Politics of rejection

The world hates our president. If you didn't know this yet, please don't vote, ever. The American people are disliking him more and more (One poll actually showed him at a 29% approval, here's all of them in the last 6 years). I think if the democrats were going to impeach him they would have done it by now. What if the Republicans called for the impeachment of our illustrious preznit?

Now stay with me for a second, I think this would be a pretty damn good move politically. The democrats have everything to lose, they have control of the congress, so they can rest assured Bush will accomplish nothing in the next two years, and the longer Bush is president the better chance they have of the next president being Democrat. The GOP on the other hand, is losing popularity by the day.

Here's a Mensa level political plan:
1. Republicans call for impeachment, surely Dems will acquiesce
2. Repubs are officially clear of their viral president.
-Conservative voters who have left, return... the main source of their dissatisfaction being eradicated
-Conservative voters that haven't yet left aren't leaving
3. Reps. know Cheney won't be able to do shit, not with his past, and our current congress, the GOP is in the clear.
4. Several pissed democratic voters will go find solace in the courage of the GOP
5. Repubs (and Dems also) herald the process as a victory for the people, a victory for personal rights, et al.
6. The process in turn renews the world's faith in the US, allows foreign relation healing to begin, and the political machine can spin the event as the proof that democracy works, the people still have the power (spread democracy to the world... isn't that something the GOP stands for?) and so on.

Damn. This would be too good, why hasn't it happened yet?

I've had this as a draft for two weeks, but Scott Adams blog about the best way to overthrow Iran got me thinking again. Then I read this also, not impeachment, but Congress may hold the White House in contempt... the democrats have set a deadline (also, I thought CBS was conservative, this article has a very leftist tone).

Silly monks

I think this is incredible.

The great white Oprah

So I think the underlying issue is that people too often associate colorblindness with cultural ignorance. Sure this is easy to do, but not necessary. I'd like to reference my feminist thought train and ask a simple question:

Do more physiological differences exist between a white man and black man, or between a man and a woman?

Blacks, whites, yellows, and reds have a much better chance at equality, than women and men ever do. It is understood that the vast majority of black people have relatives that were oppressed in many ways. It is also understood that racism still happens. There are just too many correlations between racism and sexism, and just as I don't like a femi-nazi telling me about all the evil doing y-chromosomers, I don't like it when a black person talks about all the white oppression. My stance is the same... I know it exists, I also know it's getting better and I'd like you to acknowledge that fact rather that just assuming I'm here to hold you back. History has shown that slowly but surely, the bad people die and are replaced by better people, despite a history full of atrocities, humans have progressed, and will continue to do so.

There will come a point (I think we are there already) when glorifying somebody based on race is detrimental to the cause of race equality. Black history month, famous black ______, the first black man/ woman to ______. The label of color only acts as reinforcement to strengthen hue based differences. Sure, everybody should know about these exemplary individuals, but emphasizing the fact that they are black in no way adds or detracts from their accomplishments. Who cares if Harriet Tubman or George Washington Carver were black. We'd still learn about them in history books. I don't want to have white history month, and Asian history month, and indigenous tribe history month... I just want "history month."

So the question: At what point do your cross the line between having pride in people of your color and contributing to racism?
I can't answer the question, except with another question. What's the real point of having pride in your color? Recently Oprah was given an honorary doctorate to Howard University and delivered a speech at graduation. Given the fact that Howard has a predominately black student body and given the context of the speech (4:35-5:30), it made sense for Oprah talk about how she wished her grandmother were still alive so she could boast that she had, "a bunch of white people working for her." Is this helping or contributing to the problem?

Here's the short answer in the way I see it. Black history month is good for many black people for the same reason that Joy Nash's fat rant video is good for fat people. People need to believe they have the power to fix their own problems before they can. Oprah's grandmother didn't didn't believe there was more to life than working for some good white folk. Many fat (and living unhealthy lives) people feel there is no help for them. Oprah's grandmother and many morbidly obese aren't even looking for a solution... it's these people that need to hear... being black is ok, and "Say it Loud, I'm Fat and I'm proud."

