Why Does It Always Rain On Me?

Was it because I lied when I was seventeen?

California, for those of you who care, was fun. But wet. Very wet. The first five days I was in Long Beach, which, because I lacked a car and couldn't go anywhere, reminded me very much of every other convention town I've ever been in. They even had a Bubba Gump Shrimp Co. The conference (Biophysical Society) was long but good, chock full of lipid-y goodness. The National Lecture left something to be desired, although some of the pretty videos of protein synthesis at the atomic level was pretty damn cool. I have no idea what science is going to be like even ten or fifteen years down the road, let alone when I'm an old man.

My poster presentation was long and arduous but I got some good feedback. And yes, for those of you who have never gone to a science conference before, it really is pretty much just like a science fair. Two prominent scientists who'd gotten into a pissing fight over their differing models a few days earlier resumed their battle over my data while I stood by in wonderment, like watching a ping pong match. It was flattering that they chose me to argue over, to say the least.

The Long Beach aquarium was wonderful, mainly because they let you touch stuff. The Queen Mary is a very big boat. The House of Hayden is a very bad goth bar. And the beach, while admittedly long, isn't so much a beach as it is a garbage dump.

And then, it rained. A lot. Just in time for my vacation part. The boy arrived late on Wednesday and after a delicious breakfast of crepes in the "East Village" artsy neighborhood, we rented our car and went to Hollywood! The Ho-Mustang, as I like to call it, was a sweet ride. 2005, less than 400 miles and shiny silver. I felt good driving into Beverly Hills.

I made a few observations while I was there:

1) Smoking isn't as anathema as I had thought it would be in California, although I'm assuming there's a huge difference between the Bay Area and LA. Cigarettes were sold in bars and as far as I could tell, everyone smoked.

2) Celebrity's do exist. In actually real life. I shouldn't be that shocked, considering I live in New York, but I've seen very few since I've moved here, probably because I don't get outside of the Upper East Side all that much. And don't pay attention even when I do. But I had two, genuine, A-list celeb sightings. First, I dined next to Tyne Daly at Lucques. I don't consider that all that exciting because a) I was in an upscale restaurant in West Hollywood and b) she's on Judging Amy. But she's definitely A-list. Second, after a miserable experience at the Museum of Television and Radio which was less of a museum and more of a warehouse of old Apple IIe's, we were driving around the neighborhood, in the rain (which was a running theme) and, stopped at a stop-sign, I spied a well dressed woman walking briskly. "Does that look like Rachel Griffiths to you" I asked the boy. As if on queue, the woman turned and looked at us. And it was most definitely, without a doubt, Rachel Griffiths, which was really exciting because a) she was just, like, walking on the street in the middle of nowhere (relatively speaking) and b) she's like totally on Six Feet Under which is like the totally most awesome show ever!

3) The desert is both beautiful and scary. Saturday we drove out to Palm Springs in search of a Starbucks mug. Needless to say, when it wasn't raining, the dark rolling clouds over the mountains, the vast expanse of white windmills and pink sunset were, um, breathtaking. If I had any semblance of writing ability I would attempt to say something poetic. However, in the dark, in the rain, with massive amounts of flooding and gigantic looming windmills, the desert is, um, terrifying.

4) It is extraordinarily disconcerting to be showering when the only thing separating you from the bedroom and the person watching TV in it is a glass wall which doesn't quite entirely fog over all the way.

That said, rain and all, it was a great trip. Except for the 8 hour airplane fiasco getting back, the landing in the snowstorm (FYI, planes: they land on snow), and the world's scariest taxi-ride back where the cabbie kept stopping to fix his windshield wipers when he should have been stopping to replace his tires.

More Miscellaneous Crap

I wanted to post about this talk I went to on Tuesday in which William Dembski spoke about Intelligent Design and Robert Shapiro of NYU responded. I also wanted to comment about Connecticut, New York and gay marriage. I've also had this short essay that I've been thinking about writing about polygamy....

But I have to leave for California in an hour. So it will all have to wait. I will, however, leave you with an image of the view from my old balcony, this time at night:

A World Without Pat Kiernan Reading the Papers to Me in the Morning at Forty Past the Hour...

... is like a world without sunshine. Color me crazy, but I don't want to live in that kind of world, a world in which I have to actually read the papers myself.

Miscellaneous Stuff

Yesterday, besides being the Superbowl, was also another important day. The Gipper would have turned 94. God rest his soul. "Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but Democrats believe every day is April 15." The man was a genius, even if his wife's "Just Say No" campaign was a dismal, misguided failure.

And speaking of old people, I also realized that the Third of the Month used to have a very special meaning for them, up until 1997 and probably never again after 2042. Apparently, social security checks used to be received on the third of every month! How exciting that right around 1997 was when the Third of the Month was first celebrated in its official capacity, back when we, no stranger to plaid or moist towelettes, began to spread the self-actualizing joy that is the Third of the Month to the myriads of people who need an excuse to love themselves. I think that old people getting money is an extremely appropriate way the Third of the Month can be celebrated. Are we not doing good for others by paying into social security and doesn't doing good for others in turn help us appreciate our own marvelousness? Or have I been sitting in front of my computer too long trying to link a linear Y axis to a logarithmic one and scale by a factor of RT?

Happy Third of the Month!

Well, the Third of the Month is upon us again and, if as if history was mocking me, I'm pretty much in the same boat that I was in last February around this time. According to my records I was hopped up on Day-Quil and stressed about my poster for a conference. Today I'm still getting over my miserable cold from last month and stressed out about my poster for a conference. But unlike last year, tonight I'm going to see a kick-ass friend perform in the one-act play of another kick-ass friend. Neither of these kick-ass friends knew each other until I joined them together with the awesomeness that is me.

See how awesome I am? See how awesome this day can be?

So what do we do on a day like today? We love ourselves. We love ourselves because, even though that frickin' groundhog saw his shadow and that I'm still exhausted from my move u-town, I still love myself enough to treat myself to an evening of off-off-off-Broadway drama. Because this day isn't about how much colder it's inevitably going to get; it's not about how you're never going to get this damn poster finished; it's not about how you've piddled the day away in meetings.

It's about how smart and beautiful and wonderful you are.

And how much you love plaid.

Oh, and moist towelettes. Don't ever forget about the moist towelettes....

