Yes, we're all very proud of you. Your parents bought you that video camera you wanted/you hooked up that new webcam. You've got just so much to say and share with the world, and we're all very excited to hear it. In fact, I can just imagine spending hours away from my friends and loved ones in order to watch you and your friends lip sync to your favorite songs in a poorly lit basement, preferably if I can only see the top half of your head.
Hey, while you're at it, you know that clip from the Daily Show? You know, the really funny one that everyone's been talking about? You should put that on there. What? It's already on there? Well, put it up again, it can't hurt. Don't worry if you're not technically savvy, just point the video camera at the television, glare or no, and upload that shit. We'll be forever grateful if you do.
Hold on a sec, I'm looking for that new Ok Go video. They are such a good band, and their videos are really clever. You know, I bet I could imitate this video and it would be pretty fun. Hey, look, some other people did that. That's neat. I've always wondered what all the 8th graders are doing for their talent shows...now I know. This is great. Why share the brilliance of a song/video/television show when you can just imitate it for people. That's almost the same, which is why I never go to actual concerts, only cover bands.
I wish I could tell you face-to-face just how much I appreciate all of your hard work. If only there were some way, other than typing, to let you know how I feel. Maybe I could hook up a camera and speak right to it, telling you what I think of your video of you talking to a camera. Then I could upload that, and if you watched them back-to-back, it would be like we were having a conversation. That would sure be neat. Plus, I wouldn't have to shower or put on nice clothes or leave my room to do it. Awesome!
Thank you, YouTube. At first, I just thought this would be a great way to share significant news clips or funny bits from our favorite shows. It could even be used to promote up-and-coming bands or give people an inside look of the war in Iraq. Boy, would all that have been boring. Now we finally have something worthy of the internet...a network where anyone with a computer can upload clips of their favorite anime videos or video game cinematics scored to a popular rock song. Finally I have a place where I can go to see strangers teach themselves to play a piano version of the Mario Brothers theme or play the guitar solo to that new hit song I heard on MTV. And, the cherry on top...I can see people's video blogs so that finally I can hear what's going on in the life of the guy who gained 50 pounds because he spent all day in front of his computer posting video blogs.
I feel like I'm wasting my life away just doing this stupid written blog, just typing for five minutes and using my knowledge of grammar and spelling and thinking about stuff. If I were smart, I'd just set up a camera, put on my least stained t-shirt, and ramble on for 8 minutes about what I did today, namely sat in front of a computer, watched videos of people sitting in front of computers, and posted video blogs. Thank you, YouTube. I love you.
Tuesday, September 5, 2006
Monday, September 4, 2006
I Love a Crusade!
Isn't it interesting how some people can ruin things for everyone? Like poltics. People choosing to devote their lives to looking out for their fellow citizens seems pretty noble, and yet the terrible actions of a few makes everyone think of politicians as liars, fools, and weasels (which, granted, many are). Same thing with religion. Organizations devoted to helping others and answering people's deep, unanswered questions...also sounds pretty good. Of course then you have your religious terrorists, and your religious hate-mongers. In both of these cases, what should be valuable discussions about the best ways to make our world a better place to live in turn into hateful arguments and name-calling.
The difference being that Republicans and Democrats get along better with Independents than with each other sometimes. In religion, the person who believes your god is a fake and their god is real is more your friend than the person who sits the whole thing out. That's something I never quite understood. I mean, I understand that having a belief system and faith in a higher power connects people across religious lines, but it also puts you on opposing teams where you can't both ultimately be right about everything. Yet, it's Atheists and Agnostics who are viewed by both sides as misguided, immoral, and untrustworthy.
In a Newsweek poll, 92 percent of Americans said they believe in God, though you'd be hard-pressed to tell, giving how awful most people act throughout their days. 6 percent said they definitely didn't believe in a god, and 2 percent said they didn't know. Talk about minorities, that's a big one, and also seems to poke a hole in the idea that there's some huge liberal secular army coming to destroy Christmas and make your kids worship Kevin Federline instead of Jesus. Even more shocking is that only 37 percent of people said they'd be willing, not even likely but willing, to elect an Atheist as President. More people said they'd be willing to elect a homosexual President, meaning that there are people who actually believe someone who's life is considered sinful to them is better than someone who may lead a moral life but just doesn't believe in an all-powerful being that he can't see. And despite what some people would have you believe, the number of respondents who say they believe in God is going up, and the number of people willing to accept an Atheist is going down.
That reminds me of one of the most memorable moments I had just before my Catholic Confirmation. As anyone Catholic would tell you, and as anyone else could probably assume, confirmation is a big to-do as it represents a coming-of-age in the church. So, as one of the steps leading up to that big day, to make sure you know exactly what you're getting into and to make sure that you're worthy of it I suppose, at my church they had one of the higher-ups interview each person. Really, it was more of a discussion than an interview, though for some reason they required a Resume and a headshot (it helped that I could pray 75 wpm). Keep in mind, I was all of 14 around the time.
