Dear Richard Cranium,
I saw you in your car today. You were so cool! You probably didn't notice me because you were thinking cool thoughts. I was the guy in the crosswalk. I just wanted to thank you for pulling your car right in front of me into the crosswalk so that I could see up close how cool it was. And that gesture I made as you pulled away, spinning your wheels so fast that they squealed and left black marks across the white lines, that was my decidedly uncool thumbs up. Being that I am not used to dealing with people as cool as you, I got my digits mixed up and didn't put my thumb up at all.
By the way, and this is rather bold of me to say, I am sure you have a very large penis. I can just tell by how cool you are and by how super-cool your car is.
I'm not worthy,
-Eric
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Senate non-debate
It seems to me that this whole affair of whether or not to debate a non-binding resolution of disagreement with the President's planned 'Surge' of troops into Iraq is a bunch of hoowey. There, I've said it. Hooey.
The Republicans, love 'em or leave 'em, are very good at framind discussions. They have framed the proposed Senate resolutions announcing displeasure with the President's tactics as an issue of supporting our troops. As long as they continue to do this, they have the upper hand. Who could, or would want to, argue against the troops?
The key Democratic Party players are so caught up with the feeding frenzy that the 2008 Presidential race has already become that they have dropped the ball, pretty much across the board. Clinton, Obama, Byden, they are all too busy saying how they could do a better job to be able to do anything about the horrible situation that we are in. Throw in John Edwards calling for a complete withdrawal by the end of the year and Joe Lieberman (when did he become a Republican?) saying back the President at all costs, and it is one convoluted mess.
Here's an idea, instead of worrying about getting (re)elected, do something about the people dying in Iraq. Seriously. Get over yourselves.
The Republicans, love 'em or leave 'em, are very good at framind discussions. They have framed the proposed Senate resolutions announcing displeasure with the President's tactics as an issue of supporting our troops. As long as they continue to do this, they have the upper hand. Who could, or would want to, argue against the troops?
The key Democratic Party players are so caught up with the feeding frenzy that the 2008 Presidential race has already become that they have dropped the ball, pretty much across the board. Clinton, Obama, Byden, they are all too busy saying how they could do a better job to be able to do anything about the horrible situation that we are in. Throw in John Edwards calling for a complete withdrawal by the end of the year and Joe Lieberman (when did he become a Republican?) saying back the President at all costs, and it is one convoluted mess.
Here's an idea, instead of worrying about getting (re)elected, do something about the people dying in Iraq. Seriously. Get over yourselves.
Friday, October 20, 2006
Nature
The word "nature" is an artificial construct.
Humans are animals, just like beavers and prairie dogs. But, we would never think to call a beaver dam or prairie dog town unnatural. Why do we call a human dam or human town unnatural, a.k.a. technological or civilized or whatever your favorite descriptive term is that humans use to try and forget that they are part of nature.
I am not espousing human "progress", quite the contrary. I think nature is the sum of the earth and everthing on it. Humans tend to excuse their mess by saying it's not part of nature. In doing this, a subconscious hierarchy is established. To follow this theory, due to the development of the human ego, it is implicit that human constructs are superior to nature. But, of course, this is a logical fallacy since humans are a part of nature.
To me, that means to truly be superior, humans must elevate all of nature. Do we still get to have cities and cars and computers? You betcha. But, we need to make sure that we are not breaking the system and if we are, to fix it.
I've always thought the real shame of humanity is to be intelligent enough to see the harm that we are creating, but not wise enough to stop it.
Humans are animals, just like beavers and prairie dogs. But, we would never think to call a beaver dam or prairie dog town unnatural. Why do we call a human dam or human town unnatural, a.k.a. technological or civilized or whatever your favorite descriptive term is that humans use to try and forget that they are part of nature.
I am not espousing human "progress", quite the contrary. I think nature is the sum of the earth and everthing on it. Humans tend to excuse their mess by saying it's not part of nature. In doing this, a subconscious hierarchy is established. To follow this theory, due to the development of the human ego, it is implicit that human constructs are superior to nature. But, of course, this is a logical fallacy since humans are a part of nature.
