is for "[...] people who want to be vegetarians most of the time but "don't want to sit at a barbecue in their neighborhood with an empty bun," says Blatner, a nutrition blogger for dietchallenge.usatoday.com and a spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association.

Call them what you will; pseudo-vegetarians, slacker-dieters, vegetarian moderates, or simply omnivores--the point is -- they have their own label now, which seems a bit odd to name it, but that's only because I'm not the one selling a book, now am I?

To read a Q&A; on flexitarianism, see USA Today's article,  "Flexitarians can have their meat and not eat it, too"

If you find flexitarianism too lax on it's requirements, you can always try either polar extreme; becoming a meatatarian, or if you are prone to obsessive/compulsive tendencies, you might try your hand at Jain-vegetarianism:

• For Jains lacto-vegetarianism (generally known simply as vegetarianism in India) is mandatory. Food which contains even small particles of the bodies of dead animals or eggs is absolutely unacceptable.
• Jains go out of their way so as not to hurt even small insects and other tiny animals, because they are convinced that harm caused by carelessness is as reprehensible as harm caused by deliberate action. Hence they take great pains to make sure that no minuscule animals are injured by the preparation of their meals and in the process of eating and drinking.
• Traditionally Jains have been prohibited from drinking unfiltered water. In the past, when wells or baolis were used for the water source, the cloth used for filtering used to reversed and some filtered water was poured over it to return the organisms to the original body of water. This practice termed as 'jivani' or 'bilchhavani', is no longer possible because of the use of pipes for water supply.
• Jains make considerable efforts not to injure plants in everyday life as far as possible. They admit that plants must be destroyed for the sake of food, but they only accept such violence inasmuch as it is indispensable for human survival, and there are special instructions for preventing unnecessary violence against plants.  Some Jains don’t eat plants and plant parts that grow underground, such as potatoes, onions, roots and tubers, because tiny life forms are injured when the plant is pulled up and because the bulb is seen as a living being, as it is able to sprout.
• Honey is forbidden, as its collection would amount to violence against the bees.
• Food items that have started to decay are prohibited.
• Traditionally cooking or eating at night was discouraged because insects are attracted to the lamps or fire at night. Strict Jains take the vow (called anastamita or anthau) of not eating after sunset.

On a side note, I've come to the realization that despite one's best efforts, it's impossible to live a life that's morally uncompromising to someone. More on that later.

Columbus Wasn't Only a Hustler, but...

I don't know why I get Columbus Day off.  I wish they'd just give us the day off after Thanksgiving instead like we had before our last merger.  We'd work on Columbus Day and in exchange we'd receive the day off after Thanksgiving in addition to Thanksgiving day.  I've been through about four mergers with my work since I've been there, and it appears we adopt the shittiest parts of the other company's business structure during each transition.



I am a little indifferent about Columbus, I already mentioned before that Columbus was 'a hustler', but I didn't realize he was a straight up thug!:

• Columbus is responsible for the murder of millions of indigenous people.


• Columbus was a slavetrader in Africa before invading America. He began the slave trade in the Americas. He deserves no holiday, no parades, no statues.


• Columbus Day celebrates the doctrine of discovery – the legal process that stole Indian people's territories, and that continues today.


• Columbus brought a philosophy of domination to the Americas that persists today – domination of other peoples, domination of the environment, domination of other belief systems, domination of women by men.

And apparently, Google isn't a fan - they didn't acknowledge Columbus Day in their logo as they do for many other holidays or anniversaries.  Instead, they have up for today a picture commemorating Paddinton bear's 50th anniversary.

TranformColumbusDay.org

McDonald's Gives In to Pressure

In July, I posted a blog entitled "McDonald's Loves Teh Ghey" where I learned of a story that made me momentarily revise my view of McDonald's as something aside from the over-reaching, fixed American 'landmark' that it is, to me having a blip of respect for them despite their pariah status.  They took a stand in equality for all people; regardless of sexual preference, and went public with it.  The American Family Association was not happy about this - and they demanded that McDonald's pull out of the "culture war" or they would organize a boycott against them.  McDonald's refused to budge.

That was in July.  Yesterday--they budged.

The AFA released a statement (or 'Action Alert' as they call it) with an obviously smug satisfaction that McDonald's finally saw it their way and rescinded their voice, choosing to remain 'neutral'.

"We appreciate the decision by McDonald’s to no longer support political activity by homosexual activist organizations. You might want to thank your local McDonald’s manager."

[Insert awkward record-scratch sound followed by piercing silence]

Erm.  Say what?

"You might want to thank your local McDonald’s manager"?


 I don't see that going over too well.

"Yes, I'll have a #4, up-sized.  So, kid.  Hey, mind if I can talk to your manager for a sec?  Grrreat.  Thanks."

"Yes, sir, what seems to be the problem?"

"Oh, nothing at all!  As a matter of fact, everything seems just right in here.  I just wanted to THANK YOU for not supporting the gays."