Anyway, towards the end of our discussion about morality and faith, he asked me something that surprised me, and I'm not easily surprised. He asked me if I thought someone could be a good person, but not a good Christian. My answer, which seemed very clear to me, was yes. A person could be kind, honest, hard-working, self-sacrificing, abstinant, moral, virtuous, and all the things that make you a good person and still not believe in Jesus Christ - essential to being a Christian by definition. Many of the things that make you a good Christian also make you a good person, but without that whole "God/Jesus/Bible" part of it, you would never be a good Christian, just a good person. He listened and then not angrily, just matter-of-factly, stated that he didn't believe that at all. He actually believed that it was impossible to be a good person if you weren't a Christian. You could be an alright person, I suppose, or an okay person, but not a good person. I was appalled. He might as well have just slapped me in the face with a Bible, because apparently I had been living in some delusion all those years going to Church when they preached openness and acceptance. Apparently it was "join us or live in depravity" with no middle ground.
There is a polarization going on in the world today, and it's only getting worse. Whether in discussion of politics, religion, economics, values, even science and history, people are being asked to take sides and turn on one another. Where's the middle ground with people who "don't know" or "aren't sure" or who want to come to a consensus? Instead of focusing on whether someone is Muslim or Christian, Republican or Democrat, Rock or Country, can't people focus on what it is that makes people good across these divisions? Because what happens when people focus on beating the other team rather than on improving themselves? They cheat, they lie, they compromise their integrity, and ultimately, the end up hurting themselves.
The difference being that Republicans and Democrats get along better with Independents than with each other sometimes. In religion, the person who believes your god is a fake and their god is real is more your friend than the person who sits the whole thing out. That's something I never quite understood. I mean, I understand that having a belief system and faith in a higher power connects people across religious lines, but it also puts you on opposing teams where you can't both ultimately be right about everything. Yet, it's Atheists and Agnostics who are viewed by both sides as misguided, immoral, and untrustworthy.
In a Newsweek poll, 92 percent of Americans said they believe in God, though you'd be hard-pressed to tell, giving how awful most people act throughout their days. 6 percent said they definitely didn't believe in a god, and 2 percent said they didn't know. Talk about minorities, that's a big one, and also seems to poke a hole in the idea that there's some huge liberal secular army coming to destroy Christmas and make your kids worship Kevin Federline instead of Jesus. Even more shocking is that only 37 percent of people said they'd be willing, not even likely but willing, to elect an Atheist as President. More people said they'd be willing to elect a homosexual President, meaning that there are people who actually believe someone who's life is considered sinful to them is better than someone who may lead a moral life but just doesn't believe in an all-powerful being that he can't see. And despite what some people would have you believe, the number of respondents who say they believe in God is going up, and the number of people willing to accept an Atheist is going down.
That reminds me of one of the most memorable moments I had just before my Catholic Confirmation. As anyone Catholic would tell you, and as anyone else could probably assume, confirmation is a big to-do as it represents a coming-of-age in the church. So, as one of the steps leading up to that big day, to make sure you know exactly what you're getting into and to make sure that you're worthy of it I suppose, at my church they had one of the higher-ups interview each person. Really, it was more of a discussion than an interview, though for some reason they required a Resume and a headshot (it helped that I could pray 75 wpm). Keep in mind, I was all of 14 around the time.
Anyway, towards the end of our discussion about morality and faith, he asked me something that surprised me, and I'm not easily surprised. He asked me if I thought someone could be a good person, but not a good Christian. My answer, which seemed very clear to me, was yes. A person could be kind, honest, hard-working, self-sacrificing, abstinant, moral, virtuous, and all the things that make you a good person and still not believe in Jesus Christ - essential to being a Christian by definition. Many of the things that make you a good Christian also make you a good person, but without that whole "God/Jesus/Bible" part of it, you would never be a good Christian, just a good person. He listened and then not angrily, just matter-of-factly, stated that he didn't believe that at all. He actually believed that it was impossible to be a good person if you weren't a Christian. You could be an alright person, I suppose, or an okay person, but not a good person. I was appalled. He might as well have just slapped me in the face with a Bible, because apparently I had been living in some delusion all those years going to Church when they preached openness and acceptance. Apparently it was "join us or live in depravity" with no middle ground.
There is a polarization going on in the world today, and it's only getting worse. Whether in discussion of politics, religion, economics, values, even science and history, people are being asked to take sides and turn on one another. Where's the middle ground with people who "don't know" or "aren't sure" or who want to come to a consensus? Instead of focusing on whether someone is Muslim or Christian, Republican or Democrat, Rock or Country, can't people focus on what it is that makes people good across these divisions? Because what happens when people focus on beating the other team rather than on improving themselves? They cheat, they lie, they compromise their integrity, and ultimately, the end up hurting themselves.