Time Warner Cable v. Drug Pushers

My move has apparently coincided with the loss of my introductory high speed internet rate. It also has apparently coincided with rate increases. They slapped a big ol' package at me without my being aware of it so that now I have HBO, Showtime, Starz! and Cinemax, plus On Demand plus Roadrunner plus DVR, all for a whopping $132 a month. A hundred and thirty-two dollars a month! Well, all I really want is HBO. With DVR I never use my On Demand and I hardly ever watch movies on the other channels. But to only keep HBO, Roadrunner and DVR will cost me $119 a month. One hundred and nineteen dollars a month! So for 13 extra dollars I get three more channels and On Demand.

What I could is drop stuff like the internet, or the DVR or even HBO. But I can't! I'm addicted. And why? Because when I first signed up there were all these wonderful introductory offers and they were cheap! And then they started offering me more features! And I bought more! And then they raised the price, but I couldn't stop. I couldn't get rid of DVR! Do you know how hard it is to watch live TV and not be able to rewind or pause?! Do you?!?! It's so frustrating to be watching someone's provincial, regular TV and be a slave to real-time and predetermined time-slots. You see the problem, don't you? I can't stop. I just can't. And it keeps getting more and more expensive and I keep paying and paying and sooner or later I'm going to realize that 4 premium channels isn't enough and I'm going to have to order a sports package or get a TiVo or something. Because TiVo is smarter than DVR. Actually, I think I do need a TiVo.

See, the thing is, I told myself I could cancel my account at any time, if it got too expensive. But what's too expensive really? In the whole scheme of things. I'm not poor. I can afford it. Maybe not after I buy me an iPod, but I can finance it. Hell, I have good credit. I've got that 20 minute commute now; I need that iPod.....

Oh God. Somebody. Please. Stop. Me. Ah! Amazon! Damn you and your super-saver shipping!!!!

Farewell, Sweet Balcony...

Yesterday I turned in the keys to my apartment. I was there for almost four and half years. That is a very long time. Last night I had some friends over to help me say goodbye and only two of them even knew me before I'd lived there.

There is something extraordinarily monumental about something like this and it seems as if it happened all so fast.

That was my first real apartment. I entered it with a futon and some old Dartmouth posters. I left it with whole living room set and bonafide art. I threw the best party the graduate school has seen in a long time. I threw the best New Year's Eve party I'd ever been to, which included both vomiting and fire. I learned to grill and roll sushi in that apartment. I spent so much time on my balcony that I invested more money on lanterns from Pier 1 than I spent on bedding. I learned the ins and outs of horticulture there (well, more the outs than the ins, as my rotting parsley will attest to). Lisa and I performed "Once More With Feeling" in its entirety in that apartment. With a sword. Sam coated every wall with some form of alcoholic beverage. I came out in that apartment. I changed thesis labs and turned my life around in that apartment.

I fell in love in that apartment.

And I wonder, will that apartment see such levels of debauchery again? Will it's new inhabitants set fire to the window by grilling with an open flame? Will they leave fish on the balcony to rot throughout the winter because they completely forgot about it? Will my beloved Contessa return when spring comes and wonder where I am? Will the new inhabitants hurl objects from seventeen floors, some of them lit? Will the labs at SKI wonder where that guy who used to have blue hair and sunbathe half naked on the balcony went off to?

Well I'll tell you where he went off to. He moved into a pre-war duplex in the East 90s, where he has is first real lease, his first queen bed and his first (and hopefully last) real boyfriend to share it with. I guess I'm moving up in the world, even though I've moved down about 15 stories.

So to say goodbye, here I am (you'd think that's the only shirt I own), and my beautiful view. And if you look closely, you can see the Chrysler Building in all it's glory....

Where Have They Been Hiding?

I've lived in the city for over five years now and when you live and work in a place as bustling and diverse as New York, you tend to see a myriad of people. But one thing I've never really seen before is children. Oh sure, on the weekends you see teenagers playing basketball in the park or young families at brunch. Or at lunch-time you see small kids being strolled by differently shaded nannies, especially here on the UES. But I've never really seen any schoolchildren. You know, pre-teen to teen, hang out at mall, text each other on their Sidekicks kind of schoolchildren. I always knew in the back of mind that they must exist somewhere, just like you know, way deep down, that every time you watch American Idol, Randy is going to look more like a woman than he did in the previous episode until one day the horrible secret will be revealed that he's really Star Jones and you go "Aha! I just knew it!" You know, that kind of nagging suspicion that it is impossible for this city to be inhabited only by multi-ethnic adults and Aryan toddlers. So where are these pre-teens? And do they ever show themselves? I mean, I have seen Kids, so they must be somewhere.

Well I found them. Apparently they only come out in the wee hours of the morning, before I usually get out of bed. And they all travel via the Second Ave bus.

Microsoft Strikes In The Most Unlikely of Places...

So, in case anyone was wondering, my research is on polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), specifically long-chain PUFAs, and they generally come in two varieties, omega-3 or omega-6. The omega means that the first double bond (or first locus of unsaturation) is the third (or sixth) position from the terminal carbon. Carbons are usually named from the head-group, beginning with the alpha carbon, followed by the beta and gamma carbons, etc, but when you're talking about 22 carbons, for example, that gets unwieldy.

Now, if you read the literature, you often see omega-3 or n-3 interchangeably. Now why n, do you ask? I've often wondered that. Classically, omega and n aren't really related. And if you look in the literature, the terminology only changed in the past five or ten years. Before 90s, they are never referred to as n-3 or n-6 fatty acids. What's up with that?

Well, I will tell you. Microsoft apparently doesn't use standard symbol encoding, so when transferring from Word to Adobe or a Postscript printer, omegas magically turn into ns and they are a pain to get back. And somehow, over the years, the fatty acid community has just come to accept the fact that n-3 = omega-3.

Damn you, Microsoft!!!

Gays and Wealth

An idea that is often floated around is that gays, as a group, are wealthier and more successful than the average bear. This is often used by gay supporters as evidence that they will generally make good homes for children, are useful members of society, are more creative, etc, etc. It's also used by the far right to show that gays aren't really an underprivileged class since they do so well financially and occupationally.

But does this mean that gays are actually more successful or that gays who have come out of the closet are more successful? Or, similarly, does one's success help determine the ease with which he can accept his sexuality? Successful people have access to better psychiatric care; they are more prone to live in urban areas, which are more liberal; they tend to have jobs where the barriers to success are no more than women and probably less so; and they tend to be more self-confident due to their current or projected affluence that the negative social and emotional consequences may not affect them as much as if they were in a stifling or confining work environment.

Basically, what I'm getting at is that there may be the same ratio of gay to straight factory workers as gay to straight stockbrokers or academics, it's just that they're not very visible. Although it's hard for me to pinpoint why I'm smarter than the average bear.....

