Here's a list of my pet peeves. The definition I'm using, for the purposes of this list, is: An unimportant thing that nevertheless pisses me off.
Our little boy Duncan hit his 7th month yesterday. It's amazing to think that a year and a half ago, he wasn't even considered, and now I wouldn't change a thing about having a child. I love that little guy so much and would do absolutely anything for him.
It was amazing watching him on the floor yesterday. He's mastered rolling over from front to back, and though he's still working on crawling I think he'll get there soon. Jenn had put a little musical toy just out of his reach, and he was rolling on his back and front trying to reach it. He eventually did it, too. It's great to see the determination on his face as he pushed and pushed to get to it.
He's also starting to be able to sit up by himself. I had him sitting on my lap, facing me last night. He would sit up, then fall forward on his face, and then pick himself back up and sit upright again. He's getting the control he needs to keep sitting up, and that's very exciting (as he's too big for his baby carrier but too uncoordinated to sit in a high chair at a restaurant, at least the chairs most places have).
Which brings me (in a roundabout way) to my thoughts for the day. I've increasingly come to the conclusion that I do not like the computer business in general. And I'd like to find something else to do for a living. The problem is the same problem that millions of Americans feel - the fear of leaving a steady job for one that's less steady. Normally that wouldn't be a problem for me. But now, with a family to support, I'm VERY nervous about trying something new - particularly because I don't want to lose my great benefits here at OSU. Not to mention I've been in this business for over ten years now, and make a comfortable (if not opulent) salary.
So, if anyone reads this blog, I'd love to know how folks went about making changes in their lives without having to lose out on great benefits.
Why, oh WHY did we need to have a movie version of the Dukes of Hazzard made? This show was bad when it was on the air, I don't think we need a big screen version. And we particularly don't need all the merchandise tie-ins. Although... I can see Hardee's owning the fast food rights to this soon-to-be ticket-burner.
One note on this movie that makes perfect sense: Johnny Knoxville of Jackass fame is one of the Duke boys... so at least we know their demographic.
By now, everyone has heard about the revelation that former FBI Deputy Director Mark Felt was the informant for Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein in their investigation of the Watergate break-in, which led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon. The debate has begun on whether he was a hero or a snake.
Interestingly (and not at all surprisingly), the people who are most convinced he was a snake are folks like G. Gordon Liddy, Charles Colson, and Pat Buchanan. Interestingly, Liddy and Colson actually went to jail for their role in the Watergate scandal, so it's no wonder that they're upset. And Pat Buchanan was a Nixon staffer himself, so it's hardly surprising that he's upset.
My view? Give the man a medal. Not only will this reward someone who did the right thing in revealing government at its worst, but it might even convince some of those folks who are stuck in the government now to do the same. And never has the governmente been more in need of whistleblowers.
With the media being owned by huge corporate interests, we aren't hearing about the scandals that the Bush Administration are perpetuating. And for anyone who thinks I'm a conspiracy theorist, I would CERTAINLY call the entire Iraq War a scandal. Lying to the world to get our troops into a war against a nation that did nothing to us? One of the greatest scandals. Then look at the amount of money that goes into the coffers of the Bush Campaign and where it came from, and notice the sorts of anti-environmental and anti-freedom laws that our Theocrat-in-chief is pushing. It doesn't take Fox Mulder to see these issues.
Today, potential whistleblowers are kept in fear of losing their jobs and blacklisted. We need to reward people who try to keep order and honesty in our government. And since the media won't report on it, we need whistleblowers to stand up and tell us what's going on inside the oil-slicked curtain of the Bush Administration.
So three cheers for Mark Felt. And to all those employees who are too frightened by the threat of big government's claw, stand up and get noticed publicly. You'll do us all a great service.
Okay, this may be TOTALLY out of line... but does anyone find it funny that Viagra and Cialis may cause BLINDNESS? How long has it been an old wives tale that "If you play with yourself too much, you'll go blind." And now, we apparently have proof, straight from the FDA!
The FDA is saying that the Viagra probably didn't cause the blindness per se... so what does that leave us?
Did anyone notice? Get Fuzzy, Pearls Before Swine, and Foxtrot all had the same punchline today. That's funnier than the comics themselves!
