Dear people in the Subway line (or any other line for that matter):

1.  It is not okay for you to make out while standing in front of me.  You're ugly enough without the visual onslaught that is your grotesque pink tongue.  No, I don't care HOW much sex you're having.

2.  If you brush up against my backpack one more time, it's war.  It's not a personal space thing; I just assume you're trying to steal my wallet.

3.  Are you that girl who talks 120 mph at Volume 20 about your overly-neurotic scheduling habits in a way that makes it sound like you are complaining that what little you have to do is driving you crazy?  Two words: Shut. Up.

Now that all of you have totally turned me off my lunch, I guess I'll just throw it at you.



No love,
CJ

I point to IntrepidLiberal's diary over at the Daily Kos:

Ninety-percent of the project was paid through a highway trust fund while the states contributed ten percent of the funding. Eisenhower believed this law vital to America's national security interests to help the military to mobilize troops more effectively in case of invasion by a foreign power. Ultimately, the investment more than paid for itself through jobs, economic growth and the development of the suburbs.

However, the Interstate Highway System also resulted in vehicle pollution and increased our dependence on foreign oil. Hence, with global warming and collapsing bridges our infrastructure requires a twenty-first century upgrade."

IntrepidLiberal goes on to talk about the '08 presidential candidates' position on the issue.  You can read the entire summary over the link, so I won't bother to repost the majority of it.  Basically it comes down to this:  Barack Obama's position on infrastructure is that the feds need to increase funding and modernize projects to repair neglected public projects like roads and bridges across the nation.  John McCain wants to finance high-speed internet systems through local community efforts and private investors.

Let's forget for a moment that McCain seems to think the word "infrastructure" refers only to those newfangled Ted Stevens' Internet Tube Things that bring The Google to your Computer Machine.  Let's even forget that all during the GOP convention last week the speakers railed against Obama's community organizing.  He wants to what?  Like, um, the cable companies that hold local monopolies and therefore can gouge their customers while providing limited, highly interruptable and privacy-violating service?

I have to wonder sometimes exactly how many common-sense brain cells this man and his policymakers possess.

Our country has for years suffered from an aging and increasingly-dilapidated infrastructure.  Companies like those mentioned above have no incentive to spend money or be competitive, so they aren't.  The technology ages, breaks down, and customers are left holding the short end of the stick.

The Hanford Nuclear Power Plant, near where I live, is a well run, accident-free, clean source of power for a significant number of people in this country.  The plant engineers recently put in a request to extend the contract life of the plant, which was scheduled to close this year.  But closing the plant would mean building another source of power to replace it.  Dams or even a newer, more efficient nuke plant is simply out of the question.  Why?  No federal financing available.  No infrastructure funding.  It's not about 3-eyed fish.  It's about a fiscally conservative government not willing to let go of the cash.  They'd rather keep the old plant running at greater expense and increasing risk of something going wrong due to aging facilities.  It makes me crazy.

Having the *dreaded* Feds, devote/regulate funds and resources to infrastructure actually saves money, time, and resources, and also creates jobs and encourages industry competition.  Numerous case studies show this, concerning everything from the German rail system DeutcheBahn to High Speed Internet in Japan.

Take my experience for example:

My hometown of about 45,000 in Eastern Washington State finances and contracts all its road construction projects to the lowest bidder, almost always a local company.  These companies can take months to do a simple project like repaving a stretch of 1 blocks of 3-lane road.  I go to school in Seattle, population about 580,000, and I have seen similar and even more complex projects done in 1/5 of that time for about the same amount of money.  Not to say the Seattle transportation authority doesn't have its foibles.  But most "domestic" road construction?  Done in 2 days, weather pending.

Another article in the Times recently went on about how local wind farms do not possess infrastructure to power as much of the country as they theoretically could.  I mean, my god, the country is different than it was 50 years ago?  Shock, horror.  Those trip-back-to-the-50's conservatives must be stunned speechless.

Any fiscal conservative who complains about red tape and earmarks in federal projects should look at the overhead costs and CEO "perks" of your average publicly traded corporation.  Federal regulations could theoretically close many of the loopholes that keep these guys in such comfy mansions, but the GOP doesn't exactly have the "fight the power" attitude that would get that accomplished, either.  Who would, if they got paid so much money to look the other way?

So in the end, it's a choice between having the costs of those runaway corporations trickle down through product pricing and wasted money in government contracts, or paying taxes.  The taxes end up being cheaper for 99% of Americans.  Who knew?*

If the McCain camp really believes that no progress needs to be made in regard to infrastructure (assuming they know what it  means), they should at least say so.  Hiding behind one element of it doesn't make you look mavricky--it makes you look ignorant.