Fine Dining...

This week is Restaurant Week, and so the boy and I decided to have lunch a V as well as Nougatine at Jean-Georges, and what I came out of the experience is that Mr. V prefers his diners to be uncomfortable with no where to comfortable put their feet.

Given that, I have to say that my food was excellent. At V on Monday I started with the celery root and chestnut soup with pancetta, warm and nummy. I followed with the Neiman Ranch steak and sweet potato fripps. The steak came with a delicious carmel soy sauce that was a pleasant blend of savory and sweet and the meat itself was grilled to rare perfection. For dessert, a banana strudel. Simply divine, even if the gold leaf all over the place was a bit tacky.

I much prefered my lunch today at Nougatine, however, even though the tables were even worse for comfort. I started with the parsnip soup, with citrus aspic, tangy croutons and baby cilantro. God I love parsnips. I followed with a breast of chicken in a mushroom glaze over a bed of wild mushrooms, spinach and turnips. Also divine.

Now I'm off to our departmental opening where I hope to get pleasantly smashed on wine so I can forget the fact that my neck has become about half an inch bigger than my collar.

The Sky Isn't Falling!

The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) remains intact, as a Florida judge rejects a lesbian couple's request to have their Massachusetts marriage recognized. If California follows suit , further DOMA challenges will probably be harder to win. I do, however, wonder how the likes of Rick Santorum (spit, spit) will react if New York voluntarily decides to accept them. DOMA's very clear on this; no state can be forced to accept the marriage of another state. It doesn't say they are prohibited from accepting them.

This, of course, means that next to Virginia, Florida has to be the least gay-friendly state in the country. Where are Mrs. and Mrs. Rosie O'Donnell when you need them?

From the Mouths of Babes

Yesterday was the beginning of the so-called "revolution in evolution" in Dover, PA, and thankfully the earth hasn't spun off its orbit yet. So let's see how effective this "revolution" actually was by seeing what the ninth-graders actually thought of the 1 minute long statement about Intelligent Design:

"I really wasn't paying attention."

"If they're going to teach that, then they should teach everything — like Rastafarianism."

"It (the statement) was kind of confusing."

"I feel that, if they (the board of education) are for something, then there should have been discussion allowed. I was wondering why we weren't allowed to ask questions?"

Well ladies and gents, there you have it. The great Intelligent Design revolution. A confusing statement that no one really paid attention to and left the kids more confused than they were to begin with. I guess that's what happens when you let bureaucrats decide what goes into a curriculum....

I Don't Know Whether to Laugh...

... or cry. Or vomit.

I wish I had watched the O'Reilly Factor last night. Bill takes on evolution...

"But, what if it turns out there is a God and He did create the universe and you die and then you figure that out? Aren’t you gonna feel bad that you didn’t address that in your biology class?"

I can't... I mean it's just... I think that...

Shit.

Read the whole thing. Preferably on an empty stomach. And pay careful attention to his argument that human cloning isn't science because it hasn't happened yet...

God and Torture

I was perusing the National Review on-line this afternoon and I read two things that I need to comment on. The first was about George W. Bush and God. It's mostly about how often God is mentioned in presidential inaugural addresses. Mostly....

Despite all this history, if George W. Bush mentions God in his second inaugural, especially in a meaningful way, he can expect to be attacked by those abysmally ignorant of U.S. history, by those clueless as to the real meaning of separation of church and state, by those seeking to expunge any vestige of God from public life.

I, for one, couldn't care less if the president mentions God in a speech and while I'm not terribly ignorant of U.S. history, I think it is very important to hear how he mentions God. Andrew Sullivan, who is sometimes a bit paranoid about these things, has brought up a few points in recent weeks. First, when apparently a GOP insider said "Mitt Romney is going to have a hard time connecting with the social conservative base of the party given his Mormon faith--just a fact of life. For what it's worth..." Second, when Bush himself in an interview said "On the other hand, I don't see how you can be president at least from my perspective, how you can be president, without a relationship with the Lord."

Having faith should not be anathema to holding public office but it shouldn't be a prerequisite. And apparently, to be a Republican now, you have to be of a particular faith because apparently Mitt Romney, who is uber-conservative, will have a hard time getting support because he is Mormon. So, the question I have about God and Bush, when the president mentions God in his inaugural address, how much do the politics of his religion (not his religion itself) affect his public politics? His intentions, not his reference to God, are what is dangerous to a secular society. We shouldn't expunge God from public life but we shouldn't try to get Him involved in politics.

The second article that caught my eye was one defending Alberto Gonzales' testimony during his confirmation hearings....

With the facts separated from hyperbole, Senator Cornyn turned to the substance of Gonzales's legal thinking. The Democrats arranged for a handful of witnesses to criticize Gonzales, but none of them truly refuted (or even rejected) his legal stance. Indeed, the witnesses — a pacifist opposed to the war in Afghanistan altogether and two law deans specializing in international law — seemed, by the conclusion of Cornyn's questioning, to have little argument at all. To the senator's principal question, "Did they agree that all lawful means to gather intelligence likely to save American lives should be permitted?," they all answered affirmatively.

This may all be fine and good; I too believed that Gonzales acted legally. But just because terrorists aren't entitled to the Geneva Convention doesn't mean that they aren't entitled to human rights. I certainly don't believe that the the level of questioning should be kept to name and rank, as the Geneva Convention requires, but we certainly don't need to haggle over how far we can go without actually reaching the level of torture.

We're America. We're supposed to go above and beyond the call of duty. We go above and beyond with foreign aid, with protecting the world from terrorism, with personal freedoms for our own citizens. Shouldn't we be going above and beyond when it comes to preserving human dignity, no matter how ignoble or barbaric the human in question might be? And when did it become un-conservative to care about human rights?

We're either that kid that everyone hates because every teacher loves him and gets straight A's and is captain of the lacrosse team and homecoming king, or we're the kid that everyone hates because he beats all other kids up on the playground and won't share his ball unless he makes up all the rules. Quite frankly I'd rather be hated because I'm generally better than everyone else, not because I carry a bigger stick.

It's Colder Than A...

Witch's tit or a snowman's balls? That was the erudite debate I had last night. In case you don't live here in the City, we've been having unusually warm weather for January. For example, last week we had a day or two in the 60s. The 60s! But yesterday the temperature dropped to the teens, below 0 wind chill. So it was a lot colder than we'd been used to.