Just read a very interesting article by Bill Berkowitz at Working For Change that discusses the parallels between the slow rise of Nazism in Germany in the early 20th century and compares it to the slow rise of Theocracy we're seeing in the United States today.
It's definitely a good read, and will provoke many thoughts about how this current administration is behaving as it puts into place anti-democratic policies such as the PATRIOT Act, the removal of citizen review of environmental issues, and the move toward government endorsement of Christianity as a state religion.
Compare this with the 14 Points of Fascism that I called attention to back in January, and it gets pretty darned scary. When will America wake up and see what's happening?
General Motors is apparently starting a thirteen-state tour in an attempt to try to convince governors to work to reduce manufacturers' liabilities in the realms of health care and put limits on punitive jury awards in lawsuits. Why am I not surprised?
Companies have been looking for ways to offload healthcare costs for a long time, as if they don't have a responsibility to look after the workers who make them their money. And they're looking to offload their responsibility to build safe products by limiting the money a plaintiff can receieve in a lawsuit.
It's interesting... the Bush Administration says they want to privatize more of the government, but the private companies are looking to foist more of their issues off on the government. If employees can't look to their employers for medical care, who's going to get the brunt of that? The government. And who's going to be responsible for limiting punitive decisions in liability cases to keep private companies from paying out when they screw up? The government. Is no one else seeing this?
It's amazing what people are trying to get away with these days, but few places are as frightening as the state of Kansas. Mandating the teaching of fairy tales (AKA Creationism) in state public schools (even temporarily) was apparently only the beginning.
The Attorney General of the state of Kansas, Phill Kline, is apparently trying to require two abortion clinics to open their records to him so he can "investigate and prosecute child rape and other crimes in order to protect Kansas children." He's fishing into the files of 90 women who have had abortions, according to the article.
First, the Kansas AG is a staunch opponent of abortion, and I wouldn't trust him with the information he uncovers.
Second, Doctor/Patient Privilege has to take some effect here.
Third, his agenda violates the separation of Church and State: he's trying to push to have stickers put into science books in Kansas schools that state evolution is just a theory, and pushing the so-called "Intelligent Design" theory. The difference between evolution and intelligent design is that there is scientific evidence for evolution. There is NONE for intelligent design. But his agenda is to push for religion and state to merge.
Folks like this need to be kept out of government - one of the basic tenets of this government is the separation of Church and state. It's necessary in any nation where there is freedom of religion. If one religion is adopted by the government, then we don't have freedom of religion any longer. And that's anti-American.
Amazing... I'm seeing evidence that the evangelicals are coming around to see the environment as worth protecting.
Apparently there are evangelical groups forming that are calling for better pollution controls and more environmentally-friendly policies by the Bush Administration. Interestingly, the normally off-the-scale-to-the-right leader of "Focus on the Family," James Dobson is one of the signatories to a document signed by the National Association of Evangelicals, which calls for environmental responsibility among all Christians and more civic responsibility by the government in creating a sustainable environment. Other signatories include Ted Haggard, head of the N.A.E., and Chuck Colson, head of Prison Fellowship Ministries.
Of course, the article discusses the usual mistrust by the evangelicals of traditional environmentalism, and prefers to refer to it as "creation care," in reference to the Bible, naturally. But despite this shortcoming, a positive step is being seen as mainstream evangelicals are pulling away from the dispensationalists (the folks who see the earth as available to be used up, basically, in preparation for the rapture).
An interesting point in the article is made by John C. Green, director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron. He takes some time to discuss the evangelicals' suspicion of traditional environmentalists:
"While evangelicals are open to being good stewards of God's creation, they believe people should only worship God, not creation," Green said. "This may sound like splitting hairs. But evangelicals don't see it that way. Their stereotype of environmentalists would be Druids who worship trees."
Another reason that evangelicals are suspicious of environmental groups is cultural and has its origins in how conservative Christians view themselves in American society, according to the Rev. Jim Ball, executive director of the Evangelical Environmental Network.
"Evangelicals feel besieged by the culture at large," Ball said. "They don't know many environmentalists, but they have the idea they are pretty weird -- with strange liberal, pantheist views."
I find it interesting that these evangelicals, Green seems to be saying, do not understand how anyone can be secularly interested in saving the environment, but rather that they must have some faith-based reason for wanting to protect the earth.