*This, by the way, is also the theory behind universal healthcare, an insitution that in England, France and Germany has notably not become the poster boy for economic catastrophe or failing pharmeceutical research.

I've been trying very hard to come up with an elegant phrase or 20 for the recent (shall we say) scourge of conformity-enforcement.

Coming up with words is a difficult thing--particularly when you want those words to mean well, hit hard and leave indelible memories.  I suppose that's as good a phrase as any to start out with.

It remains to be seen if this event, which struck so quickly and without warning, will leave that kind of lasting impression.  To my dismay, I suspect not.  The Internet moves at the speed of light, and just as one person's thoughts and feelings fluctuate from one moment to the next, so do the concerns of our web-based communities.  That is not to say that I wish all of this forgotten.  With proper nourishment and care, the very real issues behind The Great Livejournal Strikethrough can become forums for exploring what are perhaps the most important questions of our generation.

For the 7 people who haven't yet heard of TGLS, let me describe the chaos that has been, for lack of a better term, enacted in the last 48 hours:  Largely due to the actions of a group called the Warriors for Innocence (WARNING: I have heard reports that this site installs spyware.  Click carefully.), the Livejournal Abuse team suspended activity on some 500 journals and communities that it advised were promoting child abuse, rape and pornography.  The sites reported included not only some legitimate journals, but numerous literature discussion groups (e.g., for the novel Lolita), amateur fiction-writing groups, and communities intended to provide support for victims of child abuse and rape.  Livejournal did not comment about the suspensions or give any forewarning.

A loud outcry went up from these groups, as many members came to feel that the suspensions were unjustified, and that they may never be able to recover material they posted in these communities or journals.  One of the most well-known early entries on the subject can be found here.  The next day, several news outlets, including Cnet carried a story in which the Barak Berkowitz, Chairman and CEO of Livejournal's parent company Six Apart, claimed that the suspensions had been made to avoid legal liability on the part of the company.  Today, Thursday, shortly after midnight PST, Berkowitz posted in Livejournal News with an explanation and apology to the thousands of members affected by the event.

The letter does not go so far as to explain earlier comments on the matter, or why there was no warning that action was being taken.  Furthermore, it does not elaborate as to the criteria that will be used to determine which journals and communities will be released from the suspension or deleted perminently.  It remains to be seen whether Livejournal will regain the respect and trust of its users.  No doubt the backlash will leave a lasting mark in the administrators minds, but continued abuse of the system is not necessarily out of the question if the community doesn't continue to press.

As I look again, I'm tempted to re-interpret all the posts I've siphoned through, with retrospect eyes and calm thoughts.  At the same time, I have to consider that all comments on the event were given in the heat of the moments, and at varying levels of knowledge.  There is no reason not to take them at face value.

Almost all of the users involved will say that their intention was not to promote or in any way put in a positive light the abuse and rape of children.  Fanfiction involving underage (but fictional) characters, even the works that are pornographic in nature, are not intended to feed the need (yes, need) of true pedophiles.  Child abuse is a dark and slippery and inevitably fascinating subject for artists and activists alike, and it is inevitable that all sides of it will be examined...but does writing a graphic rape scene make an author a pedophile, if the WFI operative reading this story cannot also be labeled as such?

The vital point these activists miss is that these acts themselves, when they do occur in real life, do not universally produce tortured children who grow up to be insecure adults.  By far the greatest indicator of how well a child recovers from a traumatizing incident is the level of support in his or her environment: her friends, her family, her community.  The methods WFI uses to persecute "Monsters on the Internet" gives abuse and rape an intensely negative, and sometimes indelible impression: that rape is shameful, devastating, and--worse--that it can be controlled by persecuting strangers.  The majority of child-rapes are perpetrated not by strangers, but by aquaintances, friends and family members.  These three groups are exactly the ones that groups like WFI do not have access to.

But I digress.

I am in some ways proud and in others disgusted by the reactions of the people in the Livejournal community.  Many have contributed to a thoughtful and meaningful discussion about the implications of Livejournal's actions, and how both the community members and LJ staff can communicate better and make the site both safe and free of oppression.  However, just as many have reacted in the knee-jerk way that is so common on Internet forums, throwing out insults and demands and not thinking though their words...for shame.

We, as members of this great and growing community of bloggers, can only shape LJ into our ideal if we contribute substantial, reasonable things.  Civilized debate and compromise are the marks of a diplomat, or 23,000 of them.  Is our generation not worthy of that?  Have we become so star-struck within our relative freedom to have lost all wisdom and patience?  I sincerely hope we have not, because the marks we make in the virtual world are every bit as indelible as the impressions we leave in our physical lives.