"Excuse ---"

"Ah, ah, ah - Don't feel bad about accepting credit for this, Mr...your nametag?  Mister Green.  Thank you, Mr. Green from McDonald's #463 in whatever city I'm in.  I'm just making my rounds across the country thanking all of you for your selfless contributions to this cause."

 "I'm gay."


"Oh.  Right.  I'm just gonna..."


"Yeah."

 

See:

• my post, "McDonald's Loves Teh Ghey" written in July
  
• American Family Association's Action Alert, dated 10/9/2008.
  

Conventional Education and Creativity

Nerdy parenting stuff alert! If this doesn't interest you, feel free to scroll down to the previous post, or click here, lazy fuck.

I heard a great lecture today from Ken Robinson, who did much to make me rethink the way I look at conventional education in this country.  I've been hearing a lot about opposition to 'No Child Left Behind' and against conventional education - and instead of just outright reject what they were trying to say, I thought I'd take a listen.  I'm glad I did.

Ken Robinson asserted that "creativity is as important as literacy" and creativity should be treated with the "same status."  In the world of conventional education, we are essentially killing our children's creativity.


Ken noted that throughout every culture in the world, there is a common hierarchy of education.  That hierarchy looks something like this:

1. Math 
2. Language
3. Humanities
4. Arts.
• Music
• Drama
• Dance
  

 Since public education really began to gain hold in the midst of the industrialism in the 19th century, our educational priorities were built around this.  Considering this - it's not very conducive to the natural rhythm of the human mind, unaware of any formal constructs of education.  We're all born as explorers; little scientists, hungry for creative expression, but through the eyes of educators, any deviation from the norm is seen as an obstacle.  It's said that with the way the universities are setup, you would think the final cause of a proper education would be molding the children of the world into little university professors.  Creativity isn't something you grow into, but something you grow out of, as the speaker suggests--and the way our system is designed, it stifles creativity, and asks for all to fall in line.

Ken tells an anecdotal story of teacher that asked her student what she was drawing.  The student said she was drawing "God."  The teacher responded, "But nobody knows what God looks like."  The child looked up at her and said, "Give me a few minutes and they will."

Our culture stigmatizes being wrong.  Creativity doesn't flourish in being wrong, but it does flourish where there are no preconceived boundaries on what's acceptable (using common sense, of course).

As obvious the need for an education that best preps us for a life in an industrialized nation, educating ourselves--and our children--should not be approached in a way that rewards children based on the memorization of facts and superlative test-taking abilities as "No Child Left Behind" seems to enforce.  What works for one child, doesn't always work for another.  This is obvious.  Not all children are created equal - and NCLB, I feel squanders the creativity in a teacher who is instead pressured to put all of their resources forward in extracting a level of performance that, in reality, is dependent on the inherent maximum abilities of each child.

The speaker cited UNESCO as stating that within the next thirty years, more people will graduate from universities than since the beginning of history.  Though on the surface, this is obviously a great step, it most notably  means that degrees lose their prestige and holding power because of their ubiquity.  Whereas a HS diploma used to be the epitome of a solid education, it's no longer now the case.  The BA is the new HS diploma and the MA is the new BA.  Our educational system is optimized to create a league of professors in world rich in diversity; comprised of a vast array of talents.

Mr. Robison closed with a story of a lady named Gillian Lynne.  Gillian had been taken by her mother to see a doctor because she had been underperforming at school due to her lack of focus.  She fidgeted often and was distracted easily throughout the lectures.  A.D.D. wasn't a known disorder in the 1930's, so the doctor didn't know what malady to ascribe to her.  He asked to speak to the child alone.  He turned on the radio, and left Gillian by herself for a moment.  He discovered that she wasn't sick - she was a dancer.  He later encouraged her mom to put her in dance school - this being her only prescription of conventional education.

Her mother enrolled her daughter in the Royal Ballet School where she later became a solo artist among other things, and later went on to to collaborate with a man named Andrew Lloyd Weber as the choreographer for Cats.  She's now a very successful multi-millionaire who simply does doing what seemed natural to her, and was only helped in the right direction.  Nowadays, most doctors would be quick to slap the child on the head, prescribe them with pills and send them on their marry way.

I'm not suggesting that I plan to buck the system and rip my child out of school because of a fringed view on educational reformation, but I still think it's something to take to heart as I try to help my child out, one-on-one.  It seems our children's 'ailments stand-out more when they starkly contrast with the pre-fitted template we're haphazardly asked to squeeze them into.

Maybe you have a different opinion?  After all, it does seem extremely counter-intuitive to think that conventional education could be stifling creativity--and I'd agree that my first knee-jerk reaction was that of 'poppycock!'  However, it's still worth noting that even Leonardo Da Vinci, the original renaissance man didn't stick to one subject; he dabbled in many.  Painting, sculptures, drawing, engineering - whereas nowadays, our natural explorer is suppressed and we're must decide a specialty at a relatively early age.  Most adults I know say they never dreamed of doing what they do for a living, they just sort of fell into it and stayed in it because it made sense at the time.