That explains much - to an evangelical, he seems to be saying, one takes religion into consideration for everything. On the other hand, a person like me looks at saving the environment because I'm concerned about the future of life on earth and the health of the world's population. God really doesn't ever enter into it for me. I once dated a girl who didn't understand how I didn't stop to pray when something was going poorly for me or I needed to decide on a course of action. It simply wasn't in her mindset to accept that I didn't see prayer as necessary. And the same seems to be in play here.
It'll bear following this issue more closely, I think - I'm too suspicious in general to take too much at face value. But it certainly seems to be a step in the right direction for the environment!
One of today's most respected journalists is, rather was, Bill Moyers. Bill has written and spoken about a lot of important topics over his career, but perhaps none is more important than the comments he made upon receiving the Global Environment Citizen Award from Harvard Medical School.
Moyers called our attention to the rising religious right, who with the appointment of George W. Bush to the Presidency of the United States (as he did not win his first election) has attained power that can no longer be ignored. The most dangerous wing of the religious right is that which believes in "The Rapture."
For those of you who aren't familiar with "rapture theology," I'll summarize (though if you haven't you should read the Moyers article at the link provided). After a certain grouping of world events takes place, which includes wars, environmental catastrophe, and certain political events, the "faithful" of Christianity will be literally raised up to heaven, where they'll be able to sit next to God and watch as he destroys the rest of us in accordance with the book of Revelations in the Bible.
So... why is this dangerous, you ask? Isn't everyone entitled to their religious beliefs? This is America, after all. We have freedom of religion here - it's one of the very first rights that our forefathers put into the Constitution's Bill of Rights, and rightly so.
But we also have a standing philosophy that goes along with the Bill of Rights: that we may enjoy our rights as promised by the Bill of Rights as long as those rights don't interfere with the rights of others. And a primary instance of this philosophy is the practice of the separation of Church and State.
Many don't believe in the separation of Church and State, but it's a fact that one of the very first treaties negotiated by our government with a foreign power declares that the United States was NOT founded on the Christian religion. See Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, as signed by President John Adams. It states:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Apparently, President Bush is hyping nuclear power as a way to end America's reliance on foreign oil, and calling it an environmentally-safe alternative. BULL.
I suggest everyone read this article at Grist.com on the Rocky Flats nuclear waste site and the cover-up going on around it.
Why do Americans allow Bush to ride over them like this? It's simply amazing to me. People, get off the party bandwagons and do some research of your own! You'll see just how corrupt and evil this man is.
An interesting comparison... check this out!
The Old American Century's 14 Points of Fascism
But it's not always a good thing. There have been plenty of other notorious individuals who were declared "Person of the Year" by Time Magazine. Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, the Ayatollah Khomeini, Newt Gingrich, and plenty of other baddies have made this list, too.
It's not always an honor - it's just a statement of who's been most influential in the past year. And given all the horrible things that the Bush Administration has done to the world in the past 365 days, you can't deny that it's the case that he's been influential. But not in a good way - at all.
Here's a complete list.
In the wake of the tsunami disaster in the Indian Ocean, our head Theocrat George W. Bush has put his father, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton in charge of a massive fundraiser effort for relief organizations. For the most part, a fantastic thing - two competing politicians uniting to help the people of the world who need help. I doubt Dubya came up with it on his own.
But am I the only person who sees this as an extraordinarily convenient appointment for our NeoCon Fuhrer? Former President Clinton was just beginning to undertake an effort to push for renewable energy in the United States, something that President Bush has been starkly against (based on his actual policy and actions, not his words). In December, Clinton called for a true effort by the supporters of renewable energy to get the job done, and not to let themselves be hung up by the political obstacles that are in place. As the creation of renewable energy sources would tend to 1) hurt his big backers in the energy industry, 2) null the main reason he went to Iraq (OIL), and 3) put the Democrats in the drivers seat as regards the energy issue in future elections, it certainly doesn't hurt the GOP to have Clinton doing other things.
Don't get me wrong: I'm glad Clinton is doing what he's doing with tsunami relief. Those people have gone through a horrible disaster and I wish there was more I could do beyond what I've already done. But I do question the President's true reason for asking former President Clinton. I think Dubya saw a chance to force Clinton to accept another role in his post-administration days, one that wouldn't make him look bad and would keep his funders happy. And Clinton certainly couldn't say no to tsunami relief.