I am a firm believer in freedom of speech.  I believe that I should be able to say anything I want, and that others should have that same right, no matter how I may disagree.  I believe that people are capable of regulating that speech so that they appear intelligent, that they value their contributions to the forum, and others' contributions as well.  As a consequence, I do not believe that Livejournal was right in keeping its members in the dark about the events that have transpired, and that their concern for the freedoms that comprise this website should reign far above their concern for legalities (especially those for which every court agrees a webmaster cannot be responsible).  I believe we are right to question their motives, to reserve our trust and defend the things that are valuable to us.  During this time, the fandom communities have shown commendable unity;  We have stated in one voice that our ideas, our thoughts and our feelings are our own, and should not be regulated by those who believe in different ideals.

I am anxious to see what will come out of this event.  What I hope most of all is that it will leave the kind of indelible mark that will spark thought and conversation and exploration into the freedoms that we hold so closely.  I hope that our generation will continue to stand up for those things that are ours, both in the world of shifting electrons and in the larger world--which is as wonderfully diverse, deserving, desperate and tragic as we could possibly ever let our imaginations be.  We can change more than Livejournal, but Livejournal is an excellent place to begin.

As I have mentioned to a few of you, I've been taking a class this quarter about human sexuality. There are two departments about human sexuality; this is the psychology course. The class is heavily focused on physiology, not just social interactions. We spent a week going over adult body response, another on the menstrual cycle/fetal development.

This is one fo those posts where I rant to my heart's content about something political and controversial. You have been warned.

Today in class we talked about dealing with unwanted pregnancies. It's a very universal theme, and probably stirs up more politicial trouble than almost anything else besides maybe nuclear arms. We talked about abortion, adoption, or keeping the baby. We saw lots of statistics. We talked about legalities.

Out of curiosity, I just did a google search for the term "abortion." Four out of the first five sites I turned up were anti-abortion websites. I browsed around for a while, and now I'm feeling shocked and angry...maybe spoiling for a fight, a little.

I don't mind that there are people that believe that life begins at conception. That's a personal choice, and they're welcome to make it. What bothers me is the deceptive and outright felonious lies that are perpetrated by these activist groups in order to take advantage of scared, vulnerable girls and women who come to their sites seeking medical and emotional advice.

One site in particular was a gem. They had a huge page of Q&A's. The question would start as a "common argument" made by "anti-life" activists, and the answer would be a refute. Every answer on that page was a lie. I could have reinforced every question they had put up with factual citations that I pulled from my lecture notes today. These numbers are based on dozens of studies that have been done on the subject, by reputable organizations. The "facts" this website produced had no given sources, and were based on data that was taken unscientifically.

I'm sorry, but one woman's testimony about how traumatized she was to have an abortion is not an accurate statistic. 90% of women who terminated an unwanted pregnancy reported feeling relief, not regret. 96% said that the choice was easy to make. The incidence of depression was no higher than in the general populace, and was more likely in women who had pre-existing mental health issues or a complete lack of support for their decision. Abortions done primarily because of genetic defects or to spare the health of the mother had higher incidences of the woman feeling sad or depressed, but that's different: she wanted the child.

An article just came out in the New York Times, which summarized the results of a large-scale study that concluded that there is absolutely no fact to the claim that women who have had an abortion are more likely to develop breast cancer. It's not true. Studies done in Europe have shown the same thing. The only studies that DON'T make that conclusion are conducted in such a way that it distorts correlations. (if you want to read the article, it's <a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/24/health/24canc.html?_r=1&oref=slogin>here.</a>)

It is also not true--as this site claims--that abortions are highly dangerous. The procedure is more risky the further along the pregnancy is, because of the forcible procedures involved, but early-term terminations have a smaller risk of death associated with then than giving birth, period.

Probably the most astounding FAQ I found on that site was one that said that coathanger abortions have never existed. I would like to meet with the person who had the gall to actually type that out...and maybe demonstrate

Non-medical abortions have been performed since the beginning of time. It is estimated that 19 MILLION unsafe abortions (roughly 1/3 of the total number) happen every year worldwide. Most result in significant internal (and sometimes external) trauma to the woman, sometimes without accomplishing the death of the fetus. They also frequently result in infection and high-volume bleeding. Unsafe abortions kill about 68,000 women every year. Maybe they didn't all use a coat hanger, but what the hell does that matter?

I really can't believe the number of websites out there that distribute this kind of misinformation. Fear-based doctrine isn't civil argument--and worse yet, it's not effective. We know this because fear-based abstinence-only programs that talk about the horrors of teen pregnancy and STD's do not keep people from having sex, and in fact they prevent them from having accurate information about safe sex.