I realize as a skinny (and living healthily) white dude, the scope of my view is inherently limited. So, given the circumstance, I don't know if Oprah's comment was hurting anything (I doubt it was), but it'd take a poll of black college graduates to find out if it's helping at all. I have no malice towards black people that are trying to win the game, I just don't see them as any different than the rest of us.

I think racism and feminism in my generation is more about the historically oppressed realizing as a group that they are empowered (as opposed to the 50's and 60's of getting the white male to realize he's not the way the truth and the light).

Recipe for beans and cornbread

At this point it becomes necessary for me to clarify a bit. When I say I am not racist, I mean that I don't pre-judge people based on color (nothing more). Is it OK to deny a black man a job because he's black? No, of course not. Is it OK not to hire somebody who is looking for a job based on other aspects of their appearance, absolutely. Many problems arise when racism amalgamates with multiculturalism.
Confuzzled Logic: You didn't hire me because I was wearing a Tupac shirt and used slang, that's racist.
Correct logic: I did not hire you because of your Tupac shirt and your slang; your demeanor was not professional, the same reason I didn't hire Larry the Cable guy.

Erika was telling me about Black Rednecks and White Liberals by Thomas Sowell. Mentioning some really interesting stuff about the redneck culture migrating to the cities, and how a large black population assimilated some of the white-trash culture. Sounded crazy at first, but the more I think about it, the more it makes sense. Combine that with the sense that successful black people are often labeled as "too white." I wonder if you see this problem in other countries where there is more acceptance of culture? I'd American's as a whole have yet to realize you can adopt a new culture without losing your roots. That's what a melting pot does.

The US likes to think we are a melting pot. What's more the case, is that years of racism and individualistic cultural chauvinism have created a heterogeneous mixture. This is why black kids sit with black kids, and white kids sit with white kids. This heterogeneity is not racist, it's just that American's have a fear of cultures overlapping. We are a pot, but we are not melting. This does create a lot more breeding ground for racism. In case you were interested, Brazil truly is a cultural melting pot (financially Brazil remains beans and cornbread).

That's all for today... I still haven't addressed the question, but I'm getting there... baby steps.

MA-18+

Question:
1. At what point do your cross the line between having pride in people of your color and contributing to racism?

Despite my sincerest efforts to ensure I am unbiased, I have always been concerned that I harbor racist feelings. Many times, it is this concern that also assures me I am not racist. I don't know what it's like for others, but if I'm afraid of something I know I won't do it. This motivation can work two ways: I haven't tried cocaine yet, because I'm afraid of it. I am not afraid of buying a motorcycle; my fear of wrecking the motorcycle tells me that I will drive safely (yeah, I know other people will run me over). I feel that I am as un-racist as I can be given my life experiences to date. Don't get me wrong, there are cultures that I don't like at all, and some of those cultures are overwhelmingly black, but I don't dislike those cultures because they are black. I hate on the gangster culture (many of whom are white) for many of the same reasons I don't like rednecks (rowdy, arrogant and ignorant, disrespectful of others, particularly disrespectful of women). Mom, and kids under 18 close your eyes, a sexual digression follows:

Most men, but particularly both of these groups like to brag about eating pussy, and put this platter on a pedestal. Firstly, a note too all other guys... do NOT show my pictures of your wife, your bitch, or your girl's axe wound. I don't find pleasure or know how to respond when some other dude boastfully shows me a picture of a vagina. I don't care if her pubes are groomed to spell my name... OK, curiosity would get the better of me in that case, but seriously, what do you say to that? "Damn dude... that's a good lookin' taco stand! I hate it when a bitch's va-ching looks like a big box of cow tongues... right? right?" and so on. Really, how am I supposed to respond when some guy show me a picture of vaginal lips spread wide enough for Moses to walk the Isrealites between them? I'm always at a loss for words. Does this only happen other guys or is it just me? Guys that like looking at the muff, toss me a bone here... what's the correct response; or ladies, what would you like to hear guys saying about your labia?

