Strategy

For two weeks now, the entire gay community has been mobilized against the passage of anti-gay measures in several states, Poposition 8 in California in particular.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/us/16protest.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&bl&ei=5087&en=719e1c29c315aea6&ex=1226984400

Great idea... except it's already passed! Much as it pains me to admit it, the fight's done and lost. Time to start thinking about the next one. And with that in mind, I have a little advice to any and all members of the gay community who may chance upon this... so listen up!

Why didn't you think of this sooner? Why weren't you holding these rallies in the two weeks before the vote on Nov 4th? It's entirely possible that if you had made this much noise before the vote, you just might have been able to sway enough people to your side to make Prop 8 fail! Next time there's a vote on gay issues anywhere in the country, think about how awful it feels right now to have your rights taken away from you, before the vote, and get out there it when it stands a chance of doing some good!

Thoughts on Prop 8

Well, Proposal 8 passed in California... like none of us saw that one coming. So now, despite what the state supreme court ruled, the state constitution has been amended, permanently re-defining marriage as one man, one woman... ironically in the state that has the largest gay population in the nation.

Anti-gay state constitution amendments were approved by the voters in Arizona and Florida as well.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/05/state.laws/

So this country is enlightened enough to let a black man be president, (and one with liberal policies at that) but still in the dark ages about homosexuality. Go figure.

Yesterday, I stumbled upon a very interesting article, about the hidden cost of forcing straight marriage upon everyone regardless of sexual orientation... written by an insider to one such marriage. While I already supported gay marriage on principle, my eyes have been opened to the cost to traditional heterosexual marriage, and the nuclear family, by pushing gays to follow everyone else's conventional lifestyle. It's counter-intuitive, but legalizing gay marriage, it turns out, is the best "defense" of straight marriage.

http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid:37602

Enjoy the fruits of your labor!

Abortion Rant!

When I think about abortion, I stop to think "what if I was that woman?"

...which leads to the following...

Me: "Oh gods, what's this hideous parasite growing inside me... it's making my stomach swell... this isn't natural!!!!"

Pro-Lifer: "It's an unborn baby... what could be more natural? Isn't it a wonderful miracle of life?"

Me: "NO! It's making me feel gods-awful... WHAT?! This thing is going to grow to the size of a PERSON?!?! GETITOUTOFME,
NOW!!!!"

Pro-Lifer: "No! That would be immoral, and an act of murder."

Me: "Better it than me!!"

Pro-Lifer: "That's not your choice to make... it's God's choice."

Me: "Who the hell are you to speak for God?!?!"

Pro-Lifer: "Well it says in the Bible..."

Me: "Does the word 'abortion' appear anywhere in your little book?"

Pro-Lifer: *flip, flip, flip* "No, but..."

Me: Then SCREW YOU! Where's that damn suction hose?"

Pro-Lifer: "It's too late for that... we've been talking so long you've reached the third trimester, and partial-birth abortion is
inhumane and ILLEGAL!" *smirks*

Me: F YOU! *glares*

Pro-Lifer: *Smiles, happily reading Bible*

Me: *giving birth* "OH GODS!!! It's tearing me open!!! You wanted me to die!!!"

Baby: "WAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!"

Pro-Lifer: "Look at your beautiful child! Aren't you glad you decided to bring it into this world?"

Me: "Somebody make that ugly thing shut the F up!"

Baby: "WAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!"

Pro-Lifer: "How can you say that about YOUR OWN CHILD?"

Me: "I DIDN'T WANT A BABY!!!"

Baby: "WAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!"

Pro-Lifer: "You don't really mean that?! If you did, you'd have had the abortion right away!!"

Me: *glares*

Baby: "WAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!"

Pro-Lifer: "Besides, this child is a Gift From God!! Would you reject God's Gift to you??"

Me: "You know what? If you care about this child SO MUCH, you can KEEP IT!!!" *Throws whining newborn at pro-life freak*

Baby: "WAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!"

Pro-Lifer: *runs away*

(Ever notice how those pro-life folks are so eager for OTHER PEOPLE to have kids?)