We are bound by a template of education supposedly best to prep us for a lifetime of specializing in something that we (for the most part) may not be the most passionate about.  If you're living your dream - (as I'd define as something you're surprised they pay you for) then I think you're extremely lucky.  But for the majority, a one-sized-fits-all approac
h to education is worth scrutinizing, no matter how uncomfortable, and counter-intuitive it may seem to do so.  Your child is worth it.





Source of notes:
See the video: Ken Robision's lecture, "Do Schools Kill Creativity?"

ON EDUCATION; No Child Left Behind Law Leaves No Room for Some 

Biden and Palin: An Analysis on Strategery

Joe Biden was confident, poised, relaxed and honest.  When asked tough questions, he refrained from using seduction tactics such as winking, groping his testicles, or generally referring to the constituents of this grand country as 'all my hoes in different area codes.'  When the opportunity presented itself for him to be trill, he failed.  He refrained from giving his people in Scranton and Delaware much deserved 'shout-out' from the lectern.  So obviously he's out of touch with the lay people of his hometown--and by proxy--this country, and he could have done more to allay that perception.


Sarah had it just right.


She didn't come off as this faggy Washington politician tainted with the connotation of 'experience'.  She made it resoundingly clear that being an insider and knowing what the fuck is going on in this country only clouds one's judgement.  She is the outsider, knockin' on Washington's door with a  housewarming gift in the form of this thing:  "[...] a little bit of reality from Wasilla Main Street there, brought to Washington, D.C.," (via)

It's about fucking time. 


As great as she was, she did make a few 'gaffes' but their advisors expected this.  This is why their campaign had the foresight to preemptively and strategically fuck up her interviews with Katie Couric.  Why?  Think about how everyone's expectations of Obama are so high that if, for each time he talks, an angel doesn't climax in heaven for the first time, then it's a disappointment.  Obama could learn a thing or two from this woman.  If you're great all the time, you can't be.

I have to be fair and balanced, just like Fox news though.  Let me point out her mistakes:

Sarah might have also given the impression that she doesn't know that some beer can be pretty expensive to some people, and that it's often possible to be poor and your name be something other than Joe.  On top of that, Joe Biden's name is JOE.  She basically tied him to someone that is regular and drinks beer. 


She stated, "It's time that normal Joe Six-pack American is finally represented in the position of vice presidency[...]"


Six pack of which beer, Sarah?  I know my name isn't Joe, but I sure as hell can't afford a sixpack of any of these:

Samuel Adams Utopias (Massachusetts), $140 for 24 oz. ($5.83 per ounce).
Lost Abbey Cable Car (California), $30 for 750 ml ($1.18 per ounce).
Russian River Supplication (California), $14 for 375 ml ($1.10 per ounce).
Avery Mephistopheles (Colorado), $12 for 12 oz. ($1 per ounce).
Church Brew Works Quadzilla (Pittsburgh), $20 for 22 oz. (91 cents per ounce).
Allagash Interlude (Maine), $19 for 750 ml (75 cents per ounce).
6 great high-end bargains
 

A more acceptable statement would have been:

"It's time that normal Fred-40 Oz. American gets some real street-cred clout up in this bitch, cuz we gonna run this thing, SON!  Oh, Ahem.  You betcha we are!"

Aside from those minor gripes, there are at least eight other names that are more average (and hence, more American) than Joe.  According to this source, Joe is the 9th most popular name for boys in America.  NINTH!

In closing, I want to remind my readers about Sarah's strength and resolve.  As she stated before, she "didn't blink when asked to run" for VP.  Look at Obama, though.  He's wearing shades.  Probably to mask all that blinking that's going on under there.  Sure Sarah wears glasses, but they're transparent because she has nothing to hide.

Just as she didn't blink when asked to run for VP, she held true to that last night.  Joe Biden's eye blinked way more times than hers, and even when her dry and thirsty eyes did throw out the 'white flag of surrender', she kept her blinking down to only one eye, because she fucking can.  Get 'em, girl.

Pro-Obvious

Abortion is one of those nagging little issues that tends to be looked at with a myopic lens of either 'acceptable' or 'unacceptable', black or white.  For some, there are variables in determining the justification, for others, including Mrs. Palin, there is no grey area.  This post isn't entirely about that, because I know we aren't going to come to an agreement on anything today - what we can agree on, is however, curtailing unwanted pregnancies.  This requires an open-mind, and an avoidance of unrealistic expectations of our children.  It's about getting to the root of the issue.

Mrs. Palin believes there isn't ever a scenario where abortion is acceptable--even in a cases of rape, as she asserts in this video. Well, what about when a father rapes and impregnates their own child?  Not even then.  Palin believes the woman should have to give birth to her sibling.  This post isn't entirely about Palin either, but about the closed-minded, insular way of thinking that actually has a counter-productive effect for the desired outcome of these hardliners.

Abortion has always been a grey area for me, and I've never taken a hardline stance on the issue myself.  I will say this - I think abortions should be rare, and a very last resort.  It shouldn't be as easy to get an abortion as it is to get a minor surgery.