To me, that means to truly be superior, humans must elevate all of nature. Do we still get to have cities and cars and computers? You betcha. But, we need to make sure that we are not breaking the system and if we are, to fix it.
I've always thought the real shame of humanity is to be intelligent enough to see the harm that we are creating, but not wise enough to stop it.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Weapons of Mass Destruction
I am very disturbed by the latest happenings in world politics, namely, North Korea's testing of a nuclear device. I find it disturbing on many levels.
I am disturbed that another nuclear weapon has been made, with rumors that N. Korea has enough plutonium for 9 bombs. We already have enough nuclear weaopns on the planet to completely eradicate all life and actually crack the planet into pieces. It just seems that the more weapons that are made, the higher the likelihood that they will be used.
I am disturbed that the United States foreign policy seems to be "Do the opposite of whatever we should do" when it comes to N. Korea. N. Korea wants to talk, the U.S. doesn't want to. S. Korea sets up multilateral talks a week before the nuclear testing and Secretary Rice decides to skip the meeting to spend an extra day in Kurdish held Iraq on her 'surprise' visit to Iraq, which causes the talks to be cancelled completely. Hadn't the President been saying that the only reason we were not in a discussion with N. Korea was because they needed to multilateral and not bilateral?
I am disturbed that a President can tell us to never forget September 11, 2001 and that we must be vigilant and fight terror throughout the world; AND yet, go to war on fabricated charges of Weapons of Mass Destruction, while not even talking with the emissaries of a power, whom he deemed part of the Axis of Evil, that openly admits that it has Weapons of Mass Destruntion asd is creating more. How can you forget, Mr. President?
I am disturbed that after six years in office, "the most powerful man in the free world" can still not pronounce the word "nuclear".
I am disturbed most of all by the fact that the vast majority of people don't seem to care at all. As election day quickly approaches, I know that 85% of eligible voters are not going to vote, and no matter how many phone calls I make, or emails I write, that this is not going to change. More people seem to care about Paris Hilton's latest sexploits than how or if the U.S. is going to deal with a man they have proclaimed a 'madman', who has become a madman with nuclear strike capability.
I am disturbed that another nuclear weapon has been made, with rumors that N. Korea has enough plutonium for 9 bombs. We already have enough nuclear weaopns on the planet to completely eradicate all life and actually crack the planet into pieces. It just seems that the more weapons that are made, the higher the likelihood that they will be used.
I am disturbed that the United States foreign policy seems to be "Do the opposite of whatever we should do" when it comes to N. Korea. N. Korea wants to talk, the U.S. doesn't want to. S. Korea sets up multilateral talks a week before the nuclear testing and Secretary Rice decides to skip the meeting to spend an extra day in Kurdish held Iraq on her 'surprise' visit to Iraq, which causes the talks to be cancelled completely. Hadn't the President been saying that the only reason we were not in a discussion with N. Korea was because they needed to multilateral and not bilateral?
I am disturbed that a President can tell us to never forget September 11, 2001 and that we must be vigilant and fight terror throughout the world; AND yet, go to war on fabricated charges of Weapons of Mass Destruction, while not even talking with the emissaries of a power, whom he deemed part of the Axis of Evil, that openly admits that it has Weapons of Mass Destruntion asd is creating more. How can you forget, Mr. President?
I am disturbed that after six years in office, "the most powerful man in the free world" can still not pronounce the word "nuclear".
I am disturbed most of all by the fact that the vast majority of people don't seem to care at all. As election day quickly approaches, I know that 85% of eligible voters are not going to vote, and no matter how many phone calls I make, or emails I write, that this is not going to change. More people seem to care about Paris Hilton's latest sexploits than how or if the U.S. is going to deal with a man they have proclaimed a 'madman', who has become a madman with nuclear strike capability.
Friday, September 29, 2006
No on 43
This evening, I listened to the City Club on OPB radio. The topic was ballot measure 43. This is the ballot measure that will require 15 to 17 year old girls who wish to have an abortion to get parental consent, or if they can't or won't do that, to get permission from a judge. To see the text of the ballot measure go here.
The proponents of the measure say it is to foster better child-parent relationships. They argue that it is not anti-abortion, it is anti-kids-doing-things-without-their-parents-knowing.