So I did have intentions of addressing the question posed, but it's late, and I'm tired. I'll come back to that one.

Naturally racist?

Here's the point of the last post. Racism is implicit in the human code.

It's possible that's not true, but written statements seem to have a stronger effect than written possibilities. In the name of survival, humans and pre-judge things based on previous experience or learning.
I'd say it's safe to assume it's a very natural human function to react to your internal majority of conflicting opinions. We see or learn of achievements or failures that are tagged with a race... and that information is forever imprinted in our brains and affecting our objectivity on a sub-conscience/reactionary level (and further if we aren't cognizant of our own bias).

I don't think I even need to back this up. It just makes sense, unless you think we are so different from so many other animals that learn and judge for survival. I wonder how many generations people would have to live in the wild before they became feral?

*in case you didn't pick up on it, that picture is Will Ferrell gone feral about 10 minutes after the teleprompter malfunctioned on the local morning show "Wake up and Smile." In his right hand, he holds the head of the weatherman. He will eat the brain stem shortly, proclaiming, "the weatherman is dead... his strength be in me!"

Of course, this does not make racism ok. Racisms is still bad mmmkay. For me, this provides a different insight: on how to combat racism, and why it is so hard to. Clearly mass media can be a monumental help or hindrance, but I think the media should report exactly what's going on... so for me that's kind of moot.

You filthy animal

have believed for as long as I can remember that we are animals. I also remember being rebuked by a high school English teacher for expressing that (the same one later called me an "uncouth little barbarian"). Saying, "oh, no we are something different" is extremely arrogant in my opinion. Yes, humans are probably the dominant species on the planet (cockroaches possibly being incognizant of their superiority in survival). Yes, the good book says God created us in His image, let's take this fork in the road:
A, number 1: physical image - this has no implication on our actions or behaviors
B, number 2: spiritual image - so we have a non-physical extra part that separates us? but physically we are still animals, and can be understood as such for many purposes.
C, number 3: behavioral/moral image - we men were to exist in dominion over the beasts, well I guess we kind of messed that up with the Tree of Knowledge didn't we? if the image is not physical, we prove by sinning that we are imperfect... Do animals have souls? If yes, do animals sin? interesting question. Animals don't invent cures for cancer, but they also don't commit human rights atrocities.Some animals do masturbate, engage in homosexual activity, kill their babies, have multiple sex partners, and kill for reasons other than defense or sustenance. So let's hope animals don't have souls, cause otherwise Hell would be one great BBQ.
You can believe that we were created by in God's image, but that doesn't refute the fact that we have a whole lot in common with animals....Sharing 98% of our genetic code with the great apes doesn't help. Understanding that we are animals is necessary for understanding ourselves and the world around us.

We might be a god's favorite animal; it is possible that the tiny difference buys humans eternal real-estate; even given that, the fact is not refuted: Humans, according to proven facts and definitions are animals. This is true regardless of whether we came from them or not.
You are inexorably at least 99.9% filthy animal.

Health Failure

On and off for two weeks I've been contemplating the problem of creating a more universal metric for physical health. The idea is that the most popular measurements cleary are lacking: weight, BMI, body fat percentage. I'm looking for something that's easy to measure, enabling normal people to track their health. I have decided an efficacious unit does not exists given current technology/cost constraints. The basic failure is a result of what Einstein called the most powerful force in the universe, kind of; he said it was compound interest. It's the fact that the definition of healty varies too greatly within any large population to combine variables. Essentially, you lose all statisical integrity (because the percentages of variance compound).