Sunday, September 3, 2006
Life's Tough in the Aluminum Siding Business
As a former earner of the minimum wage and a future dependent on retirement benefits, I feel confident in saying that we deserve more. Everyone wishes they had more money, whether they deserve it or not. Republicans would like to keep more of their taxes, while Democrats would generally like to get paid more up front. Obviously some people are overpaid and milking the system, and it's hard to judge the value of things as abstract as ideas or customer service. How do you decide the exact worth of an hours-worth of answering phones or a years-worth of accounting? Obviously their are factors to consider and a fair amount of guess-work that smarter people than I have figured out long ago. But, I think it's fair to say that it might be less than precise.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, productivity has risen 67 percent in the past 25 years, most of that during the late nineties. As a nation, we've all been working harder, and accomplishing more in less time. This is all evident from the huge economic expansion that's occured, and the growth of everything from e-commerce to commodities markets. Yet, during this time when our nation has been producing more and making more profit, wages have only risen 8.9 percent. I'm the first to admit that maybe in 1979 people were being paid too much and working too little so there was some catching up to do as far as productivity is concerned, but still that's a huge gap. And, since 2001 the median wage for college grads has stagnated while the median wage for people without degrees has actually begun to go down. Growth in real wages, including benefits, adjusted for inflation have slowed, and in some cases decreased. And to top it all off, fewer employers are offering retirement plans and most have decreased pensions and medical coverage.
There are no easy answers here, and fluctuations in markets and the economy are going to have effects on wages that aren't always fair or predictable. However, these trends represent a larger problem, that overall the American worker is giving more and getting less. In a nation where our highest ideal is to give our children a better life than we received, its a big let down to have each generation facing more difficulty and less reward.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, productivity has risen 67 percent in the past 25 years, most of that during the late nineties. As a nation, we've all been working harder, and accomplishing more in less time. This is all evident from the huge economic expansion that's occured, and the growth of everything from e-commerce to commodities markets. Yet, during this time when our nation has been producing more and making more profit, wages have only risen 8.9 percent. I'm the first to admit that maybe in 1979 people were being paid too much and working too little so there was some catching up to do as far as productivity is concerned, but still that's a huge gap. And, since 2001 the median wage for college grads has stagnated while the median wage for people without degrees has actually begun to go down. Growth in real wages, including benefits, adjusted for inflation have slowed, and in some cases decreased. And to top it all off, fewer employers are offering retirement plans and most have decreased pensions and medical coverage.
There are no easy answers here, and fluctuations in markets and the economy are going to have effects on wages that aren't always fair or predictable. However, these trends represent a larger problem, that overall the American worker is giving more and getting less. In a nation where our highest ideal is to give our children a better life than we received, its a big let down to have each generation facing more difficulty and less reward.
Saturday, September 2, 2006
Hippies Need to Take a Bath
Sometimes I think all people could benefit from working in certain fields, like the service industry, so that maybe when they went back to their normal life they wouldn't be total a-holes to cashiers at Best Buy. I think people could also benefit from working in advertising so that they could learn a few things about selling ideas.
I took Katherine Harris to task for trying to get people to vote for her by calling non-christians immoral legislators and saying that God chooses our rulers rather than, as is the common misconception, the people choosing our leaders. Seems like a bad sales pitch to me.
Well, far worse than that and far more insidious is the sales pitch from the firm of bin laden, Gadahn, and al-Zawahiri. Their latest video release (don't they have DVDs in those caves?) features al Qaeda's "second-in-command" (which I think might be the title of everyone in al Qaeda) as well as an American-born, FBI-wanted member of everyone's favorite terrorist organization. In this video they once again encourage everyone to embrace Islam and are even inclusive enough to invite former Bush and Blair supporters/emloyees to join in all the Islamic fun. For 48 minutes on this tape they talk about just how great Islam is and what it has to offer ("...all for one low, low price...but wait! There's more!") And then, to top it all off they add: "Decide today, because today could be your last day."
As if the actions of al Qaeda and the fact that they are a bunch of muderous hypocrites who live in caves and slums wasn't already enough to turn people off their personal brand of Islam, we also get the added barrel of a gun stuck in our face. Why not just say "Behold the Glory and Love of Allah...or else motherf*ckers!" Most people in marketing would tell you that people don't respond well to threats (especially not explicit ones). It reminds me of the time I was at Blockbuster and the clerk told me "You can rent 'Bring It On' for just $1.99. You really should, because otherwise I'm going to rape your family." Religious beliefs are deeply rooted, based on a lifetime of indoctrination, personal experiences, and introspection. It's not the sort of thing that people change or abandon overnight, and certainly not when they are being threatened. If you wanted people to convert to Islam, maybe you could go into some of the ways it is similar to their present beliefs, and some of the ways it promotes morality or tranquility. Instead, they decided the best pitch they had was that if you don't turn your back on a lifetime of faith, then you're going to get blown-the-hell up. Well, I'm going to tell you right now, people ain't buying, and you should probably just give up with your tapes. People are so afraid of everything now from immigrants to fast food that you're not scaring anyone any more than they already are, and you certainly aren't making any converts. All you're doing is pissing us off more, and everybody knows you don't pick a fight with a big, fat drunk.