Another State Sees the Light

I'm a bit late to the punch, but I'll post about this anyway. Connecticut legalized gay marriage last week; or rather, upgraded from same sex civil unions to marriage.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/10/connecticut.gay.marriage/

This brings the total number of US states with legalized gay marriage up to 3... though I still have doubts about California's upcoming vote. "Two steps forward, one step backward" as they say.

England Becomes A Sharia State

Last month, Britain made the momentous decision to give Sharia courts the same legal weight as the normal courts of the British legal system.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

For the lazy, "The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence. Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court. Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims."

It is telling that this was done so quietly, the majority of us Americans are unaware of it. I believe this could, in the long run, turn out to be the greatest threat to modern democracy.

Previously, I had looked upon England, with its large population of Muslem zealots, as walking a tightrope; between a paranoid clamp-down on foreigners, and tolerating them to the degree of total assimilation into Islamic culture. Now England has fallen off that tightrope, into the abyss of conciliation and weakness in the face of hostile religious fanatics.

How much stronger it makes the position of the radical Islamic clerics on the London streetcorners, to know that even an infidel government has been forced to accept the word of Allah as Law! Whatever the intentions of the liberals and multiculturalists in the British government that made this possible, in the minds of the Muslem community, that is the message they are sending.

In hindsight, I suppose I should have expected nothing less from the nation that brought us appeasement in the face of Nazism. Now, a little over half a century later, the British bring us appeasement in the face of militant Islam.

I can't help but wonder: is this it? Is this how modern democracy perishes: by infiltration from within by a foreign, undemocratic culture lacking any sort of civil rights? I don't know of any historical precedent for such a dual legal system, but one thing is certain: a society with a divided legal system cannot last long. I fear England will eventually become a state under Islamic religious law. And how long before the British precendent on Sharia law is adopted by other Western democracies? Will Sharia law replace Western law the world over? Will that be the way our civilization finally ends?

If anyone in Europe or the rest of the world is surprised at America's millitant additude towards the Middle East and Islam, perhaps they should realize it is partly in response to not just the Islamic extremists, but their own conciliation towards those same extremists. Personally, I am more dumbfounded at the British "answer" to the fanatics than the fanatics themselves: meeting all their demands by adopting their Dark Ages beliefs as law!?!

When are we going to stop being Neville Chamberland towards the Muslems and start being Charles the Hammer?

I'll let this video by Pat Condell deliver the closing speech. He's far more eloquent about this subject than I could ever be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9dXGJ2rYdA&feature=user

Financial Bailout Hell!

Well, it's old news by now, but I've been stewing over it for a week, so here goes:

Congress passed the bailout bill last Friday, and tore another chunk out of my faith in our lawmakers (which wasn't too strong to begin with). Even both presidential candidates stood by it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/03/AR2008100301108.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008100400028&s_pos=

Time has only made me hate this bailout even more. Whereas before, I merely thought it was absolute insanity, I now utterly loathe this bailout. Watching Tuesday's debate, as Obama denounced McCain's tax plans as favoring the rich, I realized the whole notion of "taxing the rich" is just nothing but thinly veiled hypocrisy. The bailout is proof of that.

Millions of dollars are being taken from taxpayers, average joe, you-and-me, people who really are poor, to be given to these financial companies. No, it's not enough that they overcharge us as consumers, treat us like dirt as employees, and are just swimming in cash; to put the icing on the cake, the government has taken yet more money and just handed it to some of the richest people in America: CEOs, and boards of directors.

The government has just taxed from the poor to give to the rich.

As for the proof of that, just look what these executives are doing with their bailout money:

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/finance/aig-executives-blow--getting-bailout/

Financial Bailout From Hell

I cannot believe the half-assed short-sighted solution to the financial crisis the Treasury Department has concocted... and Pres. Bush, the genius, is now backing.

Yes, banks are dropping like flies. Banks like Lehman Brothers and even the venerable Merrill Lynch are gone. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are now "zombie" lenders, technically bankrupt but kept alive only by virtue of government take-over. Not to mention the insurance institution AIG is hanging on by a wing and a pray... er, government handout.

In the face of this financial storm, it is little surprise banks have adopted a "siege mentality", nearly stopping inter-bank exchanges, each hoping to ride it out on its own. The government's solution? Spend more money of course... to the tune of $700 billion or more. On what? "Illiquid assets." Which is confuse-the-taxpayersese for properties devalued by the collapse of the Housing Bubble, which the banks are stuck with worthless mortgages on.