I think it is absolutely the worst kind of crime when people actively distort the truth in order to futher an agenda. It's almost a personal violation to me; they're telling me that I do not have a right to know what I know to be true. They're telling me that I do not have a right to disagree with them. Worse yet, they are putting more vulnerable people into a position where they can be taken advantage of for the rest of their lives.

Teenagers who have children are much more likely to live in poverty, without health insurance. Their children are more likely to be unhealthy, have mental or physical problems, and be abused. Children of teen mothers are HUGELY more likely to become teen mothers themselves. It's a horrible cycle that says a lot about how hypocritical our society is: we told her to have the baby, but now we won't help her raise it.

And there's plenty more hypocrisy where that comes from. According to a survey done in the US, an overwhelming majority of people think that it is most acceptable (out of given options, not including "none") to abort a pregnancy if the fetus has defects that would prevent it from living a quality life. About the same majority of people said that the least acceptable time in a pregnancy to abort is in the 2nd or 3rd trimester--but this is when most genetic and developmental defects are discovered!

There is a huge disconnect in our society about this issue. I would best characterize it, personally, as highly unhealthy denial, or even conspiratorial ignorance. We are so squeamish within our largely Judeo-Christian morality that we leave little room for speculation about what is good for either the individuals OR the society. It's sickening.

These groups that I found tonight claim to be concerned for a woman's spiritual welfare...while they distort the information she receives. The issue that these groups claim is the greatest question of morality is in fact amoral itself.

In this country and many others, it is written into the law that everyone has a right to say what they want without fear of persecution. But I think there's a point where it goes too far. A person should never be actively prohibited from receiving factual information, either.

But I wonder if anyone could ever go to court with one of these organizations and win. At least with the Supreme Court bench we've got right now.

Ok, reality check time.

Some of you, my fellow conspirators, may remember a little collection-of-vignettes style Fullmetal Alchemist Roy/Riza fic I did called All Martyrdom Aside. It's how several of us met, I know.

I still get FFnet reviews on the story sometimes, despite how deeply it must be buried in the archives by now. Most of said reviews are pink and fuzzy and give me affirmation that I did AWESOME with that project. My ego enjoys it.

I say most, however, because of the alert I just got in my email. This reviewer, whose handle and exact message I shall not reveal because he/she would surely be mauled by the Bad Net Grammar Police, didn't "get" the ending.

ZOMGWTFBBLTBBQSMBDYHLPPLZ!!!1!11

The point of the thing is that it's not meant to HAVE an ending. Yes, it has a climax, and a kind of conclusion. But no ending. Vignettes don't really work like that, first of all. Second of all, that was kind of sort of COMPLETELY one of the major messages.

I like to do that in my writing. I like to leave the "happily ever after" mixed with an "ambiguity of the future" feel. However, I fear this storytelling style has been destroyed by the mentality of a generation that has grown up under the shadow of mediocre Disney sequels.

This person wants me to email them back. But I can't think of a single "helpful" thing I could say. Except maybe that they should lay off the reading fanfiction until they learn about (1)Symbolism/Metaphor (2)Literary license (3)non-linear narrative and (4)proper use of the English language.

*headdesk*

It's offically been September 10th for an hour and forty-one minutes. For those of you who are about to ask, once you read a little further, why I'm a day early, I'll say this: ABC, NBC, CBC, CNN, Time-Warner, MSNBC and the BBC - oh how far you have fallen - have got tomorrow covered. ( dramatization and such bore )

I have run into my share of perverts, borderline-retards and social misfits. I'm an engineering student, and a tomboy, gamer, uber-otaku and 5 ' 1'' chesty sarcastic redhead to boot.

I have a nasty habit of (1)getting bored with people (2)being rude to people I'm uncomfortable around and (3)being violent toward people that don't back off when asked. There are many reasons for this behavior, most of which I blame on being stalked for 2 years and tortured queen-bee style by members of my particular gender, but this is not a professional audit and frankly I don't give a fuck. End psychoanalyzation.

Said behavior emerged today in my organic chem class, although perhaps not as loudly as it will if I go through that shit again. The story begins like this:

( Tale of Woe )

-------------------

Quote/s of the day: "Create a definite plan for carrying out your desire and begin at once, whether you ready or not, to put this plan into action." -Napoleon Hill

"The problem is never how to get new, innovative thoughts into your mind, but how to get old ones out. Every mind is a building filled with archaic furniture. Clean out a corner of your mind and creativity will instantly fill it." -Dee Hock

Everyone's been distracted by illegal immigrants (apparently) but I've got something else on my mind. It's one of those small, glowing demons that lurks beneath the window sill, where you won't quite see it until you're looking for it.