But it isn't a 'one-size-fits-all' problem.  There are many reasons, some ethical (as mentioned above), why a woman wouldn't be able to give birth to a child.  On the surface, when people think of abortion, they think of young teens popping in and out of the abortion clinic as casually as if they'd gotten a haircut.  Obviously this isn't the only scenario.  In order to arrive at a way to mitigate the problem, it's important to get to the root of it. 

In the case of young, unprepared mothers -- what led them to becoming impregnated?  (Yes, I'm being serious.  I might have some youngins' reading this blog.)
But seriously - remember when you were in Pre-K and you thought merely kissing someone would get you pregnant?  (No?  Okay, maybe that was just me.)  Flash forward to that child's pubescent awakening and you realize that without some sort of education on the subject, we'd all still be walking around wondering this, and I'm certain many of our primitive ancestors did.  When most kids finally do come around to learning about risks and diseases on their own (not to mention new found responsibilities), it might not be in time since, "according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI, 2001), a small number of early teens are sexually active: two out of ten females, and three out of ten males. However, by the age of 18, 65-70% of teens report being sexually active." (source)

Education is the most important route, and if a lot of these parents wouldn't be so afraid of the "evils of pre-marital sex" and would keep the dialogue open with their children to be a source of trust and information, they'd realize these open exchanges are not tantamount to pimping out their child to the highest bidder. 

What parents tend to do instead is either avoid the topic altogether, or simply tell their children to abstain from it, end of story.  The paradox here, of course, is that this may lead to abortions behind their parents backs in an effort to circumvent punishment.  (So, yeah - pretty counter-productive there, mom.)

As I recall all too clearly, churches even have campaigns where they tell these teens to sign cards pledging to Jesus that they will remain virgins until they are married.  "Abstinence ONLY", they resoundingly declare.  These Abstinence Only programs not only fail to work, but do a disservice to the children they are seeking to shelter from the bondages of their lustful ways.  Of course many parents live under the veil of fantasy when they believe that their child may, for the most part, 'voluntarily'--I stress voluntarily--wait until they are married to tap that ass, but, as the numbers above from 2001 show, this is way out of touch with reality.  I know we would all like to believe that our little angel wears a matching chastity belt everywhere she goes, but not so much.

The leading studies show that Abstinence Only programs do not curtail pre-marital sex and have "no beneficial impact on young people's sexual behavior and had no effect whatsoever in the outcome of sexual experimentation", whereas a study of comprehensive sexual education shows results. 

This seems like it would be a no brainer.  If a teenager is AWARE of the risk of disease and fully informed on how their body's work, then it should go without saying that their awareness will increasingly lead to an application of preventative measures.  It's pretty logical, dontcha think?  If they are just told to not do it, and not much else, then chances are that when they eventually do (not if), they'll dive in without as much foresight as would be provided by a level of awareness that either a good talk, or an education on the subject would provide.  Why is this so hard to understand?

On a personal note, I did have a child out of wedlock with my then girlfriend of several years (though 'out of wedlock' sounds silly to me now), and I was one of those that signed one of those "True Love Waits"/"Abstinence Only" cards as a teen.  Obviously that didn't work.  In my case, I was informed though apparently BC isn't always enough.  However, thankfully I've always had a supportive family behind me, and I never had a doubt that I would.  I was freshly out of the house though, so maybe it was just that much easier for them to swallow, even if not entirely.  This acceptance isn't always the case with many kids these days though, especially when they're still in school, and living at home.

Surely, 'abstinence only' is the ideal route that many parents want for their children, but considering the statistics, it's not the practical one.  It's shown to be comparatively ineffective to a proper sexual education. It's almost obvious that there will never be a predominant consensus reached on abortion -- and we're not going to settle that here today.  However, can we agree that being 'pro-obvious' by properly educating our nation's youth is the very least we can do? 

Rural 'Merka Doin Jesus Proud

Hey, everyone. I was gone last week because my friends were back in town for their North American tour and were playing in Atlanta and Athens. Since my family lives in Atlanta, my sister allowed us to stay at her place while she and brother-in-law were out of town.

On our way to Athens on Wednesday afternoon we drove by this billboard that has always evaded my camera (the picture doesn't do the 'BAM!' of the yellow billboard any justice). This time I wasn't driving so I was able to snap a picture with my phone.




Because the billboard wasn't enough, the tractors jumped in the background for the ultimate semblance of 'stereotype' and amaaaaazing.

Obama is greeted by a tightly packed, maximum capacity crowd here in Jacksonville

I arrived at Metropolitan Park at about 12:15 since the gates opened at 12:30. I figured I'd be one of the first in line since it wouldn't start until 2:30. I just realized something; I'm not always right. Very strange feeling.

By the time I arrived, there was already a mass of several thousand people in line forming underneath the overpass to get in. The line, of about five abreast, had appeared to form into two lines, but was (as I came to realize) the continuation of the only line that serpentined to the security checkpoint.

Metropolitan Park has the capacity to hold about 10,000--so I knew it wouldn't just be a little get together, but I didn't expect this either.