I took Katherine Harris to task for trying to get people to vote for her by calling non-christians immoral legislators and saying that God chooses our rulers rather than, as is the common misconception, the people choosing our leaders. Seems like a bad sales pitch to me.
Well, far worse than that and far more insidious is the sales pitch from the firm of bin laden, Gadahn, and al-Zawahiri. Their latest video release (don't they have DVDs in those caves?) features al Qaeda's "second-in-command" (which I think might be the title of everyone in al Qaeda) as well as an American-born, FBI-wanted member of everyone's favorite terrorist organization. In this video they once again encourage everyone to embrace Islam and are even inclusive enough to invite former Bush and Blair supporters/emloyees to join in all the Islamic fun. For 48 minutes on this tape they talk about just how great Islam is and what it has to offer ("...all for one low, low price...but wait! There's more!") And then, to top it all off they add: "Decide today, because today could be your last day."
As if the actions of al Qaeda and the fact that they are a bunch of muderous hypocrites who live in caves and slums wasn't already enough to turn people off their personal brand of Islam, we also get the added barrel of a gun stuck in our face. Why not just say "Behold the Glory and Love of Allah...or else motherf*ckers!" Most people in marketing would tell you that people don't respond well to threats (especially not explicit ones). It reminds me of the time I was at Blockbuster and the clerk told me "You can rent 'Bring It On' for just $1.99. You really should, because otherwise I'm going to rape your family." Religious beliefs are deeply rooted, based on a lifetime of indoctrination, personal experiences, and introspection. It's not the sort of thing that people change or abandon overnight, and certainly not when they are being threatened. If you wanted people to convert to Islam, maybe you could go into some of the ways it is similar to their present beliefs, and some of the ways it promotes morality or tranquility. Instead, they decided the best pitch they had was that if you don't turn your back on a lifetime of faith, then you're going to get blown-the-hell up. Well, I'm going to tell you right now, people ain't buying, and you should probably just give up with your tapes. People are so afraid of everything now from immigrants to fast food that you're not scaring anyone any more than they already are, and you certainly aren't making any converts. All you're doing is pissing us off more, and everybody knows you don't pick a fight with a big, fat drunk.
Friday, September 1, 2006
Take That, Poor People
Five days ago on Rush Limbaugh's syndicated radio program, the one that my dad is such a fan of (he has an autographed picture of Rush and, I wouldn't be surprised, probably a tattoo of Rush on his person,) he unleashed this insight worthy of Confuscius:
"I think you might then say that the obesity crisis could be the fault of government, liberal government."
'Oh no he didn't' Oh yes, he did. We all know there is an obesity crisis in this country. In fact, you can't watch a local newscast without seeing at least one of those montages where they just show fat abdomens walking around city streets while a reporter talks about fast food. To be fair, this same obesity crisis is occuring throughout much of the western world, being that we now have a greater abundance of food than ever before, the food we have is chock full of sugar and corn syrup, we have the wealth to buy a lot of it, and thanks to modern technology we only have to do a minimal of physical exertion to get through a day. My pal Rush, though, seems to think that rather than this being a systemic problem due to bad personal choices and a change in the way we live, it is in fact the fault of the "liberal welfare state", and I'm certain also probably the personal fault of Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Recent studies have found a link between poverty and obesity, I'm guessing in part because the same poor decision making that can lead to eating poorly can also lead to making bad economic decisions. There's also the fact that while wealthy people can afford quality food and gym memberships, poor people not so much. There are complexities, and also many exceptions (you've seen tons of thin poor people and plenty of hefty rich people). But Rush seems to think it's all the fault of food stamps, because as you know, the government hands out so many of them and that the people who get them can just afford reams of food with them. A single food stamp in fact can be used to purchase over 3 tons of delicious Chewy Chip A-Hoy (it's true, look it up).
For some reason Rush thought it would help his argument to point out that the states with the highest incidence of obesity are also states with high poverty rates, and the states with the lowest incidence of obesity are states with lower poverty rates. Those poor states? Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Louisiana. Yes, those five, liberal states. Oh, wait, those look like awfully Red States to me; states where Republicans hold a majority, and who support a Republican president and hold to Republican values. The five least obese states? Colorado, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Vermont, and root-of-all-liberal-evil Massachusetts. This list looks a little bluer to me. Do I think there's any connection? Honestly, no, but if Rush is going to make this a partisan food fight, maybe he should make sure he's not whipping cupcakes at his friends.
His argument is that because people are poor, they must be getting handouts in the forms of food stamps, food drives, soup kitchens...and we are just overfeeding these poor bastards (pun intended). I wonder how many food stamps the government is forcing on Rush Limbaugh each week, because he's not so trim himself (though he did lose a lot of weight when he was illegally abusing prescription drugs). Correlation does not equal cause and effect, and I think the correlation in this case has more to do with the individuals and with cultural values than with welfare. It also doesn't help that you can buy a 2 litter bottle of soda for less than a bottle of water, or a bag of chips for less than a bag of apples. When people are forced to make choices based on a limited income, they tend to go for quantity rather than quality, and it's not because we're giving them too many food stamps, Rush.