I remember first reading about this, oh, maybe a week ago in the Washington Post or New York Times or the PI or somewhere. I wasn't taking it seriously because they weren't. But now Scott Kurz and a number of other voices I respect have gotten pretty vocal about it, and I'm beginning to realize what a big (and subtle) deal Net Neutrality is.

I'll start you all off with a link to my dear friend re_white's latest lj entry, a rare public one. She articulates her ideas pretty much exactly as I would, so I'm not going to bother to reiterate seeing as how any of you who care will probably be linking to it anyway.

Scott Kurz of the almighty PVP Online also did a pretty witty comic about the issue particularly geared toward those Internet users that are more inclined to care. Also check his blog at the index of the site for his rant about Net Neutrality - it's a good one.

All I really have to say is, the COPE bill is something I expected to see in Russia or China, not in our very own United States. I already believe we sacrifice our individuality to the Almighty Dollar, but to have the government actually propose to be limiting our first amendment rights (speech and press, to be certain)? The ban on gay marriage was bad enough. The phone tapping is worse. This is downright criminal.

When are we, the quirky, apathetic, cheeto-eating college-loan-interest-paying citizens going to stand up and tell the Legislative Branch that we won't put up with this? There can't be limits to freedom because we can no longer call that freedom. Maybe your kids are looking at porn, but maybe they're reading about the Amazon Rainforst Deforestation and Global Warming. The African AIDS baby whose lost his village can't afford to pay Comcast for bandwidth to his blog. Where will his voice go? Where would any of this information flow from if not from the Internet? There is good and there is bad, but restricting some ideas under the dollar symbol is Rape via Capitalism. It is an idea we ought to abhor.

When is the government going to step in and give big business the proper caning it deserves? The slaps on the wrist don't seem to be working at all. That makes sense, seeing how it doesn't work on 3 year-olds either.

I'm going to write my senators a letter or three. Maybe I'll even call. I'm that threatened by COPE. And if we get enough people to understand, maybe our government will back down. That's how it's supposed to work, right?

Okay, okay, okay, OKAY!

Everyone's been bugging me lately about the newest political uproar issue, so I guess it's time to weigh in.

( Immigration Reform )

So really, stop asking me about it.

But on to other things that have gotten a little less press lately...

Dan Froomkin, Special White House Correspondant to the Washington Post (which you know I am fond of) wrote not long ago about something that shocked me: President Bush has, in 5 years of office, issued at least 750 statements saying he is not responsible for new laws passed. In other words, he's saying that as President, he's above the law, or at least thinks the laws that passed were unconstitutional despite what I would guess to be thousands of accumulated hours in review of the White House Counsel's Office, not to mention the courts. 750 is more than 5 times the number of statements Bill Clinton issued in his 8 years in office, and more than 3 times as many as Daddy Bush. It is roughly 10% of all bills he has signed. Such statutes challenged include the North Korean Human Rights Act and anti-torture provisions concerning Guantanimo Bay and Iraq prisons. (I found a list here, a graphic here, and an article here.)

If our dear Prez (dear = 32% favorability in the polls...) thinks these laws are so bad, why doesn't he do the thing he's never done, and yet threatens to do all the time: veto. Yeah man, I'm callin' you out. You ain't above the law...and this town ain't big enough for the both of ya.



Also: Stephen Colbert ROCKS. Oh god the satire. That man has balls.

Help, help, the campus is flooded with little children who have no right to exist in my universe. It is Engineering Open House Day and the weather is sunny, which means that every Elementary-through-High School in the continental US has come to show these kids about majors that at best 1% of them will end up even wanting to be in. Most of the rest of them will be Journalism majors. Or spend all their time at the Bowling Alley.

As a college student, I have a natural predisposition to hating anyone younger than I am who abuses my facilities and impedes my lane of travel. Generally this category consists of tourists and school trips, but may also include people that walk slow for no apparent reason or those who almost run me over with their bicycles. And they are there, like some kind of indelible stain on my academia, cutting in line at the convenience store, oogling the pizza and Mike & Ike’s, clogging the arteries of this building looking for the arcade, and mangling public property with their plastic inflatable bats (which will all end up in the trash, because they’re probably not denoted with a number of plastic that’s recyclable in this district).

The only plus is that the upper floor of the HUB is blissfully uncrowded. Perhaps a wave of teenie-boppers kicked all the loud xenophobic Asians out and then moved on in a cloud of strawberry-scented obnoxiousness. I had to yell at about 10 of the harpies for cutting in line so that they didn’t have to wait the additional 10 minutes everybody else already had, and restrain my temper when a little 200-pound kid asked me if I was a college student. See, to me, if one is on campus it means he or she is either a professor or a student, or on rare occasions a foreign diplomat. But I suppose with all the children around it creates some confusion.