So we were walking to the Banshee for an after dinner drink when the subject of how cold it was came up. Jen said it was colder than a snowman's balls; I said it was colder than a witch's tit. We were thus at an impasse. Which was colder? We settled on the snowman's balls but for entirely different reasons. Jen maintained that the witch's tit would be at normal body temperature whereas part of the function of the testes is to maintain a temperature slightly less than 98.6 (95 I think) in order for sperm to be happy. I claimed that a tit would have a much lower temperature than 98.6 because external body temperature is significantly different than internal body temperature. However, a witch's tit is only metaphorically cold whereas the snowman's balls are literally made of snow and ice and would therefore be colder in general.

Now it's your turn: what's colder, a witch's tit or a snowman's balls? And why?

Santorum and Intelligent Design

Don't get me wrong; I have extraordinary little respect for Rick Santorum, if any at all. Which is why I find it fitting that language he adopted when drafting an amendment to the No Child Left Behind Act (which I have less respect for than Santorum) is now being used to defend the constitutionality of teaching Intelligent Design in public schools. To his credit, he doesn't support Intelligent Design, but says:

"I am not an advocate for intelligent design and I do not believe that public schools should be teaching biblical creationism in the science classroom... However, I do believe that evolution should be taught as a theory — not fact. It's important to teach the controversy of evolution so that students fully understand the depth of discrepancies regarding Darwin's evolution theory and the increasing number of respected scientists beginning to question evolution."

I have so many problems with this.

First of all, evolution is taught as a theory. A scientific theory. Which is based on virtually irrefutable facts. A scientific theory is also unifying and predictive. The theory of Intelligent Design is narrowing and predicts nothing scientific. This is not the colloquial definition of a theory. If there is any problem with the teaching of evolution it is that proper scientific definitions and terminology aren't being emphasized.

Second, while it is indeed important to understand the discrepancies regarding Darwin's evolution theory, it is even more important to understand how respected scientists have been modifying and adapting his theory for 140 years and how most of what his original theory predicted has been verified by reputable science. These "respected scientists" that Santorum references are not evolutionists of any kind. And this is important class: They are generally chemists, biochemists or mathematicians. They do not have training nor have they contributed any original research to the field of evolutionary theory or the origins of species. Not one "respected scientist" that has come out in favor of Intelligent Design has ever formally been involved with any research regarding this topic. Got that?

Look, if a judge is seeking expert testimony on the mental state of a defendant, he's going to ask a psychiatrist not a cardiologist. Just because they're both doctors doesn't mean that they can speak with equal weight on specific subjects. So why is it that IDers can't find any scientist who has a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology to come to their defense? I'll let you think of the answer.

Right now, I'm going to get back to chiding Rick Santorum, who is unabashedly Catholic and who should know that the Vatican has formally supported evolution but not Intelligent Design. You don't see the Pope rushing to endorse it so why should our public schools? Come on, Rick! Be a good Catholic! You're so great at keeping the gays from marrying and eroding the culture, why can't you help us keep this obviously fundamental Christian crap-ola out of our schools? You're right, our kids should be encouraged to think independently, but they should also be taught to think correctly.

The Weirdest Compliment I've Ever Received

In an email from a colleague:

So here's the story...you have the greatest blood ever. In particular, you
have kick-ass PMNs. As such, we're going to save you until Olivia needs
blood later this week...

So, in addition to my many other talents and positive qualities I can add "kick-ass PMNs" to the list, whatever that means. New York Blood Center eat your heart out! I got someone that wants to pay me for the greatest blood ever. Boo-ya-ka-sha!

I Am Not Making This Up

Dave Barry, beloved humorist and social commentator, retired from his weekly column last week. I, for one, will sorely miss him. Slate has a nice send off piece, very befitting of someone whose 22 year career was riddle with booger jokes. When I was growing up I used to read his column religiously as well as all his books. He certainly helped define my sense of humor. When I was in high school, I had a brief stint writing a humor column for the newspaper. To say that I borrowed Dave Barry's style would be an understatement. Of course, I was leagues behind him. I do think that some of him has bled into my more satirical writing, such as my intense love-affair with parenthetical comments, as well as his qualifying statements declaring the veracity of his too-funny-to-be-false stories. He's one of the few writers who could consistently make me laugh out loud. Of course, I haven't read him much recently, but I do go back every now and then and pick up one of his books from the eighties or early nineties. Back when he used to be funnier.

More On Dover and ID

The following is the text of the four paragraph statement that will be read to ninth-graders in Dover, Pennsylvania next week, regarding Intelligent Design Theory (my emphasis):

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.

Pay careful attention to the bold-face type. What is my mantra, people? Say it with me, all together: The theory of evolution is not a theory of origin! While the statement is, I believe, technically correct insomuch that Charles Darwin would probably support abiogenesis over divine creation (but he's dead so we can't very much ask him) the modern theory of evolution picks up only after life began. It's a given.

It's bad enough that these poor children have to be put through this crap; it's insult to injury that the clarifying statement is WRONG. Wrong wrong wrong.

I am, however, extraordinarily pleased, pleased to the point of tears, in fact, that all but one of the Dover science teachers wrote a letter of protest requesting to opt out of reading the statement. In the letter they write:

INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT SCIENCE. INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT BIOLOGY.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT AN ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

I believe that if I as the classroom teacher read the required statement,

my students will inevitably (and understandably) believe that

Intelligent Design is a valid scientific theory, perhaps on par with the

theory of evolution. That is not true. To refer the students to "Of Pandas and

People" as if it is a scientific resource breaches my ethical obligation to

provide them with scientific knowledge that is supported by recognized

scientific proof or theory.

Tears, I tell you, tears. I've taught in high school classrooms before and worked closely with teachers. Being a high school teacher is a thankless job. Dealing with administrations and school boards can be one of the most frustrating experiences ever. It can beat you down and just make you accept whatever stupid idea they throw at you because it's easier than rocking the boat. The fact that these eight teachers had the integrity to stand up and identify this idiocy for what it truly is gives me hope for the future. For someone who's life mission is going to protect and strengthen science and science education in this country, it's heartening to know that I don't have to look very far for help.

These teachers are truly unsung heroes, being called saboteurs by the anti-evolutionists. Well I say, when the anti-evolutionists have a theory that can actually hold more water than evolution, bring it on! But until then, go back to church. Or read some Thomas Aquinas.

La Cage Aux Faboolous!