So Mr. Limbaugh, if you'd like to have a discussion about our warped values system or about a health crisis in the United States, we're happy to have you at the roundtable. If however you'd like to talk about how liberals are making people fat, then first perhaps you should push yourself back from the dinner table and have a good look in the mirror.
"I think you might then say that the obesity crisis could be the fault of government, liberal government."
'Oh no he didn't' Oh yes, he did. We all know there is an obesity crisis in this country. In fact, you can't watch a local newscast without seeing at least one of those montages where they just show fat abdomens walking around city streets while a reporter talks about fast food. To be fair, this same obesity crisis is occuring throughout much of the western world, being that we now have a greater abundance of food than ever before, the food we have is chock full of sugar and corn syrup, we have the wealth to buy a lot of it, and thanks to modern technology we only have to do a minimal of physical exertion to get through a day. My pal Rush, though, seems to think that rather than this being a systemic problem due to bad personal choices and a change in the way we live, it is in fact the fault of the "liberal welfare state", and I'm certain also probably the personal fault of Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Recent studies have found a link between poverty and obesity, I'm guessing in part because the same poor decision making that can lead to eating poorly can also lead to making bad economic decisions. There's also the fact that while wealthy people can afford quality food and gym memberships, poor people not so much. There are complexities, and also many exceptions (you've seen tons of thin poor people and plenty of hefty rich people). But Rush seems to think it's all the fault of food stamps, because as you know, the government hands out so many of them and that the people who get them can just afford reams of food with them. A single food stamp in fact can be used to purchase over 3 tons of delicious Chewy Chip A-Hoy (it's true, look it up).
For some reason Rush thought it would help his argument to point out that the states with the highest incidence of obesity are also states with high poverty rates, and the states with the lowest incidence of obesity are states with lower poverty rates. Those poor states? Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Louisiana. Yes, those five, liberal states. Oh, wait, those look like awfully Red States to me; states where Republicans hold a majority, and who support a Republican president and hold to Republican values. The five least obese states? Colorado, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Vermont, and root-of-all-liberal-evil Massachusetts. This list looks a little bluer to me. Do I think there's any connection? Honestly, no, but if Rush is going to make this a partisan food fight, maybe he should make sure he's not whipping cupcakes at his friends.
His argument is that because people are poor, they must be getting handouts in the forms of food stamps, food drives, soup kitchens...and we are just overfeeding these poor bastards (pun intended). I wonder how many food stamps the government is forcing on Rush Limbaugh each week, because he's not so trim himself (though he did lose a lot of weight when he was illegally abusing prescription drugs). Correlation does not equal cause and effect, and I think the correlation in this case has more to do with the individuals and with cultural values than with welfare. It also doesn't help that you can buy a 2 litter bottle of soda for less than a bottle of water, or a bag of chips for less than a bag of apples. When people are forced to make choices based on a limited income, they tend to go for quantity rather than quality, and it's not because we're giving them too many food stamps, Rush.
So Mr. Limbaugh, if you'd like to have a discussion about our warped values system or about a health crisis in the United States, we're happy to have you at the roundtable. If however you'd like to talk about how liberals are making people fat, then first perhaps you should push yourself back from the dinner table and have a good look in the mirror.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Forging the Erudition of the Foibles of Fission
And other scientific inquiries.
Today on CNN.com, a featured article discussed advances being made in the field of cancer eradication, namely, in creating a "smart-bomb for cancer" (a phrase which caught my eye in part because it was used on The West Wing about four years ago). Though still in it's early stages, and not wholly successful, a promising new study has found that the human immune system can be genetically enhanced to target cancer cells, something it doesn't normally do. Not only is that bad-ass in a science-fiction sort of way, it's also incredibly inspiring and a little terrifying. Essentially, what they do is extract some white blood cells. Then they genetically engineer them by mixing them with a lab-created virus which seeks out and attaches itself to cancer cells. Then, with traditional chemotherapy, they wipe out the person's existing immune system, and then re-introduce the new Jack Bauer immune cells, which then go about eradicating the cancer. In the study it only worked in 2 out of 17 subjects, but in those subjects it worked completely. Tell me science isn't amazing.
And this very week the new Pope is meeting with some former theology students to discuss that. They will be meeting for a three-day discussion/debate on the subjects of evolution and creationism. Of course, they won't be coming to any definitive answers or making any proclamations of one over the other, but it will be a discussion which is refreshing given the climate here in the United States where it seems people have no room for concession or understanding. Even the last Pope gave some credence to Darwin's assertions. I think everyone on both sides of the aisle could learn a lesson from these Popes, that religion and reason are not mutually exclusive, and that discussion and investigation do not denote a lack of faith. Obviously, Pope Benedict doesn't believe that evolution is an entirely random process, and he certainly believes that God created everything, but all the same, any discussion on the merits of both evolution and creationism (or its modern guise of intelligent design) concedes that there is a possibility for truth and faith in evolution. My point: science is a great thing. Also, breaking news: Ice cream is delicious.