Yup. The government is going to spend money on worthless chunks of real estate. This is their "brilliant plan" to revitalize the economy.

This is not a "bailout"... this is madness!

Let these banks die, I say. Let them learn their lesson. With this bailout, there will be no consequences from their reckless investments during the Housing Bubble; no lessons learned. As for consumer confidence... knowing my bank is around only because of a bailout doesn't make me feel any better about the way they handle my money!

The United States government is the largest holder of debt in the world, and now it's going to buy more debt?! In the form of devalued, worthless homes?!? The Bush administration has made the largest national debt increase of all time, and now it's going to add even more debt from the financial sector to it?!?!? Hasn't anyone heard of the "straw that broke the camel's back?"

After all the insanity from the Bush administration: the needless war in Iraq, and the skyrocketing national debt to sustain it, the ultra-conservative justices appointed, the attacks on American civil rights in the name of national security, while (irony time!) our border with Mexico remains wide open; this is the final insult. Bush's successor will get handed all this shit, plus more national debt that can't be eliminated by a balanced budget, because it's in the form of ownership of a bunch of worthless real estate scattered about the country.

Let me make it clear: this bailout will make the economy move in the short-haul... any form of government spending always pushes the economy along a bit... but in the long-haul, the price may be more than we can afford.

The Nuclear Option

For all the years since environmentalism began, the debate in America over renewable energy has focused on "safe" options, like solar and wind power, which struggle on the edge of economic viability. Even just last month, I watched commentary on the major networks like CNN or FOX news speak of the need for advances in technology in the energy industry, experts in their fields saying with a straight face we cannot achieve zero emissions without technologies we haven't even invented yet. In short, both the media and the experts have given us the impression a carbon-neutral civilization is some lofty dream that will have to wait for some distant time when he have the technology to accomplish it.

But what if I told you the technology exists right now to achieve near-zero emissions... that we could achieve a green economy without tearing apart our industrial base or completely altering our way of life... but we've chosen not to devellop that technology? No, this isn't some conspiracy theory, or some crackpot "free energy" invention... it's just a look at what other countries have done right now... It's differences in the way other societies have chosen to utilize existing technologies.

So which country in particular has caught my eye? France. That's right, those heathens across the pond we had to stop naming all our "Freedom Fries" after when they wouldn't put a rubber stamp on our invasion of Iraq. You remember them, right? And what have they done now? Oh, just quietly converted their entire energy production infrastructure to nuclear power...

That's right. Another industrialized country has been using that "ooh, so scary" radiation stuff to generate their electricity... and, that's funny... I don't see France glowing yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html

"...France now claims a substantial level of energy independence and almost the lowest cost electricity in Europe. It also has an extremely low level of CO2 emissions per capita from electricity generation, since over 90% of its electricity is nuclear or hydro."

To recap, France generates 80% of it's electricity through nuclear power. And another 10% by hydroelecticity... 90% of their electricity is made by "carbon neutral" means... they are light-years ahead of us in environmentalism, and energy independence!

And you won't hear a peep out of the news media about it, nor from the "experts" in the energy industry. We've been left to delude ourselves that safe nuclear energy, once the dream of every warm-blooded engineer in the 1950s, is an impossibility. While we've spent the last 30 years since the Energy Crisis of the mid-1970s, rallying around the cries of "No nukes! No nukes!", conjuring up images or Chernobyl, or Three Mile Island, the French have been building nuclear plants like crazy (Yes, that is a French nuclear facility in the picture!) so they don't have to rely on unstable foreign supplies of oil from Koran-waving Arabs in the Middle East.

Ah, so that's the reason the French didn't get all hot under the collar about Iraq... they're quite franky, not in the same oil-dependency boat as us. Our infrastructure will collapse in a year without Arab oil, theirs wont!

Am I getting your attention now?

Ah, but what about nuclear waste, the Achille's heel of all the nuclear-powered dreams of madmen like the one writing this blog... if we're digging out a mountain to store it (Yucca Mountain, to be exact) and France has gone 80% nuclear, then obviously, they must be buried under mountains of nuclear waste by now!

Sorry to disappoint you, but they've been recycling nuclear waste...