Interesting tidbit I came across in my reasearch:
Siberian huskies on the iditarod have VO2 maxes as high as 240

So, music has been rocking my world lately. It always is, but lately more than normal. Listen to some of your favorite songs tonight, and/or listen to some of the songs that have been rocking me lately:
Paris Combo - Attraction
5th Element Soundtrack - Diva Dance - First part is from "Lucia di Lammermoor" by Donizetti... the second part is not.
Muse - Knights of Cydonia - music video - muse playing
Alan Silvestri - Journey to Transylvania (sorry about the video, it was the least cheesy of the videos that popped up) From the Van Helsing soundtrack (haven't seen it), also Silverstri wrote the Back to Future themes, that you probably remember, or would recongize if you heard them.
Paul Potts -Nessum Dorma - Time to Say goodbye - Also, Sarah Brightman, and Bocelli's versions are great, The links are for break.com, a site known for pain and toilet humor, he's good enough at opera to break that boundary... pretty impressive says I.
Blind Melon - No Rain you know this song.

I'm hanging a bit today... but I assume political rants will resume shortly. Ron Paul and Biden have made some amazing leaps in my opinion. Gulliani has fallen quite a bit.

Cheap shampoo (stupid smart guy part II)

Last summer, I ran out of shampoo. Walgreens is on my ride home from work and open 24/7. I went in at 2AM one night and went shampoo shopping. The decision was easy... straight to the Suave. Garnier Fructis can lick my sack. I don't need to pay $8 for a bottle of shampoo, $0.97 sounds more like my range. Eureka! Suave had piña coloda flavor "20% More, Free" promotion. The decision was easy; I bought two bottles. (logo at left)

After a little while I began to wonder if that extra 20% was water. This suave piña colada smelled wonderful, but wasn't lathering very well. Oh well, so I didn't get a bargain... I can use 20% more each time and it'll work out just fine. This all went well for a few weeks, and I noticed my hair was slowly but surely getting kind of greasy... now I'm not Greek, or a car salesman, so this was perplexing. I kept washing up, using larger doses of rico suave. Eventually, my hair smelled like a pineapple and coconut bonanaza, but was increasingly oily. My 6th grade science teacher Mrs. Palmer always used to say "when in doubt, check it out..." so I did. Upon closer inspection of the bottle I discovered I had been using only conditioner on my hair for over a month. So I quickly rushed to Walgreens to buy some actual shampoo? Oh, no. I didn't rush to Walgreens..., I kept it up for a few days more, expirementing with hand soap, with the best intentions of cleaning my hair for the first time in a month... but the best intentions left undone still leave hair greasy enough that it doesn't get wet.

A couple of days later, I got a call from my friend Shelly asking if I wanted to go to Wal-Mart. I declined because I had something to do, but I naturally I asked her if she could buy some shampoo for me, and told her the story. I said, "buy something cheap. it's just going to sit under a bike helmet." She showed up with another bottle of Suave piña colada conditioner. So that made me feel better... but my hair lived a lie for a few more days.

Penal... izing the tax payers

The United States has a crap ton of people in prison. The maps on the left are 1950, '70, '90, and 2005. The big dots represent over 2,000 prisoners each. Per capita we have a lot more prisoners that anybody else that I could find (700ish/100k... at least 1.5 mill in prison). So what do I think that means?

-We have a problem with crime
-We have a system that catches people

Sure it'd be nice to reduce crime, but if we haven't figured that trick out yet, I'm ok with those people being in jail. Regardless, cause, cause, effect... prison bills between $40-60 billion depending on your source, and that's just direct cost (for me a worthy pragmatic argument is the inherent opportunity cost).

I'd like to refer to a book that many people have read, but probably few adhere to, "Rich dad, poor dad." One of the first lessons Rich dad teaches the budding protagonists is they should not find ways to create money.


It's always good business to concentrate on reduction of costs, while maintaining an acceptable level of service... that's poor dad thinking, and that's OK as long as we don't stop there. While the cable TV, 250 thread count prisons, aren't the majority, there's really no reason they should exists at all. Extended stay solitary confinement likely does more harm than good... but this doesn't mean prisoners need to know what's on Nick-at-Nite (interesting question... how does inmate cable preferences differ from the common public?). The fact that 67% of prisoners return to prison within 3 years of release doesn't speak to well.