Today on CNN.com, a featured article discussed advances being made in the field of cancer eradication, namely, in creating a "smart-bomb for cancer" (a phrase which caught my eye in part because it was used on The West Wing about four years ago). Though still in it's early stages, and not wholly successful, a promising new study has found that the human immune system can be genetically enhanced to target cancer cells, something it doesn't normally do. Not only is that bad-ass in a science-fiction sort of way, it's also incredibly inspiring and a little terrifying. Essentially, what they do is extract some white blood cells. Then they genetically engineer them by mixing them with a lab-created virus which seeks out and attaches itself to cancer cells. Then, with traditional chemotherapy, they wipe out the person's existing immune system, and then re-introduce the new Jack Bauer immune cells, which then go about eradicating the cancer. In the study it only worked in 2 out of 17 subjects, but in those subjects it worked completely. Tell me science isn't amazing.
And this very week the new Pope is meeting with some former theology students to discuss that. They will be meeting for a three-day discussion/debate on the subjects of evolution and creationism. Of course, they won't be coming to any definitive answers or making any proclamations of one over the other, but it will be a discussion which is refreshing given the climate here in the United States where it seems people have no room for concession or understanding. Even the last Pope gave some credence to Darwin's assertions. I think everyone on both sides of the aisle could learn a lesson from these Popes, that religion and reason are not mutually exclusive, and that discussion and investigation do not denote a lack of faith. Obviously, Pope Benedict doesn't believe that evolution is an entirely random process, and he certainly believes that God created everything, but all the same, any discussion on the merits of both evolution and creationism (or its modern guise of intelligent design) concedes that there is a possibility for truth and faith in evolution. My point: science is a great thing. Also, breaking news: Ice cream is delicious.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Notes from the Campaign Trail
It's hard to keep track of all the goings-on in an election year, especially a mid-term election year, especially when we have all this breaking news about how Hurricane Katrina happened a year ago and a guy falsely confessed to a single murder a decade ago. So, I thought I'd help you cut through the treacle with a little clip of the kind of thing we find in this election season.
From the party of inclusion, we have Katherine Harris, belle of the Bush coup. Some of you may remember her from the 2000 election when she was co-chair of the Bush Florida Campaign while simultaneously being the Secretary of State for Florida and thus the person who certified Bush's electoral victory in Florida, a decision later overturned by the state supreme court (then even later overturned by the national one) and then again by any number of non-partisan studies since. Before I continue, I should also mention that she is so crazy, many of her own party don't support her.
Her most recent madness came while she was campaigning and giving an interview to the Florida Baptist Witness publication. Just so I can't be accused of taking things out of context, here's what she said...
"...that lie we have been told, the separation of church and state, people have internalized, thinking that they needed to avoid politics and that is so wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers."
and also...
"If you are not electing Christians, tried and true, under public scrutiny and pressure, if you're not electing Christians then in essence you are going to legislate sin. They can legislate sin. They can say that abortion is alright. They can vote to sustain gay marriage. And that will take western civilization, indeed other nations because people look to our country as one nation as under God and whenever we legislate sin and we say abortion is permissible and we say gay unions are permissible, then average citizens who are not Christians, because they dont know better, we are leading them astray and its wrong."
I guess I'll start from the top...that old "lie" that is our concept of the seperation of church and state. It's just like that story about Washington chopping down the apple tree...pure poppycock. Our founding fathers never wanted there to be separation of church and state. That's why when they wrote our laws, based in part on English law, they decreed that the Anglican church would be the official state religion and then proceeded to copy the bible word-for-word onto what we would later colloquially call our "Constitution". God already has a grade A form of governance. He's like the President, but for life, and Jesus is like his Vice President. And the Holy Ghost is like the Speaker of the House I guess. They never wanted these things separate. They wanted religion to dictate our laws, and for the law to enforce religion. That's why murder is a crime. That's why stealing is a crime. That's also why it's a crime not to honor my father or to desire my neighbor's possessions. Oh, wait a minute...
Sure, religion influences and is entwined with a person's moral and political values, and certainly if a person believes that something is a sin, then they would probably also think it should be illegal. However, there is the small matter of the fact that not everyone has the same religion, and even the ones that do often disagree, and that unless Jesus was elected to the House of Representatives, that no one in our government is capable of speaking for God or Allah or Vishnu and dictating how we should choose to live. The separation of church and state ensures (in theory) that decisions in government are based on reason and the good of all people and not simply the religious assertions of a few, while at the same time making sure that government never interferes in people's free expression and practice of their religious faith, whatever that may be (unless it harms another, which is why we no longer have sacrifices). But, you know what, I guess it is all a lie, because God has chosen our leaders, and as a Representative of both her district and the one true God, she must know what she's talking about.