How is that possible? Because all "spent" nuclear fuel rods contain large ammounts of unused nuclear fuel.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.html

"Most of it - about 96% - is uranium at less than 1% U-235 (often 0.4 - 0.8%), and up to 1% is plutonium. Both can be recycled as fresh fuel, saving some 30% of the natural uranium otherwise required. The materials potentially available for recycling (but locked up in stored used fuel) could conceivably run the US reactor fleet of about 100 GWe for almost 30 years with no new uranium input."

in other words, 97% of what we bury as nuclear waste is perfectly good, still unstable (fissile) uranium atoms, leaving the door open to extract perfectly good, still unstable (fissile) uranium atoms from "spent" fuel rods, to make a brand-new fuel rod!

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html

"France chose the closed fuel cycle at the very beginning of its nuclear program, involving reprocessing used fuel so as to recover uranium and plutonium for re-use and to reduce the volume of high-level wastes for disposal. Recycling allows 30% more energy to be extracted from the original uranium and leads to a great reduction in the amount of wastes to be disposed of. Overall the closed fuel cycle cost is assessed as comparable with that for direct disposal of used fuel, and preserves a resource which may become more valuable in the future."

And here's where the really amazing example of American idiocy comes into play: we (irony time!) chose not to reprocess our uranium! Because of fear weapons-grade nuclear fuel might end up lying around the country to fall into the wrong hands.

But Europe did. So now we have this dreadful reprocessed nuclear material all over France, where (double irony time!) there's a large Arab Muslem population, some of whom are the Koran-waving extremists... but we decided to curse ourselves with truckloads of half-spent nuclear fuel because we figured, that well... being a security-minded society and the greatest military might in the world, we couldn't protect that sort of stuff from falling into the wrong hands on our own soil even if we tried. (I'm not even going to waste another word on the irrationality of that!)

The point is, with this "unamerican" nuclear fuel reprocessing the French have been using... all our our nuclear "waste" sitting ready to be forever buried, could be recycled by the same method, since it was never reprocessed in the first place!

Oh, and just to drive home that we as Americans could make nuclear power work on the same scale it has for France, guess where the technology for the French nuclear plants came from? You see, the success of the French nuclear power program has been because they chose a single nuclear power plant design, and then "copy-pasted" it all over the landscape... and you'll never guess where that single design for all French nuclear plants came from... (triple irony time!)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html

"Ironically, the French nuclear program is based on American technology. After experimenting with their own gas-cooled reactors in the 1960s, the French gave up and purchased American Pressurized Water Reactors designed by Westinghouse. Sticking to just one design meant the 56 plants were much cheaper to build than in the US. Moreover, management of safety issues was much easier: the lessons from any incident at one plant could be quickly learned by managers of the other 55 plants. The "return of experience" says Mandil is much greater in a standardized system than in a free for all, with many different designs managed by many different utilities as we have in America."

A supply of clean energy, enough to last us for centuries, from resources on our own soil... It's not science-fiction, it's the road not taken.

Air Pollution and the Allergy Epidemic

As I sit here, my work occasionally interrupted with spasms of sneezing, or more often, the I'm-about-to-sneeze-but-really-don't feeling which causes me to waste a minute with my face unnecessarily buried in a kleenex ... my thoughts turn to why I have allergies, or for that matter, anyone does. Allergy rates have been on the rise, doubling in the last 30 years with seemingly no explanation...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-08-07-allergy-sensitivity_x.htm

When the medical community is coming up with "explanations" as half-assed as the idea our children are raised in environments that are too clean for their immune systems to be "primed" by exposure to bacteria... you know they're just grasping at straws. (Anyone who's ever been around a baby or toddler will know first-hand they never stay clean for long!) Seriously, blaming the parents of all allergy sufferers for scrubbing the floors and cleaning the sheets? Oh yes, let's just forget the reasons we started cleaning in the first place. It's obvious if only we all had more fleas, bedbugs, head lice, athlete's foot, and hepatitis... we'd all be so much healthier we'd never be allergic to anything!

But for me, there is no mystery... it's all from air pollution. Carbon dioxide is good for plant growth, remember? Well it turns out studies have been made linking increased CO2 levels to pollen emissions from plants... including the infamous ragweed.