Rich dad would find ways to turn the prisons into money maker's... or at least to guzzle less. More prisoners performing labor (some do)... Let me ask you how many factory workers you see at the gym after a 8-10 hour shift? It should not be hard to provide structured, healthy, and profitable jobs for the incarcerated. Nevada Senator John Ensign had an interesting idea in 2003... his proposal included the prisoners be paid... they pay for their own incarceration, and get a little booty right when they get out. I think we should make the prisoners work for the federal government, and eliminate some of our federal debt. I want to see more chain gangs on local community projects. Something I have learned in Brazil is to not take for granted the overwhelming ability of cheap labor... and prisoners are just that.

I have some other questions about alternative punishments...whatever happened to public humiliation, or intense physical pain (remember the American dude who got caned in the Phillippines for graffiti? Consider clicking that link regardless)... is this a spare the rod issue? When did we start caring more about hurting a criminal's feelings than preventing them from committing a crime again? Use methods that work, not methods that talk nice. I'm not advocating torture... but sometimes punishment has to be degrading for some people to reap the benefits. This is simple psychology, if the stimulus is not intense enough, some beings will not respond, and will not learn. Not only should we consider alternative methods of punishment as part of rehabilitation, we should take a cue from any actress who's gotten away from the killer and "hit them where it counts." Don't send a millionaire to jail for 2 years, he'll make money on interest while he's there... Send him to jail for 40 days for the stigma, and bind him legally to pay a hefty sum to charities, or to community projects.

In the end, I think our penal system has problems of operation, problems of rehabilitation/lack of punishment. There has been some small movements to privatize prisons, and that's an interesting thought... I'm not taking a side, yet.

Wiki: United States prisons
Bureau of Justice Statistics: Report 2005
Per- capita Prisoners: World countries
Proposal by Nevada Senator John Ensign in 2003
United Nations Convention Against Torture: Article 16 is used as an argument against any sort of physical punishment. The UNCAT's wording does not include situation's like Guantanamo... while torture is still wrong, it's interesting that due to the wording the US isn't violating UNCAT.

Capital is the operative word

This Freakonomics article suggests the death penalty has negligible effect on crime. This is a direct rebuttal to an this AP article. I've read both and have to take the side of the Freakonomics guys... you can make up your own mind.
I have to ask: How is killing someone any different than keeping them alive but incarcerated for the rest of their life? I don't think it matters if the death penalty has an effect on crime... for me, not being able to exist in society for the rest of my life is the same thing as death. Based on some famous quotes from the forefathers... I think they'd agree ("Give me liberty or give me death" et al).

Capital punishment in it's current state should be justified or otherwise based on cost to the innocent taxpayer. For me it's simple, if it's cheaper to euthanize (that word sounds too nice)... if it's cheaper to the taxpayers to exterminate these criminals, that's what should be done.

Based on expected life span and aging-associated health care costs, there should be a point where a person is just too old to get the death penalty...simple because it's costs to much to kill them...but what if they want it (I don't know what the suicide rates are like in prison)?

Texas just legalized death penalty for repeat child rapists. Should the death penalty be broadened? Since I don't believe it's a deterrent, I look at economic factors first.

All of this is assuming the male is guilty (women comprise 1.7% of death row inmates) Of course, that depends on the debatable abilities of out judicial system. So take this post with a grain of salt... because Orenthal Simpson knows the system is flawed (you guys heard about the Juice's "here's how I would have done it" book, right?).

The end of the world

In first news... Paris Hilton is went to jail, served 3 days, got out on excuse of a rash, was given house arrest, judge said "whoa, hold on" and... justice does exist, HE SENT HER BACK to jail. Fuck yeah, nameless judge dude. That's totally rad, I couldn't give 2 shits about Paris Hilton; I'm glad that somebody isn't putting up with her shit.

In other news (seemingly less important because it's second), did anybody else watch the GOP debate (video links on right)? Yes, I realize that's not the type of line that would prompt my 7 blog readers to continue... but if you didn't watch the 2 hour debate you missed 3 minutes of television that couldn't be more suprising if it was planned.