Last night I saw the revival of La Cage Aux Folles at the Marquis Theater. It starred Gary "I Wish I Were Nathan Lane Because Anything He Can Do I Can Do Backward And In Heels" Beach and Daniel "I Was Tony Nominated But All Anyone Can Remember Was That I Was The Butler In The Nanny" Davis. They were (bad drag queen pun alert), ahem, Divine. It really is a touching story. Well, what there is of story, since this is really in the classic vein of the old-school Broadway musical. It's main draw was really a bunch of men in drag performing acrobatics and a kickline that would have put the Rockettes to shame. Oh, and the requisite penis gags.

I was especially pleased that they kept it set in France and that they didn't try to overtly pull any references to the current state of politics and anti-family policies of the current administration. Gary Beach's "I Am What I Am" made me sniffle, although I officially maintain it's my lingering cold. I kept thinking about how it must have been received in 1983; it's not a shy piece. The show is not Jerry Herman's best, but I'd definitely recommend it for the season. Considering the garbage Broadway has been dumping on us lately, it's quite refreshing.

Leeches!

The other night the boy and I decided to use that whole Movies OnDemand feature of my extraordinarily expensive cable. Rather than get something good, like Kill Bill, or professional wrestling, we opted for a B horror movie called Leeches! (complete with exclamation point).

I was not previously a fan of low-budget horror movies but I have since been convinced of their appeal. You see, in Leeches!, the "plot" is as follows: There is a community college swim team who are taking steroids (oh no!) and are fond of walking around in their speedos everywhere and/or taking off their shirts. They are also fond of swimming in the local lake, which has leeches. The leeches are fond of sucking the blood of the swim team and so they end up growing really big (from the steroids, remember) and terrorizing everyone.

So pretty much the movie consisted of slow, pan-up shots of nearly naked Abercrombie models with similar acting skills being sucked dry by giant leeches which were quite clearly hand-puppets. One of the swimmers was a resident biology geek (Abercrombie model with glasses!) who was able to fill in the requisite plot holes with painfully obvious astute scientific concepts.

I think my favorite scene was when one of the swimmers was tied to the bed by his girlfriend who left him there to go get condoms and while she was out, leeches sucked him dry. Of course, the slowly crawled up his nearly naked body while he moaned, thinking it was his girlfriend.

There was, of course, deliciously humorous homoerotic subtext, mostly coming from the overly macho main asshole character, Steve-o, played by some blond with horrible poofy hair who was apparently also played River Garvey Carpenter #4 on One Life to Live. (Now, I don't watch soaps so I don't know exactly who River Garvey Carpenter is or why there needs to be four of him. But there you go.) He also apparently is allowed to do things with Jason that Jason's girlfriend doesn't need to know about.

So, in conclusion, I suggest that you go out and rent Leeches! immediately, especially if you like to see almost naked boys being erotically sucked by leeches in something that is almost, but not quite entirely unlike porn. Of course it would have been so much better if we'd been given even just one butt shot.

Kyrce Swenson Is A Big Fat Whore

WARNING: This post contains very, very, very bad words that should not be read by anyone. Please proceed at your own risk....

If you're name is Kyrce Swenson, and you used to be a filthy, unemployed loser who lived in East Harlem, I have news for you: you are the biggest, wettest cunt in the world. That's right. Kyrce Swenson is the biggest, filthiest cunt in the world. What kind of whorish, filthy cunt sits in her apartment, unemployed for two years while trash and cat filth and moldy, rotting food builds up around her? Kyrce Swenson, that's who! What kind of twat-licking douche breaks eggs in the refrigerator and then doesn't clean them up for six months while they sit and fester and grow new species of mold? If you said "Kyrce Swenson is that kind of douche!" then you'd win a gold star! Because that's the kind of twat-licking douche Kyrce Swenson is. What kind of ass-licking cunt-whore signs a sublease agreement, moves out of town because she hasn't been able to find the perfect socialist, pinko-commie leftist job to suit her nutbag fantasies, and then doesn't resign her lease, even though she had a legal, binding agreement to keep the apartment? That cunt-whore would be none other than Kyrce Swenson. I mean, come on people! How big of a fat, lazy cunt-bag do you have to be to NOT SIGN A PIECE OF PAPER? I guess you could be as fat and lazy a cunt-bag as Kyrce Swenson. Because that's just the kind of cunt-bag action that someone as lazy and whorish as Kyrce Swenson would do. Because in case you didn't know, Kyrce Swenson is a big, fat, lazy, cunt-licking, twat-sucking, worthless piece of horseshit. Just in case you didn't know.

Oh, and if you are Kyrce Swenson, and you are reading this right now, you can go fuck yourself.

More Intelligent Design Hooey

Over at IntellectualConservative.com, Robert Meyer has a thoroughly unoriginal article about intelligent design. In it, he (or course) winds up comparing scientists' committal to the theory of evolution as "blind religious faith" and goes on to lament that one can't "convey honest skepticism without banishment." And this is what is wrong with this entire debate, if we can even call it a debate. How are we ever going to get anywhere in this discussion if we can't get past name-calling and false comparisons. Here's part of the passage that really struck me:

It seems curious, though, that some evolutionists and non-theists, such as Stephen J. Gould and Francis Crick, were not comfortable with the classical Darwinian paradigm of gradual changes via natural selection. Both came up with theories of origin, which made the need for intermediate types a non-factor.

First of all, and I cannot stress this point enough, Darwinism is not a theory of origin! Get that, people? The theory of evolution is not about the origin of life but the origin of species, the diversity of life on earth.

Second, note who Meyer evokes as supporters of evolution: Gould and Crick. Atheists. Naturalists. Hawkins often comes up as well. He's pretty much an atheist too. Do you know who doesn't come up ever by proponents of Intelligent Design as an example of an evolution supporter? The Pope. Or any other scientist who believes in evolution and God. The Discovery Institute, the major funder of ID "research" has one atheist. How often do you think they mention him? So often that you'd think he's the only atheist in the world that believes in ID (probably because he is). But how often to you here them talk about all of the thousands of scientists whose faith, true faith in God, isn't shaken by the notion that we might have evolved from apes? The hundreds of thousands, no, millions of people in the world who have absolutely no problem with evolution and still believe in God? Never, ever mentioned.

He continues to lament the fact that he perceives the debate as being loaded in favor of evolution:

We must also denounce the farce of objectivity. Science is supposed to take you where the evidence leads, and must have a patina of skepticism about it. Yet how many evolutionists are rooting for the universe to be a specific way, namely without an ultimate purpose or meaning.

Well now, Mr. Meyer, that's a totally different question, isn't it? The world being full of purpose or meaning? That's philosophy. He's correct to point out that people who use evolution as proof of the non-existence of God are overstepping the bounds of what science can tell us and are approaching religious dogmatism. But just because some people are misinterpreting what the theory of evolution can tell us doesn't mean that we need to replace it with one that has significantly less (if any) scientific credibility.