So let's get into that. She says that our leaders are chosen by God. Not that God encourages people to run or gives them a calling, or that God informs people's decisions...no, God has hand-picked all of our leaders, and doesn't He just think it's adorable how we go through the motions of holding elections when it's so unnecessary. In fact, on election day, I usually head on down to the pulpit and pray "Dear Lord, in your infinite wisdom, please use your infinite power and wisdom to fill out millions of ballots across the country and tell us who you have decided we want to lead us." And you know what, God always elects someone, and whether I know it or not, that person is the best person for the job, and who am I to question the creator of all things.
It's an odd campaign strategy in a democracy to go out and tell people that they don't choose their leaders. Why is she campaigning then? If God chooses our rulers, then shouldn't she show some faith and let God decide whether she should be one of them? Is she doubting the power of Yahweh by thinking that she, and not He, can convince the voters? If God wants her to rule, it'll happen, amen.
Which then brings us to the part that really inspires. Apparently, only Christians are wise enough to rule. Not Jews, or Muslims, and most definitely not Hindus or Buddhists. Nope, only Christians, because everyone who is not a Christian believes that every woman should be required to have an abortion and that the fetus should then be eaten whole before going out and stealing, murdering, and engaging in forced sodomy or, as non-christians call it: Friday night. Its true though, it really is. All Christians always do the right thing, and all non-christians are constantly trying to make sure that everything sinful and debaucherous is legal, if not legally required. That's why the Jewish people in Congress are always trying to overturn federal murder statutes, and why Atheists are always complaining about how it should be legal to steal. Note to Mrs. Harris: IF YOU HAVE A MORAL PROBLEM WITH ABORTION AND HOMOSEXUALITY, JUST SAY SO. Don't call everyone else a godless sodomite, and don't call any Christian who disagrees with you a false Christian. Though she backtracked and said she supports other religions, especially those wonderful Jews, she still believes that Christians hold the moral high ground.
You know what the difference between a good person and a good Christian is? A belief in Christ. Really, that's what it boils down to, meaning that it's possible to be a good and moral person and still not be a good Christian, so why can't people vote for a non-Christian and still be voting for a capable and noble person? Well, according to my buddy Kathy, it's because when you elect people who aren't true Christians, they legislate sin which then leads the average, dumb people astray by making them think sin is a good thing. Perhaps her Lexicon is out-of-date or her Dictionary has a tear across the page in the "A" section where the word "average" appears, but I think by definition it means, in the case of people, "typical, the norm". You know what is typical in the United States? Christians. 77 percent of the population of our country identify as Christians. 77 percent sounds pretty average to me. Considering that the next highest representation (aside from 'no affiliation') is Jewish with 1.3 percent, seems like the average person in the U.S. is Christian. Most of our leaders are Christian. So, is she saying that the average citizen, a Christian, is being led astray by the Christians in government, the ones that God appointed? Is she saying that the whole world is now going to become a new Babylon of abortions and gay marriages because Christians aren't electing enough Christians?
So after all that, I guess my point is that if you have objections to things, be they abortions, gays, liberals, social programs, free speech in the media, etc., and you expect to do something about it in Congress, perhaps it's best to start forming a real argument and deciding a.) why it is you believe what you do, b.) whether that's the best thing for all Americans, and c.) what's the best way to convince the people who disagree with you. Instead, your friend and mine in Florida decided it would be best to call people stupid, to call people heathens, and to tell people that Christians, and only Christians, are good people and that if you let a single Muslim get elected, that you are killing an unborn child.
From the party of inclusion, we have Katherine Harris, belle of the Bush coup. Some of you may remember her from the 2000 election when she was co-chair of the Bush Florida Campaign while simultaneously being the Secretary of State for Florida and thus the person who certified Bush's electoral victory in Florida, a decision later overturned by the state supreme court (then even later overturned by the national one) and then again by any number of non-partisan studies since. Before I continue, I should also mention that she is so crazy, many of her own party don't support her.
Her most recent madness came while she was campaigning and giving an interview to the Florida Baptist Witness publication. Just so I can't be accused of taking things out of context, here's what she said...
"...that lie we have been told, the separation of church and state, people have internalized, thinking that they needed to avoid politics and that is so wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers."
and also...
"If you are not electing Christians, tried and true, under public scrutiny and pressure, if you're not electing Christians then in essence you are going to legislate sin. They can legislate sin. They can say that abortion is alright. They can vote to sustain gay marriage. And that will take western civilization, indeed other nations because people look to our country as one nation as under God and whenever we legislate sin and we say abortion is permissible and we say gay unions are permissible, then average citizens who are not Christians, because they dont know better, we are leading them astray and its wrong."