If you watched the debate, or of you know a bit about all the candidates (if you watched the first debate perhaps).... a la gauche posted a very leftist but pretty hilarious take on the 10 ring circus.

The end of the first section right around the 20th minute (which sucks because you can't just jump foward on CNN's player... it's like a cassette tape)

Wolf Blitzer: "If it came down to a pre-empitive US strike aginast Iran's nuclear facility, if necesary, would you authorize, as president, the use of tactical nuclear weapons?" (to me this sounded like a fluff question)

Hunter - "I would authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons if there was now other way to pre-empt those particular centrifuges.... I don't think it's going to take tactical nukes." (WTF?, did he just say he would?)

Guliani same question - "...you can't rule out anything, and you shouldn't take anything off the table..." (oh my golden elephant just turned into a calf)

Gilmore repeat- "all options are on the table" (well nobody knows you anyway)

Mitt Romney you too- "you don't take options of the table" (I thought you were mormon, not extremist... oh wait)

What the FUCK?!?! Listen, I don't want Iran to have nukes... I can understand that it could be the end of the world, but why does that mean we should make the end come sooner. I thought only Brownback wanted to get to heaven that quickly. Do what you want, but are you seriously going to use a thermo-nuclear warhead? When did a pre-emptive strike become the lst resort?!?! We just spent 20 minutes debating how fucked we are in Iraq, and distancing the party from GW... and now you guys want a pre-emptive nulcear strike? That is just plain insanity.

In case there's any doubt on the outcome of this idea, albinoblacksheep made a movie about 6 years ago just for a case such as this... it's called The End of the World. If you haven't see this yet you drive a mini-van or have not been laid in at least a month. Of the 10, Ron Paul was the only candidate who spoke out against this nuke idea. Interestingly enough, when I cast my votes on the cnn.com poll tonight the results of the people showed this. I wonder how much of this is due to people not wanting to be microwaved?

Ron Paul is the one candidate on the Republican side who is markedly different from the rest. Remember that name? He ran on the Libertarian ticket a few years back.

I don't think the Democrats are perfect, but Jesus Mother of Freddie Krueger there are about 9 Republicans that I'm scared of.

Guns.. and political agnosticism

Summed up in one line, my take on gun control: The problem is far too complex and multifaceted to have an easy (and applicable) answer. If you are purely anti- or pro-gun, you are clearly ignoring something.

*one of the guns that many Swiss men are required (by law) to keep at home

To quickly address some common arguments: The 2nd ammendment does not give an unequivocal right to own a gun (this was a surprise to me). Persons that obtain guns illegally do not necessarily expose faults in the law (VA Tech shooter... the problem was not with US gun policy, it was with a gun-owner not properly securing his guns). Remember, that homicide rates include non-gun murders, of which there are plenty. There is an argument that guns cause murder because when somebody wants to kill someone they go buy a gun... well guess what, if you're going to kill someone, a gun is a pretty easy way to do it, I'd probably buy one too. This does not make any statement that the murder would not have happened without the gun. Dinner table and pragmatic arguments aside, consider the following countries:

United States: Fairly liberal gun policy, Low homicide rate/violent crime rate, HDI (.948)
Spain/Japan: Vehemently anti-weapon, Low homicide rate/violent crime rate, HDIs (Sp .938; Ja .949)
Switzerland: Nearly one gun per person, Low homicide rate/violent crime rate, HDI (.947)
Brazil: Gun ownership illegal, high homicide/violet crime rate, HDI (.792)
Colombia: Ownership legal, with checks; highest homicide rate, HDI (.790)

Right off, HDI seems to be a lot more correlated to violence than gun policy (if I get bored this weekend, I'll plot a few). The National Academy of Science kind of agrees, they, "found no evidence that shows right-to-carry laws have an impact, either way, on rates of violent crime." Now, I haven't talked to many murderers but... people who want to kill someone probably don't care much if they get a gun legally. You'd think that making it harder to get guns would help, but let's remember prohibition. The government made alcohol illegal and the US abounded with illegal alcohol. Anti-gun policies will probably not be effective unless your country is already uin the midst of a gun famine (that there is pontification).