I'm not going to go into the opponent's arguments. They are very clearly laid out by people more informed and more eloquent than I. No on 43
Instead, I would like to explain why the flaws in the proponents arguments are enough to convince me to vote against 43. I will be refuting the points straight from the Yes on 43 website. Their first point is that Oregon is behind the times because it is one of only six states that have not passed a parental involvement law, and further more that the laws in other states have not been shown to be unconstitutional. Unconstitutional, to me, sounds like illegal. And behind the times, sounds like "everyone else is doing it", which by they way is stereotypically the kid's line, not the responsible parent's. So, there first reason becomes that Oregon should pass this law because everyone else is doing it and it's not illegal. You know, that is exactly what people told me about smoking when I was a teenager. "Come on, man. Everybody smokes and you're 18 now, so nobody can stop you." Well, not everybody smokes and it turns out it is legal to give yourself and other lung cancer. What is not mentioned, is that of the 44 states that already have some type of parental consent law, how many of those state's laws are like Oregon's proposal. Many states, 16 of them to be exact, do have parental consent laws. But, wait a minute, I thought it was all but 6? The other 28 states have parental notification laws, or another type of law, with multiple states having the laws on hold while the court system decides the constitutionality of the law. So, it doesn't look like everybody else is doing it, and it doesn't look like everybody else thinks it's not illegal.
The second point that Yes on 43 makes is that bypass protects victims of rape, incest and abuse. They state that "parental notification laws provide help to girls who have been victimized, rather than just allowing them to have an abortion in secret and returning to the abusive situation." Wow. So, let me get this right, if step-dad is molesting a girl and she goes to get an abortion because he has impregnated her, notifying him of this makes the problem go away? I had know idea it worked like that. I would have thought that he would be pissed off and the abuse would escalate.
The third argument is that girls don't talk about it with their parents. Enacting this law doesn't change that fact. The young woman can simply talk to a judge, and the parents still do not know. See above for why they may not want to talk to their parents about getting an abortion.
Fourth, that this is a traumatic and emotional time for the young woman, who may not have thought out all of the ramifications of her actions. That is true. It is also true if the woman in question is 25. Why do 25 year olds not need consent from one of their parents? Also, how does a certified letter coming in the mail, especially if the young woman has not told her parent(s) about the pregnancy, make the time any less traumatic or emotional. If the parent is angry, it may make it considerably more traumatic and emotional.
There are two further points I would like to make. The first is a response to the general mission statement by the proponents of ballot measure 43, that this is not about abortion, it is about communicating with children through a potentially difficult time. That sounds great, doesn't it? But, if that were really the reason for this ballot measure, why is the aim not to repeal the Oregon law that allows teens to be medically emancipated at the age of 15? Why is it only abortion and cancer treatments or treatments for sexually transmitted diseases? Why is it only girls and not boys?
The second and final issue of the evening, is about the methodology used by Yes on 43 in stating their statistical evidence. They are skewing the facts in their favor. Let me use an example from the Yes on 43 website, with all links provided so you can see exactly what I'm talking about. On the page entitled The Facts, They state that in 2004 there were 1957 abortions had by teen-agers. They provide a link to a document by DHS, which lists a breakdown by age. 51 abortions were had be girls under the age of 15. 1906 were had be girls aged 15 to 19. So, it may be true that there were 1957 abortions by teen-agers, but is implied that this resolution will effect that many. Right away, you can subtract the 51 by girls that were too young to do this without parental permission anyways, which leaves us with 1906. 18 and 19 year olds will not be effected by this law, so even assuming that each age in that group has equal numbers, we are now talking about 1163 teen-agers. 205 occurred out of state, so again adjusting for 18 and 19 year olds, we can subtract another 126 for a total of 1037 15 to 17 year olds who had abortion. This is just a little more than half of the number that they are implying. It doesn't mention anywhere in the document how many of the young women told their parents about it before going through with the procedure either. (Based on the fact that the next to age groups are considerably higher, I would guess that 18 and 19 year olds account for an even larger number than the one I've presented.) I really hate it when people treat me like I'm stupid. :D
The proponents of the measure say it is to foster better child-parent relationships. They argue that it is not anti-abortion, it is anti-kids-doing-things-without-their-parents-knowing.