However long the line was, it still moved quickly even as a constant stream of people poured in behind me. A lady was pacing up and down asking people to turn their cell phones on. I think most people did have them on, so it only confused them even more.

Come to find out, they wanted them on so that security could ensure the phones were authentic, and not actually, you know, bombs or anything. (I got to thinking that if I were giving clearance to someone's entrance and was having my doubts about someone's phone not actually being a phone, but a bomb; I don't think I'd ask them to turn it on. But I get it.)

After I wriggled through security unscathed (and undected), I made my way up to the park. When I finally reached the summit, I couldn't help but think of that one scene from the first Land Before Time where they finally find The Great Valley.

Or maybe more something like this:

There were some young volunteers lined up to greet the lay people of Jacksonville and help set the tone for the rally. If the people were lacking in anything, it definitely wasn't enthusiasm. The electricity of the atmosphere was palpable--even for those who have waited in that line since the early morning hours to get a good vantage point for the speech that was set to begin at 2:30 PM.

It was about 1:30 by the time I got in. The people in the park looked jubilant; some sitting comfortably on the ground with their friends and family; unaware of the mass of people set to come in that would eventually require their space.

It was overcast, and looked like it might rain.
But as it turned out, there were people fainting due to near dehydration. Most of them were elderly volunteers that had been there all morning. Add the crowd to that equation and it's best that it was a little overcast. Some people were even wishing for rain.

People were helping each other out by relaying requests for water to those closest to the volunteers handing them out. I know everyone there was hot and thirsty, so it was great seeing people selflessly hand over the water to the one's that apparently needed it most.

At about 1:45, this thing began circling above the park.

"Florida is McCain & Palin Country!"

At first, people seemed a little disgusted at the distastefulness of the display, but eventually it appeared to be largely ignored. I got to thinking about the price for this. Considering the fuel, pay for the pilot and banner--it probably wasn't cheap. If someone changed their mind about their vote based on that then chances are they are a lost cause to begin with.


Eventually, another plane flew overhead with this message:

"Raising taxes is not p
atriotic!"

I don't know if the McCain/Palin campaign paid for these, but it almost worked on me. I was alright when the first one flew overhead, but damn that second one.


After standing almost motionless due to the amount of people around me, I heard a stir amongst the people in the back. Obama's motorcade had just arrived. Everyone, including myself, was on their toes with their cameras reached above their head to get a view that they'd not have otherwise.



I saw a man with a rifle atop the building adjacent to the street his bus was coming through, and after my first impulse of absolutely freaking out, I reassured myself that this man was actually there for security.


At about 2:40, the first speaker came on. It wasn't Obama. I have to admit that after standing for so long, I was just ready to hear Obama. This was only truer after having stood for a few hours in a crammed piece of landscape surrounded by impatient revelers literally falling down from dehydration.

So yeah--I was ready to hear him so we could get this thing going, and judging from the unisoned sighs of disappointment from the crowd after each speaker presented yet another non-Obama speaker--I wasn't the only one feeling that way. It got to the point that you couldn't help but think they were getting satisfaction from stalling.

"[...] and now - please welcome to the stage, Senator [insert unnecessarily long dramatic pause here] Tony Hill!"

"Awwww."

This happened no less than four times.

Just when the crowd was about to reach the breaking point, something strange happened. The sun peeked out from behind the clouds as Obama finally stepped out to be greeted by a crowd that I don't think he even expected to see.



Okay, I'm not one for sensational antics, so I have to say that part about the sun is total bullshit. (It actually hid in order to appease the weary and worn.)

"I'm amazed we got such a big crowd. I don't know if ya'll are aware, there's football today."

I wont get into too many details about what he talked about (you can read more about that here), but I will say that he did respond to the true, but mostly disingenuous tax increase 'talking point' that has been thrown around lately. Because the tax increase only affects couples making 250k or more a year, he asked if any of us were making more than a quarter-of-a-million dollars a year, to which we all pretty much laughed at...

...and then when the laughter subsided, I kind of died a little inside.

Obama told the Florida crowd of 12,000 today, "I will cut taxes. Don’t believe what those folks say. Don’t let them run the okey doke on you. You heard of the okey doke. Don’t let 'em bamboozle you. Don’t be hoodwinked. I will cut taxes, cut taxes for 95 percent of all working families."

Obama continued, playing off the crowd, saying "My opponent doesn’t want you to know this, but under my plan, tax rates will actually be less than they were under Ronald Reagan. If you make less than $250,000 a year – if you make less – that’s you? If you make less than a quarter million dollars a year – that’s you? – you will not see your taxes increase one single dime. Not one dime. In fact, I offer three times the tax relief for middle class families as Senator McCain does, because an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class."

"So don’t believe those commercials," Obama concluded. "I’m a tax-cutter. I’m gonna put some money in your pockets so you can spend that money buying groceries and buying gas and you can help that small business." [via]

Despite what you might have heard, 8,000 people (almost as many as were in the park itself) did not get turned away, the park was simply at capacity so those very people that could not get in, were welcome to stay, but outside the park where I believe they had speakers set-up. They still heard Obama's words loud and clear, as was confirmed by their chants echoing through the park from outside of the gates.