I suppose my larger gripe is that I came to college with the secure knowledge that I would be able to escape the hellhole created by those too young to vote or, you know, ignore cooties. (Imagine my disillusionment.) I’ve never really been a kid even when I was one, so I suppose I’m biased. But between today and my roommate+bf(“Mr. SighsALot”)’s middle-school giggling marathons, I’m ready to crack someone over the head with an elmo doll stuffed with something considerably more dense than cotton.

But really, God, what did I do to you? Please keep the little children where they belong; in the zoo.

(PS: I apologize for any disorganization that exists in this entry. I don't write well when I'm being trampled by 3 year-olds whose parents refuse to wrangle them even after repeated requests to that effect.)

I know this entry comes a little late, but in defense of myself I have been busy. If any of you out there were in doubt to begin with, yes, I did in fact watch the State of the Union.

Let me tell you, it helped me relieve some stress. Yelling is always good stress treatment, I think, as long as you don't strain a vocal chord or get a hernia. Which I might have done. But at least that's a different problem with a clear surgical remedy.

So, people have asked me what I thought of the speech. Although preliminary polls indicate the audience liked the speech (and who wouldn't, when people watching the speech were more likely to support the prez), I would be a valueable detriment to that statistic. I can sum my reaction up into basically 3 categories:

( No, I'm not nice sometimes )

So...things looking up for America. Does that mean we've reached the ultimate low? Or are you just lying again?

----------

Quote of the Day: "Honesty may be the best policy, but it's important to remember that apparently, by elimination, dishonesty is the second-best policy." -George Carlin

You know, the funny thing is, I get along with people that don't have the same ideas I do. I have this friend I met earlier this year, she's been taking me out to lunch with her church buddies. That's fine. They're very likable and hey, lunch is good. She asked me a few days ago if I'm religious at all. I said no, she said OK. I said I think everybody has to figure out what they believe in, and it doesn't have to be the same all around. She agreed.

Another person with her heard firmly attached to the proper vital organs. I celebrate quietly.

I have to laugh when I see figures like Pat Roberston or Jack Thompson overtaking the media. These guys are nutso. And I seriously think at least a good 70% of the nation sees that. It's the ones that don't who worry me.

Another one of my classmates and I had a discussion about evolution. She's a creationist, but she's in an evolutionary biology class and she's convinced (as is much of the developed world) that evolution and creationism are totally different things. One is a belief, one is an idea that is tested by observable evidence. Evolution is a "theory," but that isn't the same as "just a theory." A scientific theory must be supported by repeated experimental results. No such restraints are placed on what are known as philosophical theories, because philosophy isn't science and doesn't require factual evidence. Yes, science evolved (oops) from philosophy...way back during the times of GREECE when nobody had yet invented the microscope. Those poor slobs did the best they could.

What cracks me up is this article I got ahold of today (I can't find the link again now, sorry) that says that in fact, microbial resistence to antiobiotics is NOT, in fact, evolution. The gene that codes for resistence, they say, was already present in small amounts before the drug killed off the other guys. But what they failed to mention is that when less-able members of a species die due to environmental conditions, and the ones that survive multiply, that's a process called natural selection. Darwin's monumental work, often attributed to as the flashpoint for the evolution debate, is actually called The Origin of Species and outlines the process of natural selection in an identical way to the way in which the article attempts to say is NOT EVOLUTION. No, it's natural selection. But natural selection is one of the factors that, if you've ever taken a biology class, contributes to evolution. Confused yet? I know I am.

The other nonsensical point made in this same article was rather more complicated, and had to do with gene mutations. They basically claimed that, because usually gene mutations usually cause a deficiency in an organism it can't be evolution. The reason for this, against all logic, is that evolution dictates that mutations must ADD something, not SUBTRACT. This is so untrue it makes me want to cry and seppuku myself. The theory does NOT, NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT claim that evolution must be progressive. Evolution goes in whatever direction nature takes it. If a mutation causes loss-of-function in a gene, and that turns out to be a good thing for the cells in the environment at the time, they go forth and multiply (in Bible terms) and evolution has occurred.

Formal definition of evolution according to "Biological Science 2nd edition" (Freeman 2005): Evolution: the change in a species over time. That's all, people. That's all it is. It doesn't explicitly eliminate God from the equation. Nor does that include him, but I suppose that's because no science anywhere has ever succeeded in finding evidence of God's existence.

I suppose my point is, if you're going to argue a case, please please PLEASE do your homework first. You'll get better grades. I'm looking at you, Robertson.

So Wal-Mart is finally feeling the pointy end of the stick.