I'm not going to go into the opponent's arguments. They are very clearly laid out by people more informed and more eloquent than I. No on 43
Instead, I would like to explain why the flaws in the proponents arguments are enough to convince me to vote against 43. I will be refuting the points straight from the Yes on 43 website. Their first point is that Oregon is behind the times because it is one of only six states that have not passed a parental involvement law, and further more that the laws in other states have not been shown to be unconstitutional. Unconstitutional, to me, sounds like illegal. And behind the times, sounds like "everyone else is doing it", which by they way is stereotypically the kid's line, not the responsible parent's. So, there first reason becomes that Oregon should pass this law because everyone else is doing it and it's not illegal. You know, that is exactly what people told me about smoking when I was a teenager. "Come on, man. Everybody smokes and you're 18 now, so nobody can stop you." Well, not everybody smokes and it turns out it is legal to give yourself and other lung cancer. What is not mentioned, is that of the 44 states that already have some type of parental consent law, how many of those state's laws are like Oregon's proposal. Many states, 16 of them to be exact, do have parental consent laws. But, wait a minute, I thought it was all but 6? The other 28 states have parental notification laws, or another type of law, with multiple states having the laws on hold while the court system decides the constitutionality of the law. So, it doesn't look like everybody else is doing it, and it doesn't look like everybody else thinks it's not illegal.
The second point that Yes on 43 makes is that bypass protects victims of rape, incest and abuse. They state that "parental notification laws provide help to girls who have been victimized, rather than just allowing them to have an abortion in secret and returning to the abusive situation." Wow. So, let me get this right, if step-dad is molesting a girl and she goes to get an abortion because he has impregnated her, notifying him of this makes the problem go away? I had know idea it worked like that. I would have thought that he would be pissed off and the abuse would escalate.
The third argument is that girls don't talk about it with their parents. Enacting this law doesn't change that fact. The young woman can simply talk to a judge, and the parents still do not know. See above for why they may not want to talk to their parents about getting an abortion.
Fourth, that this is a traumatic and emotional time for the young woman, who may not have thought out all of the ramifications of her actions. That is true. It is also true if the woman in question is 25. Why do 25 year olds not need consent from one of their parents? Also, how does a certified letter coming in the mail, especially if the young woman has not told her parent(s) about the pregnancy, make the time any less traumatic or emotional. If the parent is angry, it may make it considerably more traumatic and emotional.
There are two further points I would like to make. The first is a response to the general mission statement by the proponents of ballot measure 43, that this is not about abortion, it is about communicating with children through a potentially difficult time. That sounds great, doesn't it? But, if that were really the reason for this ballot measure, why is the aim not to repeal the Oregon law that allows teens to be medically emancipated at the age of 15? Why is it only abortion and cancer treatments or treatments for sexually transmitted diseases? Why is it only girls and not boys?
The second and final issue of the evening, is about the methodology used by Yes on 43 in stating their statistical evidence. They are skewing the facts in their favor. Let me use an example from the Yes on 43 website, with all links provided so you can see exactly what I'm talking about. On the page entitled The Facts, They state that in 2004 there were 1957 abortions had by teen-agers. They provide a link to a document by DHS, which lists a breakdown by age. 51 abortions were had be girls under the age of 15. 1906 were had be girls aged 15 to 19. So, it may be true that there were 1957 abortions by teen-agers, but is implied that this resolution will effect that many. Right away, you can subtract the 51 by girls that were too young to do this without parental permission anyways, which leaves us with 1906. 18 and 19 year olds will not be effected by this law, so even assuming that each age in that group has equal numbers, we are now talking about 1163 teen-agers. 205 occurred out of state, so again adjusting for 18 and 19 year olds, we can subtract another 126 for a total of 1037 15 to 17 year olds who had abortion. This is just a little more than half of the number that they are implying. It doesn't mention anywhere in the document how many of the young women told their parents about it before going through with the procedure either. (Based on the fact that the next to age groups are considerably higher, I would guess that 18 and 19 year olds account for an even larger number than the one I've presented.) I really hate it when people treat me like I'm stupid. :D
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)