It was great to see the people of Jacksonville come together like this. I understand that many people traveled from nearby states to witness the event--some of those very people weren't allowed in, including dignitaries. Regardless, I believe they will all agree that the disappointment they faced in their inability to get in was overshadowed by the obvious display of overwhelming support from our city.

Florida is expected to once again be a 'battleground state' this year, so can we win it?

Yes...we can.

Big Bangs Happen All of the Time...

..only they're not actually BIG, nor do they actually bang. You need air for that, remember? Get your act together, people.

Cosmology, Physics, the Big Bang, and what the bloody hell does this all have to do with this thing: The LHC (Large Hadron Collider)


There are very BIG questions still looming around and plaguing the scientists of today that have also plagued those of yesteryear. Some of these questions will hopefully be answered if the LHC is, as expected, able to actually reconstruct, "on a micro-scale, conditions that existed during the first billionth of a second of the Big Bang." It's going to smash particles together at speeds %99.999 near the speed of light in order to accomplish this task, and they need this big fucker to do it:

The collider is contained in a circular tunnel with a circumference of 27 kilometres (17 mi) at a depth ranging from 50 to 175 metres underground. Large Hadron Collider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I hate to say it, but it may be hard to fully appreciate the scope of this without realizing the mind-boggling questions the LHC may answer, and the new ones it may give rise to. So in an effort to expend the information that I have only recently begun to appreciate within the past year or so, I am writing this blog so that it will hopefully ignite the curious being within you - the inner philosopher and explorer that I think our distant ancestors must have had within them, yet that we may take for granted these days. (Edit: I didn't finish, but I wrote enough in time before the LHC is powered up within hours at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland on 9/10/08.)

So...What the fuck is this thing ^...and why?

First some background. Around 2,500 years ago, the Greeks debated over what the Universe was made from. One philospher, Democratus argued that the smallest bit of matter that couldn't be broken down anymore than it was is the atom. (The word 'atom' is derived from Greek from 'atomos', meaning indivisible.)

It's widely known now that atoms can in fact be split. This is how we get nuclear power, afterall. However, the thing is, when scientists went about trying to get the atom down to the smallest it could get, into its simplest form, they discovered that it only got more complex, creating all kinds of subatomic particles; quarks, quasars, etc. Here to save the day and make sense of the madness (while actually only creating more madness) is a relatively new theory of physics; String Theory.

String Theory doesn't think of particles as we tend to think of them; as point particles. Rather, String Theory gets it's name because of the scientific assumption that these particles aren't 'point particles' at all - but actually one dimensional 'strings' that account for all of the particles simply by vibrating at different resonances.

The thing about String Theory is that the math implies some pretty wild shit. It comes with some baggage, to say the least. What is this baggage?

Well - it leaves us with the inference of there being eleven dimensions if the math is to work properly.. (Think parallel worlds, that branch from the same bubble, creating mult-verses. ) If String Theory were to be observed and finally proven somehow, that means we could undoubtedly once and for all say that we are one big bubble in a lake of bubbles with 'big bangs' occurring all of the time, even as you read this. String Theory is an attempt to unify all the forces, many a cosmologist has tried making their life's work. A Theory of Everything. The Holy Grail.


What are scientists attemtping to do? Destroy the world?


Contrary to what some alarmists believe, (some of which have filed lawsuits in an attempt to stop this program), no. It will not destroy the world. This is the biggest misconception. There are cosmic ray collisions that occur daily which deliver "equivalent to one hundred thousand (or one billion)times the total number of collisions expected over the duration of LHC experiments. Analogously, in the whole Universe, the equivalent of 3X10-to-the-13th-power complete LHC experiments are performed every second." [via]

If anyone is worried about Black Holes, Stephen Hawking talks about micro-black holes emitting Hawking Radiation (or Black Body radiation) and lose more mass than they absorb because of the 'Uncertainty Principle' (where virtual particles aren't in any single specific location and are paired together because of entanglement) - when one of the entangled particles hovers gets caught in the Schwarzchild radius (event horizon) it leaves it's partner behind, and if this process is repeated, it shrinks the hole. Some say that his Hawking Radiation principle has never been observed and tested, but just to allay those fears; their effects have been witnessed, and if it turns out to be untrue, these black holes will be so microscopic that they will attract an insignificant amount of force to begin with. Additionally, they will be propelled so fast that they will escrape the grapple of gravity.

(Keep in mind, WE are the oddballs of the universe in comparison with the violent, powerful things that occur every nanosecond throughout the universe. The amount of power that will take place in the LHC is only unfathomable to our minds since it doesn't seem natural to us - but again, solar flares produce more power (on a consistent basis) than this comparatively puny thing will ever do.)


What are they looking for?