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=9163&page=1

Give the plants more CO2 in the air and they'll take advantage it to produce more pollen. Right now, pollen counts are at ridiculous highs they never were when people first started counting. So as the symptoms of me and my fellow allergy sufferers get worse year after year, as asthma rates continue to climb at risk to human life... I can't help but wonder how few people have made this simple connection between the changes in atmospheric chemistry and human health. Simply put, allergies are worse than they were a hundred years ago, because our immune systems never had to put up with so much pollen before!

Many of the people who believe that global warming isn't man-made go on to say we could burn as many fossil fuels as we wanted to, dump as much carbon into the atmosphere as we can... look how silly we were for worrying so much! ...except even if mainstream science and the people like me who still believe in it are completely wrong, emitting more carbon into the air is still detrimental to human health.

I can't help but wonder if there's someone typing up a post on his blog right now about how "Anthropogenic Global Warming is a Lie!" in-between bouts of sneezing and coughing and puffs on his inhaler... never really sinking in he's asking the rest of humanity to further degrade his air supply.

The point is, global warming aside, we need to reduce our CO2 emissions... before asthma and allergies climb to be the top cause of death.

Summer Fashion Blunders!

Just to prove that there is nothing too petty to be as subject of my hate, I present the top 5 most gods-awful recent trends in summertime clothing. (You have my oblivious real-life friends to thank for this: "What shoes? I've never seen anyone wearing anything like that!" ...losers.)

# 5 - "Wife Beaters"

Normally I like tank tops. That is, the tank tops that are more-or-less sleeveless tees. But who in their right mind first came up with the idea they could wear their skanky, smelly, sleeveless undershirt as outerwear? I'm talking about those ribbed cotton undershirts, that in the early half the 20th Century were originally intended to be worn under your dress shirts and suit jackets in colder weather. The ones that have become so favored as everyday wear by hillbillies, rednecks and other forms of white trash that they have been come to be affectionately known as "wife beaters".

I think the name says it all. Use your brain! Is White Trash a look you want to be emulating? Do you actually want people to associate you with someone who is low on IQ and common sense? And if in the remote chance anyone reading this actually happens to a part of the rural, low-income white male segment of the population... stop wearing these Period! You're only making yourself look bad!

Honestly, for 90% of the male population, these look much worse than just taking your shirt off! I'm totally serious about this part: by the time you get down to your hideous, body-odor drenched undershirt, just take that off too! In my opinion, beer guts look much better than these things! That's how horrible they are!

Now, I'm not saying you HAVE to wear something with sleeves... but for gods' sake, get a real tank top, please! ...or wear an actual sleeveless shirt:

# 4 - Sandals and Socks

Alright, I'm not the first person in history to bring this up, and I won't be the last, but no socks with your sandals! If your sense of fashion has become so warped you can't see how ugly it is, consider this: what's the point of the freedom of sandals if you cover your feet up? You might as well just wear complete, foot-enclosing shoes. Which is what I would recommend: wear sandals to bare your feet, and if your feet get too cold, just put some sneakers on instead. Simple!

Now, I will make one exception to this rule. I can understand wearing only sandals because you have oddly-shaped feet. I've seen people wearing sandals apparently because their middle toes are longer than their big toe, or with other "interesting" foot shapes normal shoes are a bit awkward to fit. So, if you have to wear sandals because your feet are too, shall we say, "unique" for shoes, by all means, do cover the unsightly "uniqueness" up with socks... freak.

Now if you're one of those young guys who likes the popular single-strap Adidas sandals, please no socks! Nip that bad habit in the bud!

NO!

Because you don't want to grow up to be like this guy...

BTW- Behold, the home of the enemy! http://www.sandalandsoxer.co.uk/home.htm

# 3 - Wearing Socks Outdoors

Lately, I've been seeing more and more kids playing outside in their socks. I don't care if you're 50 years old, or 5, this is not acceptable! Do not send your kids outdoors in their socks! What is so wrong with going barefoot? Your feet don't absorb and retain dirt like cotton. Playing basketball on concrete in your socks has to be the worst... the socks turn all grey and nasty! As for lawns... why wouldn't you want to go barefoot in the soft grass? It makes no sense at all! Just slip the socks off to go outside: it's more comfortable... and there'll be less dirty socks in the laundry.