I guess I'll start from the top...that old "lie" that is our concept of the seperation of church and state. It's just like that story about Washington chopping down the apple tree...pure poppycock. Our founding fathers never wanted there to be separation of church and state. That's why when they wrote our laws, based in part on English law, they decreed that the Anglican church would be the official state religion and then proceeded to copy the bible word-for-word onto what we would later colloquially call our "Constitution". God already has a grade A form of governance. He's like the President, but for life, and Jesus is like his Vice President. And the Holy Ghost is like the Speaker of the House I guess. They never wanted these things separate. They wanted religion to dictate our laws, and for the law to enforce religion. That's why murder is a crime. That's why stealing is a crime. That's also why it's a crime not to honor my father or to desire my neighbor's possessions. Oh, wait a minute...
Sure, religion influences and is entwined with a person's moral and political values, and certainly if a person believes that something is a sin, then they would probably also think it should be illegal. However, there is the small matter of the fact that not everyone has the same religion, and even the ones that do often disagree, and that unless Jesus was elected to the House of Representatives, that no one in our government is capable of speaking for God or Allah or Vishnu and dictating how we should choose to live. The separation of church and state ensures (in theory) that decisions in government are based on reason and the good of all people and not simply the religious assertions of a few, while at the same time making sure that government never interferes in people's free expression and practice of their religious faith, whatever that may be (unless it harms another, which is why we no longer have sacrifices). But, you know what, I guess it is all a lie, because God has chosen our leaders, and as a Representative of both her district and the one true God, she must know what she's talking about.
So let's get into that. She says that our leaders are chosen by God. Not that God encourages people to run or gives them a calling, or that God informs people's decisions...no, God has hand-picked all of our leaders, and doesn't He just think it's adorable how we go through the motions of holding elections when it's so unnecessary. In fact, on election day, I usually head on down to the pulpit and pray "Dear Lord, in your infinite wisdom, please use your infinite power and wisdom to fill out millions of ballots across the country and tell us who you have decided we want to lead us." And you know what, God always elects someone, and whether I know it or not, that person is the best person for the job, and who am I to question the creator of all things.
It's an odd campaign strategy in a democracy to go out and tell people that they don't choose their leaders. Why is she campaigning then? If God chooses our rulers, then shouldn't she show some faith and let God decide whether she should be one of them? Is she doubting the power of Yahweh by thinking that she, and not He, can convince the voters? If God wants her to rule, it'll happen, amen.
Which then brings us to the part that really inspires. Apparently, only Christians are wise enough to rule. Not Jews, or Muslims, and most definitely not Hindus or Buddhists. Nope, only Christians, because everyone who is not a Christian believes that every woman should be required to have an abortion and that the fetus should then be eaten whole before going out and stealing, murdering, and engaging in forced sodomy or, as non-christians call it: Friday night. Its true though, it really is. All Christians always do the right thing, and all non-christians are constantly trying to make sure that everything sinful and debaucherous is legal, if not legally required. That's why the Jewish people in Congress are always trying to overturn federal murder statutes, and why Atheists are always complaining about how it should be legal to steal. Note to Mrs. Harris: IF YOU HAVE A MORAL PROBLEM WITH ABORTION AND HOMOSEXUALITY, JUST SAY SO. Don't call everyone else a godless sodomite, and don't call any Christian who disagrees with you a false Christian. Though she backtracked and said she supports other religions, especially those wonderful Jews, she still believes that Christians hold the moral high ground.
You know what the difference between a good person and a good Christian is? A belief in Christ. Really, that's what it boils down to, meaning that it's possible to be a good and moral person and still not be a good Christian, so why can't people vote for a non-Christian and still be voting for a capable and noble person? Well, according to my buddy Kathy, it's because when you elect people who aren't true Christians, they legislate sin which then leads the average, dumb people astray by making them think sin is a good thing. Perhaps her Lexicon is out-of-date or her Dictionary has a tear across the page in the "A" section where the word "average" appears, but I think by definition it means, in the case of people, "typical, the norm". You know what is typical in the United States? Christians. 77 percent of the population of our country identify as Christians. 77 percent sounds pretty average to me. Considering that the next highest representation (aside from 'no affiliation') is Jewish with 1.3 percent, seems like the average person in the U.S. is Christian. Most of our leaders are Christian. So, is she saying that the average citizen, a Christian, is being led astray by the Christians in government, the ones that God appointed? Is she saying that the whole world is now going to become a new Babylon of abortions and gay marriages because Christians aren't electing enough Christians?
So after all that, I guess my point is that if you have objections to things, be they abortions, gays, liberals, social programs, free speech in the media, etc., and you expect to do something about it in Congress, perhaps it's best to start forming a real argument and deciding a.) why it is you believe what you do, b.) whether that's the best thing for all Americans, and c.) what's the best way to convince the people who disagree with you. Instead, your friend and mine in Florida decided it would be best to call people stupid, to call people heathens, and to tell people that Christians, and only Christians, are good people and that if you let a single Muslim get elected, that you are killing an unborn child.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