In a nutshell, scientists are trying to piece toget
her how our universe came to be, and the only way to do that is to reverse engineer our universe. Thanks to Edwin Hubble, we know that our Universe is currently expanding, and if it's expanding to this day (as made apparent by the red-shift of distant galaxies), then you can imagine if you were able to press a 'rewind' button, it would all come back to a single point.

We know there are four forces that rule our Universe; the electromagnetic, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, but the weakest of all of these is gravity. This is a problem that has plagued physicists. For as pervasive as gravity is, it seems strange that it's the weakest of them all. For instance, all the gravity of the world pulling down on a paper-clip is easily canceled out by a magnet.

Understanding the particles, and subatomic particles and how they are given mass can only be answered if scientists are able to hit that rewind button. Thanks to Albert Einstein, we know that mass and energy are interchangeable, but how does anything acquire mass to begin with? The expect to find the Higgs Boson that does just that- and if they don't, they won't be entirely surprised.

Why are we here and how did we get here? Is there an edge to the universe? Is it limitless? Why do they think there was a Big-Bang to begin with? Did they just pull that out of their asses just because they don't want to believe baby Jesus did it? So there's a Big Bang theory - so what happened before that? What set it off? Why is gravity the weakest of the four forces even though it is the most pervasive of them?


These are pretty big questions to answer, so to make sense of it all, we'll have to step back in time and put all of this into context.

The Beginning of the madness



Newton

I was surprised to learn that Newton had lain the foundation for differential and integral calculus [1], mainly out of necessity in order to determine the motion of falling objects, which includes moons, and in Principia, he had given an account of the laws of mechanics, laws of motion, govern the celestial bodies, as well as our very own planet. This did much to to demystify the celestial bodies in space, and his contributions, laid out in Principia, did much to pave the way for the Industrial Revolution. Many of the modern day marvels we see today (skyscrapers, rockets, bridges) would not be possible without Newton's laws of motion.

As Michio Kaku points out in his book "Parallel Worlds", thanks to Newton's Principia, "the stage of life was no longer surrounded by terrifying celestial omens; the same laws that applied to the actors also applied to the set."


Newton, the Rockstar of his time, is going down.

However, to say that 'the set' (the universe) followed the same laws that the actors (us) did inevitably brought up many questions about 'the set'.

Newton believed that our Universe was static, and undynamic. He had his reasons, but he also had his dissenters.

Bentley's Paradox (An argument against an infinite, static universe: Is the 'set' (our universe) infinitely large and limitless? If gravity is always attractive, and never repulsive, that would mean the heavens should give us a display of fiery cataclysms everyday as stars would naturally collapse into themselves. So why doesn't this happen then? If the universe were infinite, Bentley wondered, then wouldn't space on either side of a star be equally as strong and rip it to shreds. This would mean that our universe is extremely unstable, like a house made of a deck of cards.

Newton's answer: Newton was plagued with all of the paradoxes brought forth by his theory. However, he found a loophole in Bentley's assumptions. Newton simply replied with the answer that the universe is infinite but it is completely uniform. Therefore any tugging that was applied to a star by an infinite number of stars on one side was canceled out by the same amount of tugging of an infinite number of stars on the other side.

That was enough to quell the argument for the time being, and only for the time being. The problem with Newton's answer to Bentley's Paradox is that it paints a picture of a very delicate and unstable universe, that if it were ever to lean ever so slightly in either direction, it would disrupt the perfectly assumed equilibrium, and set a chaotic chain reaction in motion that would put an end to all of life as we know it. He ultimately attempted to compensate for the fragility of his argument by stating that perhaps God was keeping things perfectly balanced, and had to, on occasion, tweak things so that they wouldn't send the delicate house of cards tumbling. This was tantamount to Newton grasping for straws by retrofitting an explanation to keep his theory intact. This explanation didn't hold much weight for long. Enter Olber's Paradox.


Olber's Paradox and Edgar Allan Poe?

Another argument against Newton's 'static' (unmoving) infinite universe was that if it were true, our night sky should be illuminated by the infinite number of stars within it. In other words, the sky should never be black at night in an infinite, static universe. This paradox has been a riddle to scientists for centuries.

There were several attempts to solve this paradox, some of which appeared to have amounted
to people grasping for straws who were seemingly attempting to assemble solutions around the outcome they desired n attempts to explain away the invoncenient notion of this paradox. Some suggested that dust clouds in space obstructed the light, and others attempted to just do away with the 'infinite' part by suggesting instead that the universe was finite, thus limiting the amount of light from stars that would reach us. However the 'dust cloud' theory was put to rest because it was said that this would light up the dust clouds as well, and in an infinite universe, the light would still reach us.

You might be surprised to find out that the first person to really put a logical explanation behind Olber's Paradox was Edgar Allan Poe. In his poem, Eureka, he said:

Were the succession of stars endless, then the background of the sky would present us an uniform luminosity, like that displayed by the Galaxy - since there could be absolutely no point, in all that background, at which would not exist a star. The only mode, therefore, in which, under such a state of affairs, we could comprehend the voids which our telescopes find in innumerable directions, would be by supposing the distance of the invisible background so immense that no ray from it has yet been able to reach us at all.