# 2 - Plaid Shorts

Ack! Now we're entering gag reflex territory!

These have become popular among guys nowadays... and I'm even starting to see some girls wear them... and that's not a good thing! I mean, the first time I saw these, I did a double-take: was that a guy in his plaid boxer underwear? Is that the point? Is this some sort of movement to make plaid shorts so ubiquitous, nobody can tell the difference if you wear your boxer underwear instead? The you-forgot-to-wear-pants-today look is not good! Honestly, I think nothing should be plaid! No plaid shorts, socks, flannel shirts, anything! Unless you're Scottish and these are your clan colors, you have no business messing around with plaid! Period.

There's plenty of alternatives: khaki, denim, camouflage... and what was so wrong with athletic shorts?

Before you "go plaid": take this simple 2-question test:

1. Are you Scottish?
2. Are these your clan colors?

If you answer "no" to either question, don't do it!

Remember: Friends don't let friends wear plaid.

# 1 - Crocs

http://www.crocs.com/

Aiiee! What pills did the inventors of these drop before they went to the drawing board? Words like "awful", "hideous", and "eyesore" don't even begin to approach the depths of the hideousness of these things! These cheap plastic clogs can be found on racks in nearly every drugstore and Wal-Mart. They're so popular, they've even got a nickname, "crocs". So heady are the "crocs" with their success, you can even buy accessories for them, little jewelry-like "jibbitz" to uglify them even more! (Seriously, jibbitz for your crocs? Since when did a pair of shoes have its own language? Since cheap plastic clogs began, that's when!)

http://www.jibbitz.com/

Being so widespread is not a measure of success! When was the last time you bought a decent pair of shoes in a drugstore? Remember the old adage: "You get what you pay for"? There is simply no combination of clothes these shoes from Fashion Hell will match with. Coming in eye-searing pastel yellows, blues, reds, and hot pink, they are guaranteed to clash with any outfit and draw attention to your feet just as surely as if you set them on fire! I've seen girls in bright, neon-colored clothes, and their crocs are ten times as loud in comparison. Not even swirling tie-dyes can compete with the sheer loudness of the colors of these nasties! Adding jibbitz only makes the crocs worse! To put it in perspective, adding warts to a toad does not make it any less ugly... quite the contrary.

Now, I've heard some people consider them children's shoes, think they look cute on the little tykes.

No, NO, NO!

They do not, under any circumstances look good on anyone! That includes children! Not even fitting them to a little kid's feet will make these things palatable... to the contrary, put crocs on your child, and whatever charm and cuteness your child might have is drowned out by the blazing neon hideousness of their footwear! I suspect the real reason for putting crocs on your kids would be to have pictures of them you can use to embarrass them as teenagers. That would have to qualify as a form of child cruelty! I shudder to think of the rise in teenage suicide rates that will occur when the croc-wearing generation matures... Please, for the love of God, show some decency towards you children and buy them some real shoes!

Last, but not least, if there are any adult crocs-wearers present, I have to add that their only possible redeeming quality, how "comfortable" they're said to be, does not qualify as justification for wearing such a hideous monstrosity! For casual, free and comfortable footwear, what was ever so wrong with flip-flops? A closed shoe, even with ridiculous looking airholes, cannot ever be as "free" as a sandal. Even neon-colored flip-flops beat out crocs any day. Flip-flops make you look like you're ready for the beach... crocs make you look like a clown with worn-out shoes! I take that back: no self-respecting circus clown would ever be caught wearing crocs! Even at their apparent purpose, as beach shoes, crocs are an abysmal faliure. Why would you ever wear these on the sand, when you could just slip them off and wade barefoot in the surf? I mean, isn't that the whole point of going to the beach? If the only shoes made on the planet were crocs, I would go barefoot, even in the dead of winter! I mean that, wholeheartedly!

There is no justification for even the mere existence of crocs! Wearing them is a high crime of fashion! If you spot anyone seen wearing them, please do your civic duty and make a citizen's arrest in the name of the fashion police on the spot!

Remember: Just say NO to crocs!