Happy Third of the Month!

If you can even call it that. Happy, I mean. Of course it's the Third of the Month. I've been up since six. Six! In the morning! Fuck New Year's resolutions; I much prefer my beauty sleep. Today is supposed to for me, me, me and I'm tired, tired, tired. But not as grouchy as some people I know who are quitting smoking against their will. But that, I say, is the best way to celebrate yourself; treat your body right!

That's why I'm going to sleep by nine tonight. Because I deserve it after my illness ridden holiday.....

Go moist towelettes!

Requiem For a Cop

As most of you probably know, Jerry Orbach passed away a few days ago. Me, I was heart-broken. He was, in short, a New York institution. He was the reason I watched Law and Order. In college, I once planned a Jerry Orbach movie marathon (although I can't remember if it actually happened). May he not be forgotten. Nobody puts Jerry in a corner. Nobody.

Hello, It's Winter!

That's kind of how I feel about the term "Season's Greetings". It's extraordinarily impersonal and actually downright stupid. That's why I'm happy the boy and I had a Christmas (not Holiday) party a few weekends ago. I don't mean to make anyone feel out of place or anything, but 'tis the season. And it's not like Christmas can't be appreciated by everyone. Heck, I usually celebrate Bastille Day and I don't have an ounce of French in me.

But regardless of whether or not you are a godless heathen who can't stand the thought of someone genuinely wishing you well, today I give you permission to say "Season's Greetings". Because today is, um, the first day of winter. Hello, Winter!

And Season's Greetings!

Not So Unique Insight...

It's interesting that many of the same groups that insist that we "teach the controversy" over evolution also support abstinence-only sex-ed programs. It's as if it's ok to expose children to differing opinions on science but only one opinion on sex. Hmm.

Hail Holy Queen...

Ave Maria gratia plena Dominvs tecvm
Benedicta tv in mvlieribvs
Et benedicta frvctvs ventri tvi, Iesvs
Sancta Maria, mater dei
Ora pro nobis pecatoribvs
Nvnc et in ora mortis nostrae

Once a year I get to fully indulge in goddess-worshiping paganism. The Feast of the Immaculate Conception is my favorite church holiday because Mary, um, kicks ass. Protestants just don't understand. To be sure, there is a lot more subtlety to Marian theology than Dan Brown might have you believe, and us good Catholics can easily tell the difference between goddess-worship of the divine feminine and Marian devotion. No matter what science or the lavendar mafia might be trying to do, we all have a mother, even the Son of Man. Ours might not be as chaste or as gentle or as sinless as the Blessed Virgin, but she helped make us who we are and we should be proud.

Happy Third of the Month!

What have you got to feel good about today? Me, I'm going to be getting on a plane to Pittsburgh this afternoon. Whoopee! I'm hoping it's going to be as exciting as Queer As Folk makes it out to be. Somehow, however, I'm guessing not so much.

But I'm not going to let that get me down! No sirree bob! Me, I'm looking on the bright side. It's the holiday season. We need to cheer up and spread joy and love. When you think about all the troubles in the world and you don't know what to do, just look around to see a child without a friend, and you'll know it's up to you to set a good example for the years that lie ahead. Remember, "suffer the little children" is what the Bible said! Save the children! Save the children!

Wow. That was a, um, wow. So anyway, today of all glorious days, we need a little Christmas. When the little baby Jesus comes, he wants to know that you love yourself, because in loving yourself, you can better love others. "And a little child shall lead them" is what the Bible said! Just as I shall lead you, every Third of the Month, toward the ultimate expression of your true wondrousness!

And moist towellettes.

Oh, and I finally remembered to wear plaid today.

Disgusting, Absolutely Disgusting

I cannot begin to articulate how absolutely repugnant and nauseating this incident in Louisiana is. Scroll down to read the "Student Behavior Contract" a seven-year-old had to sign because he explained to a classmate that his mother was a lesbian. And the teacher is suing the mother for defamation!! Pro-family, my fucking ass.....

Fisking Intelligent Design

An article, by Robert Meyer at American Daily, came across my desk recently that, in my mind, sums up the problems that arise when we try to debate evolution. It illustrates several of the misconceptions about evolutionary theory as well as exposes some of the rhetorical defenses anti-evolutionists stand behind, especially the concept of "elitism". It is important to fisk it in its entirety.

As the debate over Intelligent Design vs. evolutionary theory tends to

flair up now and again, it is important to register some observations

about the nature of the controversy.

Darwinian evolution, or at least some contemporary derivative

of it, is the predominant, if not the exclusive view of origin taught

in public school. To justify such deference, we note that presumed

intellectuals will smugly characterize any opposition as an argument of

science versus superstition, or the like.

First of all, Darwinian evolution is not a "view of origin" the way the author intends (and his readers will assume) it to be; it is the predominant view of the origin of speciation, not the origin of life. The scientific view on the origin of life is called abiogenesis, the hypothesis that life arose via chemical reactions from non-living material. Abiogenesis is much less supported than evolution, is not taught as fact in schools (or if it is, it should not be) and has little to do with Darwinism. It is important that this distinction be understood before a proper debate can ensue.

Secondly, we see that in the second paragraph the author has already characterized evolutionists as "intellectuals" who are "smug" and think of all other arguments as merely "superstition". If anti-evolutionists want evolutionists to respect their opinions, they should respect ours.

This proposition of science in contrast to theology, philosophy or

superstition sets up the classic false dilemma. Consider the statement

that the only valid knowledge is that which can be empirically

verified.

This is the first misleading statement that anti-evolutionists often make, that science is in contrast to philosophy or theology. And the author, below, will embrace his false dilemma as willingly as he tries to condemn it. The only valid scientific knowledge is that which can be empirically verified. We gain human knowledge from many aspects of our lives. There are theological truths that require certain criteria to be valid. But truth cannot contradict truth; that is, knowledge of our human existence gleaned from theology and philosophy cannot contradict nor be contradicted by knowledge gleaned from science. Evolution says nothing about our soul or our morality, nor should it.

It must be ascertainable through the five-senses, testable,

observable, subject to falsification. If not, then such information is

basically unintelligible and meaningless. We ask how many of these

categories are representative of evolutionary theories? Who has

observed the evolutionary theories we casually postulate with little

mental reservation? Who has replicated Evolution in the laboratory.