It seems like a really tiny Victory, compared to the high ideals of such great thinkers as Marx and Ghandi, but I'm happy that someone's taken initiative in this country. For those of you who don't want to bother with the actual article, here's the gist of it: Maryland legislature just overrode a veto by the Republican governor on an act that requires all corporations comprising of more than 10,000 employees in the state to provide at least 8%-of-payroll health insurance, or else contribute to the state's Medicaid fund.

'Bout
Fucking
TIME

Now, I like cheap stuff just as well as the next person, but I find something deeply troubling about the fact that so many of our great nation's citizens cannot afford to shop anywhere else. What's worse is a company who knowingly and belligerently flaunts its challengers by paying its workers poverty-level wages, and providing little or no insurance, family support or other necessary elements for quality living. It has even been known to "strongly discourage" employees from lobbying to unionize (which would secure workers' rights) speak about trade laws or go to the authorities or lawyers. It reinforces and even worsens the condition of the working poor in this country, as well as in the countries that harbor its production plants. All the while the company bigwigs are making multimillion dollar salaries. Their employees shop at their own stores to scrape out a living. Ooh, and what a living, on Kraft Macaroni and Cheese ("I want the blues").

This Wal-Mart economy of ours has, in fact, seen a million new children come into poverty since the start of Shrub-the-two's first term. I just love the arguments people use in support of the company's hanous practices: "it's just the byproduct of a free-market economy...bound to happen."

I bet most college graduates could not write a two page (double spaced) report on what a free market economy is without going to wikipedia.

The byproducts of such an economy are simply this: unregulated industry with no regard for worker health/safety, charging whatever price attracts their market (such a niche for Wal-Mart, because there are so many poor people), and polarization of the economic classes. Under such a structure, the poor get poorer and the rich get richer. The US has the largest wage gap of any country in the world, and although there is a defined middle class very few people actually fall at that level. Most are Mostly Rich or Mostly Poor.

Not that I don't think this could be counteracted by appropriate government action that wouldn't directly affect the economy, but, alas, we would have to raise taxes on the rich.

I know I'm speaking as a white kid who grew up in $150,000-a-year, suburban, wannabe-Ivy-League-Liberal family, but my beliefs run deeper than my background politics: I do not believe people of any age, race, orientation or whatever other unique aspect they may have, should have to be scraping a living out of other people's garbage cans. It's inhumanitarian, to say the least. I'd give up a chunk of my salary, once I'm earning one, to see that ten other people eat a fresh piece of fruit once and a while.

And don't get me started on why NCLB is a horrendous thing, despite the attitude it wants to suggest. Standardized testing is another favorite from that category.

People should be able to get cheap healthcare for chrissake. People should be able to take care of easily-curable conditions just because they exist, not because they earn enough to afford it. (Kudos to the new announcements about AIDS drug price reductions, BTW.) The NYT has also been running a series of articles entitled "Bad Blood" about the diabetes epidemic in New York especially and nationwide. A particlarly sad article, to me, was this one: In the Treatment of Diabetes, Success Often does not Pay

Again if you're hyperlink-lazy, I'll explain: clinics designed to help diabetes patients prevent the onset of serious complications of their disease (amputations, blindness, seizures) never profit. The real profit on the disease is in treating the complications that do arise--and because of the nature of diabetes that means the victim being terribly worse-off for the rest of his or her life. Insurance companies will pay for a $17,000 amputation, but not a couple hundred dollars for a class on how to live healthily. Clinics with this prevention ethic often close down after running for years under a permanent deficit.

Unfortunately, clinics that treat other preventable diseases have similar sad stores. Precaution doesn't pay - drugs, surgery and therapy do. After all, they're much sexier.

I suppose this issue is near and dear to me, since my dad was diagnosed about a year ago with Type 2 diabetes. My family lives on a rich diet and I know I'm probably pretty prone to the disease if I don't shape up my eating and exercise more intently...but like most potential candidates, I don't see any immediate signs of danger or death, so I don't think about it much. But it lurks, and occasionally things like this series of articles give me a little jolt.

How does this tie in, exactly, to helping the poor? I'll tell you. A very high percentage of diabetes patients are poor, because poor people tend to eat foods richer in carbohydrates and fats (they're cheap in our society). An alarmingly large percentage of people, especially those that are poor and don't often see a doctor, don't know they have it, and probably won't until it's way too late. Especially vulnerable groups are Native Americans and Asians, according to the data.

There are free market comments in there too, but it's kind of out of sequence and I'm getting tired. Let's just suffice it to say that there are other NYT "Bad Blood" articles you should seek out.