He had it exactly right. Light travels at an extremely fast rate. It is often called 'the ultimate speed limit.' But the speed of light is still finite. Our universe is so immense that even with light from the stars traveling at 186,287 miles per second, not all the light in all the universe has reached us. Additionally, the lifespan of stars is not indefinite - even if they can live for billions of years. The farthest we can see is only as far as light has traveled since the Big Bang, which is 13.7 billion years. It has later become known that the sky really isn't black at all - but is the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation from the Big Bang itself fills up the sky! If our eyes were wired to see radiation, they would, and we would see a lot more than we're currently able to see.

What's "Cosmic" about it? We refer to it as "cosmic" because the only known source of this radiation is the early universe. It can now be firmly concluded that the CMB is the cooled remnant of the hot Big Bang itself.

Cosmic Microwave Background - FAQs

Take a look at this diagram below and the image of the actual Cosmic Microwave background beneath it.

To understand the significance of this, I leave you with a quate from Michio Kaku:

To describe the universe, cosmologists sometimes use the example of looking down from the top of the Empire State Building, which soars more than a hundred floors above Manhattan. As you look down from the top, you can barely see the street level. If the base of the Empire State Building represents the big bang, then, looking down from the top, the distant galaxies would be located on the tenth floor. The distant quasars seen by Earth telescopes would be on the seventh floor. The cosmic background measured by the WMAP satellite [shown below] would be just half an inch above the street. And now the WMAP satellite has given us the precise measurement of the age of the universe to an astonishing 1 percent accuracy: 13.7 billion years.

To the unaided eye (mine included) this WMAP image looks rather boring. But this image itself, when first produced, was said to bring many astronomers close to tears. For this image above represents irregularities of the big bang itself, shortly after the universe was created.

Think on that. And now we want to get even closer to put the puzzle pieces together and get to the bottom of this whole existing thing once and for all.

As Stephen Hawking stated this in response to many saying the multi-billion dollar cost put toward this is a waste of time and money:

"Both the LHC and the Space program are vital if the human race is not to stultify and eventually die out. Together they cost less than one tenth of a per cent of world GDP. If the human race can not afford this, then it doesn't deserve the epithet 'human."

George W. Bush: 'Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter'

President George Bush: 'Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter'

The American leader, who has been condemned throughout his presidency for failing to tackle climate change, ended a private meeting with the words: "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter."
He then punched the air while grinning widely, as the rest of those present including Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy looked on in shock.

Regardless of your stance on the issue - seriously------WHY?



Complete story here.

McDonald's Loves Teh Ghey

I just read this post from a blog by biologist PZ Myers (which is a favorite blog of mine, might I add) whereupon the reading of that post, coupled with the content of my previous post, is quickly making me lose faith in humanity. Interestingly enough, he doesn't talk much about biology, other than when it pertains to evolution, etc - but it seems that his main fascination is coverings issues of social importance of which the subject matter has me usually banging my head against oncoming traffic.

So now here's another story that is just about as ridiculous as the one from yesterday; there is an organized boycott taking place against McDonald's by the American "Family" Association. (Sorry, I have to stress the word 'family', which means 'anti-gay.') The AMA, upon hearing that McDonald's had placed an executive on the board of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, they asked for McDonald's to remove themselves. After McDonald's declined, they pushed for an all out boycott on the burger franchise.

The 'Boycott McDonald's' site goes out of their way to clarify their stance:

What the boycott of McDonald's IS NOT about

• This boycott is not about hiring homosexuals.
• It is not about homosexuals eating at McDonald's.
• It is not about how homosexual employees are treated.

What the boycott of McDonald's IS about

It is about McDonald's, as a corporation, refusing to remain neutral in the culture wars. McDonald's has chosen not to remain neutral but to give the full weight of their corporation to promoting the homosexual agenda, including homosexual marriage.

So yes, there's apparently a fucking war that has been waged against "culture" that Mickey D'z has apparently hijacked from the AFA. Tim Wildmon from the AFA defended their view with this clarification: "[...]we're saying that there are people who support AFA who don't appreciate their dollars from the hamburgers they bought being put into an organization that's going to fight against the values they believe in[...]"


McDonald's spokeman, Bill Whitman, responded with this statement:

Hatred has no place in our culture. That includes McDonald's, and we stand by and support our people to live and work in a society free of discrimination and harassment."

As far as people being concerned about a portion of their dollar that they used to purchase a hamburger going to support people that 'do gay things', then that's just pretty backwards. Can you really account for everything people do with their money after you give it to them? Hell, I can give my money to the church as a tithe offering, and the preacher man will go and get hopped up on the coke with it.


As PZ stated:

Oh. They don't object to homosexuals being served food in the restaurant, they just object to promoting civil rights for gay people in the whole dang culture at large. Homosexuals can have the right to consume greasy fast food and work at low wages, but that's it, we're drawing the line at allowing them to be treated as full human beings.

Right on. As for McDonald's and their ubiquitous presence in North America all over the world? Well, that's another topic for another day.


Story via Washington Post