It's simple, the problem is too complex to have a simple answer, but here it is... Remove guns from the hands of criminals. After you do that, educate and feed the masses, then take lunch. In the afternoon you can fix global warming... You think that sounds like a lot?...Yeah, about that? It looks I'm going to need you to come in on Saturday, and don't forget your cover paper on those TPS reports.

Links:
-Homicide rate/100o - 2000 United Nations Survey Fun page on International Homecide - Sources cited, but not well
-National Academy of Science, Committee on Law and Justice - online publication
-Recent article about new gun laws in Columbia

Hear me Roar

Cara posted recently on a policeman in Kansas City who is getting a sex change and is creating a buzz in the KC bloggings and news. The question Cara poses summarized is: Why should a man be considered a "woman"? I think the best answer is with another question: Why do we care?

Jessica, formerly David, will never be female according to genotype (unless science comes up with something radical in the near future*). I really have to ask, why do we care at all? If a person wants to take on the biases and gender roles that come with the opposite sex, how does that affect us? How does that hurt us? The only possible damage that might be done is emotional damage to the transsexual and his/her relations. That damage is strictly possible, not guaranteed... Just as everything else in life has potential for damaging effects... it's life. As far as my research took me, I was unable to find any longitudinal studies on the emotion effects for children of transsexuals (in my opinion, we don't need to worry much about Jessica's uncle or past wives... they're big kids, they can take care of themselves).

This all comes down to the definitions of man and woman, and I just don't see why it matters... especially in a fight for equality, these definitions should exhibit less and less legal difference.

Also while I'm at it: Actress, waitress, etc... I've encountered several militant feminists that get pissed about these words. These terms are not sexist. Many of these are traces of other languages that simply assign gender with nouns. In Spanish and Portuguese El/O professor - Ela/A professora, in German Der Lehrer/ Die Lehrerin... Next time I call you an actress know that it means you act, and that you are female... nothing more, nothing less.

*That's an interesting thought experiment, what if gene therapy could change your sex mid-life? WouLd be great for transsexuals, no more hormones, probably a minimization of surgeries... but it raises many interesting questions on ethics. Clearly there are huge scientific problems, since changing genes is much more than the cosmetic changes that are most common today. Fun to think about until you get bored with the theoretical.

Who wants chimichangas?

I was on CNN! Well ok, just my name. I was on Bill Richardson’s official chat during the debate. It just so happens during the 3 minute break in the debate, cnn.com went straight to a screen shot and quote from the chat… and well, the quote wasn’t mine… but one of my entries was next, so my name was on CNN... and yours wasn’t.

I guess that takes the cat out of the bag. I’m crossing my fingers for Bill Richardson, first in February, and then hopefully again in November. If you like Hillary, or Obama, you’ll probably like Richardson also; I am hoping for Richardson because I feel he can actually get things done. He’s been the governor of New Mexico for awhile, and they like him a lot, yet if I can give you one fact about Bill Richardson that I think validates checking into his history it is:

Bill Richardson has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize FOUR times.

If Richardson doesn’t get the nomination, but is drawn as a running mate, that will carry a lot of weight in determining my vote. He has proven he can get things done, even as a democratic governor in a republican state. Ideas sans realization do not equate to progress, and as you know, I want progress.

Bill Richardson: Presidential site, Wiki

Number 44

First the selector. Then the comparison.
The tentative primary schedules (Dem., Rep.) Although, the primaries aren't set in stone, it looks like Feb 5th will be the day for most people.

There's a catholic show on TV right now spewing a bunch of half-truths about abortion. How these people live with themselves (those that expel misinformation... not catholics)?


Next debates: both on CNN, and avaliable online, with certainty will be avaliable on youtube by the next day.
-Dem. Sunday June 3, 7PM
-Rep. Tuesday, June 5, 7PM

Check out the candidates... Watch the debates... not necessarily in that order.

Whether you love him or hate him: here's how much time we have left.