I received a very interesting email from my school today. It reads:


( cut )

While I'm at it, Kurt Vonnegut was on the Daily Show tonight. He put it this way (slightly paraphrased): "I think we should show Iraq how to build a democracy. You own slaves for the first 100 years, women can't vote for another eighty years...that's how a democracy is built."

<3 Kurt.

--------------------------------------------



Katrina Victims: we are thinking of you.

So...Supreme Court judge Rehnquist died about an hour and a half ago. Remember how they were all saying he'd be the one Bush would have to replace? Well, now there are two open slots. One is being filled with a candidate that seems to have all the moral openness of a hedgehog. Any other candidiate is most certainly REALLY bad news for us liberals.

Renquist was already a conservative judge, I'll give you that. But I still don't think it's a good idea for the most conservative and SECRETIVE administration in our country's history to appoint two judges to the high court. One candidate for consideration, for instance, is Attourney General Alberto Gonzales. This is the guy that said torturing prisoners was ok.

Roe v. Wade is crying softly in the corner.

I have a ( serious problem with this. )

But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Everyone, I want to take a minute out of my chaotic and random journal to ask that you pay attention for a moment.

Hurricaine Katrina, which I'm sure you've heard of by now, has wraught terrible damage on several large population centers in the US, including the very historic and fascinating New Orleans, which has been pretty much completely drowned. Good coverage/pictures/video can be found here

Thousands of lives have been lost, and many survivors have lost their homes, all their possessions and their livelihoods. The flooding will continue for months and the city will not be rebuilt for years or even decades to come. Massive looting, food shortages and even snipers have turned what is already a bad situation into chaos.

In addition, aid to these areas has been extremely slow in coming. National Guard resources and manpower are low, and the geography of the flooding makes it difficult to reach victims that are still trapped on roofs and roads. Food and water supply shipments, as well as shelters, are inadequate. Please donate to an disaster relief organization, such as the Red Cross, and help support all the victims of this terrible natural disaster as you (hopefully) did for the South Pacific tsunami last December. Donation information (including scams that have cropped up) can be found here

As we send soldiers to die halfway around the world, we cannot ignore our own security matters. Oil reserves, food supplies, the economy and the Department of Homeland Security was not prepared, even though there were several days of advance warning of the storm. The US Government is not showing strong leadership, instead letting small organizations squabble with each other and dole out the red tape on an issue that is affecting a large number of its citizens. International help has also been reluctant. (After all, the US polices the world, why doesn't it police itself?) Please tell your senators and congresspersons, was well as your UN representives, that this kind of departmental lack of preparedness/reluctance is not acceptible. The United States needs to take responsibility for caring for its own citizens. We must be able to do this for ourselves before we can ever hope to provide for other nations.

Through the economy, our precious oil supplies, and hopefully our hearts, Katrina has affected us all. Please take some time to contribute, in one way or another, to helping the victims. Thank you.

Saturday morning I went to see Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. Place the same weight on these words as you might to the phrase "I smoked three joints and spent 2 1/2 hours watching MTV classic Tivo recordings with no commercials and my hand down my pants."

We arrived at the theater at about 9:15, our $3 Battelle-employee-special-omnipotent tickets in hand. As did everyone. Every family in the theater except perhaps us had five children per capita. One with particularly powerful thigh muscles sat in the seat directly behind me and kicked whenever he was bored/scared/confused/upset/happy/being choked by either his mother or myself. We endured the now-standard 1/2 hour of commercials, or at least other people did because I got up to complain that the picture was out of focus. If it hadn't been for me nobody would have fixed it, probably. They were too busy trying to keep their evil monsters adorable cherubs from climbing the walls. I honestly think the only thing those kids understood was the slapstick Ice Age 2 trailer. (One started crying during the one for Corpse Bride; I laughed at him.) Apparently no one bothered to inform parents that Wonka wasn't a kids movie.

I'm not going to give spoilers. It's too good. It's too GOD. Johnny Depp still manages to be (perverse) sex even while playing a platonic, psychotic and antisocial character. I think the Depp/Burton pair is one of the universe's best favors to our species.

However...cloned Saturday Night Fever Oompa Loompas will bless my M.C. Escher dreams for the rest of my life.

*Warning* If you are in any way offended or embarrassed by the word "vagina" or any description, complaint or shame pertaining to this or surrounding bodily parts, this LJ entry may not be for you. Please consult your doctor before pursuing any kind of facts or treatments relating to this journal entry. Prolonged exposure may result in some degree of queasiness, lack of sexual drive, lessened desire for re-virginity, and incredulity.

( pussy talk )

And for the rest of you scandalized ninnies, here's a quote to placate you:

"Experience is the worst teacher; it gives the test before presenting the lesson" - Vernon Law