Evolutionary theory was not, and is not, casually postulated. Darwin came up against great opposition when it was first proposed. The evidence for the theory, now more than before, is overwhelming. But even more glaring is the author's misconception of what is testable and observable. In order for things to be tested in a laboratory they do not need to be completely replicated. We do not need to recreate a heart to know that it beats and pumps blood. "Replicated" is of course a deliberate word choice, because while evolution hasn't been replicated it most certainly has been observed. It is observed daily by scientists working in fields of genetics, physiology, biochemistry, paleontology, practically every life science field.

Whenever the fossil record is presented as a witness against evolution,

we see retooling of the processes, but never doubt about the

plausibility of the theory itself. How would Evolution be falsified if

indeed it could be? Reasonable questions–but don’t dare to ask them

without being quickly branded a stark-raving mad fundamentalist. If

both ID and Evolution are metaphysical theories, why give one

consideration over the other with a virtual monopoly?

To my knowledge the fossil record has never been presented as a witness against evolution. To be certain, there are gaps in the fossil record. Bu these "reasonable questions" are indeed being asked by scientists, and answered by scientists. Simply because evolutionary theory doesn't answer every single question now doesn't mean that it never will. In fact, the more scientists search, the more these "gaps" in the fossil record are filled in by consistant, plausible data. Evolution is not metaphysical; interestingly enough neither is ID. It's also very clear that this author has never actually studied ID or he would know that ID is a biochemical hypothesis for an intelligent creator, not a paleontological one and therefore invoking gaps in the fossil record is a red herring. So I will pose my own "reasonable" biochemical question; if irreducibly complex biological structures are evidence of a planned design, how do ID proponents explain the unused, primitive, useless genes that are peppered throughout the genome of every organism?

That brings us to the issue of academic freedom. It is applauded when

it is used to question the boundaries of conventional morality, it is

sneered at when it is applied in opposition to the presuppositions of

orthodoxy pertaining to scientific naturalism. We are told that few

“credible” scientists doubt Evolution. Maybe that’s because few

scientists who are skeptical of Evolution are perceived as “credible”.

One is indicative of the other. When your career is threatened, it is

easy to be swallowed up in “groupthink” and consensus. Doubting

Evolution might make one a “yokel”, but it still won’t solve the many

independent problems of evolutionary theories.

Now we see that the author is embracing the false dilemma that he earlier chided. By using the terms "orthodoxy", "naturalism" and "doubting" he places evolution in terms of metaphysical philosophy. But it is not. Some scientists do embrace scientific naturalism as a worldview. Let them. It's not necessary to understanding and accepting evolution. Not believing evolution. No one believes in evolution; they either accept science or reject science, preferably on its merits. No one believes in the theory of gravitation (which ironically is less understood scientifically than evolution). No one believes in the theory of relativity. The question is, are you going to let accept or reject evolution or ID based on its scientific merits? One might take evolution and use one's understanding of it to formulate a naturalistic philosophy of life. But in no way does that take away from the validity of evolution as a scientific theory.

We wonder what it is that evolutionists fear? If they are correct on

the basis of overwhelming scientific evidence, then comparisons with

competing theories of origin will fold like a deck of cards.

Interesting. We don't fear anything other than bad science. I hate to break it to the author, but ID has folded like a deck of cards. Those uncourageous scientists who cave to "groupthink"? They don't exist. Any serious examination of ID, and it folds. The scientific community has thoroughly debunked ID. Which is why we don't want it taught in schools. When another valid, better theory comes along to replace the perfectly good one that we have, then we'll teach it. There are a few people in this country who believe the earth is flat. Should they be given equal time to the round-earthers?

But they don’t want such comparative analysis to take place. You see,

these Intelligent Design theories sound convincing to people who don’t

understand the technicalities, principles and nuances that preoccupy

enlightened minds. That is part of the reason given for the poor

showing by Evolutionists in their debates with Ceationists. You might

think they would realize that there are only so many people of 160 plus

IQ’s on the far reaches of the Bell Curve. It is hard to build a

movement on a body of thought that is so esoteric. But folks have a way

of stumbling over their own hubris. What they want is to have their own

oligopoly of philosopher-kings to reign in the ignorant throngs of

rabble.

And that is where anti-evolutionist really annoy me; the accusation of the hubris of the educated elite. I wouldn't presume to tell my doctor what was wrong with me because I'd watched a few episodes of ER. I trust that he knows more about medicine than I do. Sure, I don't get the "technicalities, principles and nuances that preoccupy" his "enlightened mind", but I think he knows a bit more about it than I do. So when a group of trained mathematicians tell you that all the information theory supporting intelligent design, laid out by a man who has never published a single peer-reviewed article in a reputable (or even disreputable) mathematics journal, and whose book was reviewd by philosophers not mathematicians, is wrong and that you are being misled, it is not merely because evolution is esoteric and they want their own oligopoly of philosopher-kings; we teach evolution in schools because we want the masses to not be ignorant. Pretending that ID is valid science would keep them ignorant.

Recently, a popular local editorial writer, saw fit to compare intelligent design with Egyptian mythology, featuring a god who masturbates the universe into existence. And yet don’t non-Creationists have their own counterpart in the ludicrous propositions of “panspermia” theories? Personally I don’t have the faith to believe that a universe of impersonal matter created itself out of nothing, and then evolved into meaning, purposefulness, logic and reason.

It seems that the promulgation of evolutionary theories have little to do critical thinking, and more to do with eliminating any considerations about the implications of the Creator’s existence.

And finally we return to the original false assumption, that evolution eliminates any considerations about a divine creator. Evolution eliminates any considerations that God created man de novo by scultping him out of clay. Science informs only one aspect of our lives; theology informs another. Evolution is not abiogenesis and evolution does not exclude a creator. People who support ID are uncomfortable about evolution because they think it calls into question their purpose and spark of divinity. Evolution denies the existence of a soul only if you let it. We shouldn't give it more power than it should have.

Guess Who's Done...

... with all their Christmas shopping with 24 days to spare. Go ahead. Guess....

Things That Piss Me Off

I haven't blogged in awhile because I've been busy with the holidays and my birthday (turning 27 was a real drag). I just spent two afternoons in a row teaching high school students the wonders of DNA profiling and they kept calling me mister. Godammit. I am so not that old. So during break time I had to bond with them over [adultswim]. Until it was time to talk again and then I had to make them turn off their computers and be quiet. I felt so frickin' old.

Now, I'm pissed off because my tech didn't change the nitrogen tank last week because he's an idiot even though he was told and now I'm out of nitrogen and can't do any work. You'd think that that would be a good thing but no it just pisses me off because I was supposed to work all night.