BTW- This website is awesome!

http://ihatecrocsblog.blogspot.com/

Why I Believe In Global Warming

I would have gotten to this sooner, back when there was still snow on the ground, but I didn't have a blog then...

It seems that since we had the coldest winter in 7 years, all of a sudden this public outcry of right-wing thinkers has arisen, denouncing global warming. A couple examples:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/03/13/global-warming-update-winter-2008-coldest-seven-years

http://blog.briangriffiths.com/2008/04/baby-its-gonna-get-cold-outside.html

Now, I'm not in a state of denial. I know we had the coldest winter in 7 years:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080313_coolest.html

So how then, can I possibly be so silly as to believe in "global warming" when this single winter has erased all of it?

Because it hasn't.

The problem is this tendency of people to look at the weather outside their door right now, and say "Dude, it's hot today, must be global warming." Now I think part of the problem is us science-minded folks who understand global warming were too lenient about such misunderstanding of science when it went in our favor. Every time I heard someone tell me, "It's hot today, must be global warming," I knew that wasn't the right understanding of how weather and climate works, but their error was in my favor, so I didn't bother to correct their flawed thinking. I regret not stomping out misconceptions about science whenever I encountered them before. Now that the shoe's on the other foot, we reap the rewards of such tolerance of ignorance.
We get just one cold winter, and now those same people are telling me, "It's cold out there, global warming must be wrong!" These people are the "sunshine patroits" of global warming: when it's hot outside they think the ice caps are melting, when it's cold outside they think a new ice age is starting. The problem they don't quite understand that any single year's weather is not the same as the long-term trend... or just how long-term (and chaotic) the Earth's climate really is.

Global warming is a trend. Global warming is not today's temperature, or this month's temperature, or even this year's... it's the way the average temperature of the planet has been going up, on average. Individual years can vary a lot. They might even dip to a 100-year low, or a 100-year high, but the warming trend is still there among the random fluctuations.

To use a metaphor, if the Dow Jones Industrial Average took a dip for 5 minutes, would you say a bull market had suddenly become a bear market?

Regardless of what happened this winter, I can say with a high level of confidence global warming is still the direction the temperature of the planet is headed.

In Defense of Gay Marriage

While I'm on the subject, I think I'll explain why I support same-sex marriages.

It isn't hurting anyone. It doesn't really concern anyone except the two individuals involved. It's an expression of love, of two people's commitment to each other. Yet somehow, some people are actually offended at the idea that two people of the same gender could make a vow of love.

Those opposed to the idea of gay marriage seem to think that it will ruin heterosexual marriage, and by extension, the family unit, and somehow destroy society. Though how things could progress from marrying two men to the death of modern society is never explained...

Let's start with the idea same-sex marriage would ruin traditional heterosexual marriage... does marrying two men (or two women) suddenly reach in and affect the lives of everyone already married? Not really. No one's asking to change heterosexual marriage, just to extend that concept to same-sex couples. A gay marriage has an impact on the lives of the two gays getting married, but nobody else.

Does gay marriage wreck the family unit? Perhaps... but only if you allow gay couples to raise children. Now, at this point, some proponents of gay marriage would back down a bit, and say that well... they're just asking for the right to marry, not to adopt children and have a "gay family" with same-sex parents. But there will be no backpedaling. Not here. Not today.

Let's take a cold, hard look at traditional families, shall we? The starting point of the argument a same-sex couple couldn't raise children is that only heterosexual couples can provide the proper environment for children. But can we really take it for granted that the best possible environment for children is with their biological parents?

By now, most people have heard of the Austrian who locked his daughter in his basement for years, secretly fathering more children through her, keeping them all locked away in his "dungeon".
http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=477656
That's just a fluke, right? Besides, this is Austria we're talking about, not America. Ok then, how about the guy in New York who did much the same, but threw the babies into a hole?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/04/25/national/a212059D93.DTL
Oh, but he was an immigrant... real Americans would never, ever do such a thing! Then how about this Tennessee guy who used electric dog collars to "enslave" his daughters while he raped them?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311646,00.html
There's plenty more examples where those came from! ...and those are just the parents who sexually abuse their children. I didn't even get to the ones that beat and kill their kids!

If we're going to worry so much about who is and isn't allowed to raise children, I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest your average gay couple would be better than such abusive traditional families. I think it matters less whether a man and a woman, or two men, or two women want to adopt a child, than whether or not they have genuine caring for that child. I would go as far to say that any two individuals could be suitable to raising a child solely on the basis of love, affection, and a stable, non-abusive psychology. (Yes, I am aware of single-parent families, but I'd rather stick to the topic at hand.)

So, if we can't argue a gay marriage would ruin heterosexual marriage, or that would be a bad cornerstone for a family compared to heterosexual marriage, what's left? You guessed it: that gay marriage is wrong on the basis of religious morality.

Coincidentally, I recently read in passing about a Baptist minister in Texas who ran afoul of a sting against soliciting underage sex online...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-05-18-texas-minister-resigns_N.htm
This isn't just some isolated incident... this sort of thing happens all the time... even the Associate Baptist Press admits it!
http://www.abpnews.com/1780.article
And if you thought it was just Baptists, there's a Chicago Presbyterian reverend who was caught soliciting prostitutes...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-pastor-arrest_12may12,0,7275891.story
...not to mention the endless rain of fallout from the widespread child molestation of the Catholic Church.

The hypocrisy is so thick you can cut it with a knife. If these are the religious voices telling us what is and isn't "moral", then they have no right to say a single word against gays and gay marriage! (Or for that matter, pretty much all of human sexuality.) At least not until they can practice what they preach.

Those of us of the religious persuasion who don't happen to be immoral hypocrites, and say the Bible is against being gay, are quite frankly bigots (who just happen to be bigoted against gays) looking for an excuse in obscure passages of their holy book of choice. If they didn't have Bibles, they'd find some other ancient words to support their views. Maybe a quote from some forgotten Roman philosopher, or the 612th page of a Victorian novel, or maybe block out every other letter on a candy bar wrapper to make a sentence. Point is, fundamentally, they're just not capable of coming up with their own reasoning against it (at least no reasoning beyond claiming to speak for an omnipotent being, though that's a whole other story) so they desperately cling to anything they can find as "justification".

So there you have it. The arguments against gay marriage just keep falling apart. And without the support of a "reason" for their beliefs, the people against it are nothing more than a bunch of nosy folks who seem a little too interested in homosexuals' love lives... Let's stop mucking around in the romantic lives of gays, let them declare their love through marriage, and move on already!

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Judicial Activism

By now, all of you have heard the news, but I'll throw in the obligatory link to the CNN article anyway.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/15/same.sex.marriage/index.html

Finally, a gay rights move in this country in the direction of sanity.

For those who say "the court overstepped its bounds", well somebody has to! At the risk of sounding a bit critical of democracy, minority rights are one of the things the democratic process isn't good at. Put an issue important to any minority on a ballot and the majority will vote it down every time.

Which is exactly what our spineless politicians have been doing all this time to "cop out" of taking a stand on gay issues. They don't dare declare themselves for or against gay marriage out of fear of alienating one side of their voter base (the conservatives, or the gays) in order to ensure their chances of gaining votes from both sides and getting elected. Those for it will never admit it, because convervatives will come down on them like a ton of bricks. Those against it won't admit it either, because then they'll raise the ire of liberals. So we end up with waffly, "appeal to everyone" positions on the matter from major candidates, like Clinton and Obama's "support" of gay rights but not actual marriage, or McCain's stance "against" it, but they all "pass the buck" by leaving the decision up to the individual states.

The state legislators don't dare take a stand on a major issue either. So, to please voters they "let the people decide" by putting bans on gay marriage on the ballots, in state after state. They know full well the heterosexual majority will strike down gay marriage, but then they can claim it's "what the people want". And with the majority of their voters pleased (the heterosexual part, that is) their voter base is secured.

This is one time where in order to make any social progress, unpopular arbitrary action is necessary. If the theory of homosexuality being genetic is indeed true, then in every generation, there will always be less than 10% of individuals who are gay. Gays are destined to remain a minority for all time, and will therefore never be able to win a popular vote for their rights. The only option to obtaining gay rights is unpopular action by those in power, right over the heads of angry conservatives. And since our legislators and governors are... well, politicians, the only people left who can take a stand for gay rights without having to cover their asses are judges... especially state supreme court justices who have long-term, secure positions.

Which is what just happened in California.