You know what also pisses me off? Intelligent Design. It's so frickin' stupid. I've been working on a workshop using evolution and intelligent design to illustrate correct and incorrect uses of the scientific method. I thought all the research I did was going to make me more informed and able to better articulate how idiotic "creation science" is. But no. It's just made me angrier that there are such ignorant, stupid people in the world. Just read this idiotic display of, well, idiocy by Kelly Holowell, quite possibly the world's worst scientist. Is it possible, just possible that the Jews decided to circumcize their boys at 8 days because they noticed that they bled a lot if they didn't wait that long, instead of the other way around? How does this crap get published? And repeated? People can't have brains this small. It's not possible.

And Pakistan! Pakistan pisses me off. Check out Bernard Henri Levy's book Who Killed Daniel Pearl? and you'll see what I mean. Ally my ass. It's unbelievable that this book, or the role of the ISI (Pakistan's shadow government) and al-Qaida in everything bad happening in the world, hasn't gotten more American press. Actually, scratch that. It's not unbelievable. It's par for the course for a country as wacked as this one. Do you realize that not one major Hollywood director has publicly denounced the murder of Theo van Gogh? Not one.

Why? Why are there so many stupid people in the world? Why?....

What To Watch

Well, I've been doing a pretty good job of staying off of political blogs lately. This could be that I've been busier at work. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with will-power. But regardless I've decided to take this moment, post-election, post-World Series, to educate you all on what you should be watching on television, since I have DVR and can pretty much watch everything all at once, in whatever order I feel like it.

First, let's start with non-reality television. I have this inkling that reality television is increasing the quality of writing on the small screen, due to a decreased supply and increased demand (although not if you turn on ABC, where any day of the week you can see some mediocre sitcom with fat husband doing something incompetant and a skinny, beautiful wife berating him until he threatens to send her to the moon). So this season be sure to check out some goodies:

Arrested Development started its second season last week, and it is better than ever. An impeccable cast, completely with sharp writing and new twists on classic sitcom tropes (and no annoying laugh-track) makes this appointment television for Sunday nights. Look for Justine Bateman guest starring as a love-interest for Michael (her real-life brother, Jason Bateman). Trust me, hilarity will ensue. But if that doesn't float your boat, Portia di Rossi is still America's hottest real-life lesbian.

After that, take a quick jump to HBO, home of the best original programming on cable television, and tune into the third season of The Wire, by far the best show on television ever. Ever. Ever. Don't worry about catching up. Just watch it and get immersed into the seedy underworld of drugs, sex and politics. In Baltimore! If, however, you are a purest and you do need some background, Season One just came out on DVD. Buy it. Or buy it for me for my birthday. Season Two, while just as good as the rest, takes a side-trip into the world of drug smuggling, and so not much plot is advanced with regards to our favorite hot street dealer Stringer Bell and his soldiers, so you can skip it if you're just concerned with continuity.

Next, take a jaunt over to Comedy Central where South Park began its 9th season right before the election. Oh yeah, those boys are back, hot off of Team America and ready for poignant real-world satire. All I have to say is Giant Douche v. Turd Sandwich. And while you're there, you might want to stick around for Drawn Together, ostensibly a "Big Brother"-esque cartoon. In actuality, it's less a reality-show satire than absurdist pop-culture parody a la Adult Swim on the Cartoon Network (unfortunately Sealab 2021 is on hiatus). But it's not that bad.

Ok, now we jump into Thursdays, which has always been must see TV. But gone is the angsty nihilist humor of the 90s. Joey is, ironically, too smart for all that. No, instead you should start your night on the channel that began with trashy, racy soap opera and will no doubt die with it. That's right, kiddies, the OC has moved to Thursdays! And after you get your fix of attractive, back-stabbing teens, surf on over to NBC and watch attractive, back-stabbing businessmen and -women. My money's on Jen M. all the way!

And lastly, but not leastly, if you have the joys and wonders of DVR, or even HBO On Demand, postpone The Wire for a bit and check out My Big Fat Obnoxious Boss. Critics be damned, I laughed my ass off. Especially if you like The Apprentice. At least those contestants have some modicum of respectablity. But watching a bunch of mid-level ass-kissers praise the amazing quality of shitty champagne and being served ground-up Spam passed off as duck liver pate, you'll never look at reality television the same way again. If it continues to be this funny, I'll rank it right up there with The Joe Schmo Show.

So there you have it. If it's Sunday, Wednesday or Thursday, you know what I'm doing with my time. Hey, I spend $100 a month on cable; I might as well get my money's worth....

I Am A Weak Man

Last week I made a vow to stop paying attention to politics right after the election; that I would take a hiatus until the next one, or Christmas, whichever came first. Of course, I was secretly hoping that this election would last until then so I wouldn't have to stop indulging. Well, it didn't. And I've been indulging left and right since then. Someone, please stop me. Take away my internet connection. Destroy my cable. Do something to help me! I tried watching Katie Couric on Today this morning. They had two actors on from two shows I've never watched before. Apparently they were guest starring on each others' respective television programs. I couldn't take it. I had to keep flipping to Fox News. Last night, I even turned off the TV and read a book. A book! That had nothing to do with politics! Until I couldn't take it anymore and turned on the Daily Show.

Please. I'm begging you. Someone. Help me. I fear I might fall into a quagmire of talking points and punditry, a deep pit of nothingness from which I might have no hope of escaping......

Happy Third of the Month!

Well, kiddies, today is a perfect day to celebrate the Third of the Month in earnest! If you were like me you've saturated yourself with the election for the past year, and now you're glad that it is finally over. You may be happy with the results, especially if you don't care about your own civil liberties. Or you may be saddened by the results, especially if you don't like this new brand of theo-conservatism that's sweeping the electorate. Or you might be indifferent towards the results because you have the emotional IQ of a lemur. It doesn't matter. What matters is that under no circumstances should you let any outside force stop you from enjoying yourself.

No matter who you voted for at your local polling place yesterday, when it comes to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, you should have voted for yourself. And unlike yesterday, you don't only get to vote once. Today you can vote for yourself as often as you like. In fact, the more you vote for yourself, the happier you'll be. I guarantee it. You might even get someone else to vote for you. That's always fun.

So pull out your plaid, root around for those moist towellettes and exercise your right to Third of the Month, until a Bush appointed Supreme Court takes it all away...

376,000 Strong And Growing...

Every candidate I voted for yesterday lost. Howard Mills (GOP) for Senate. Anton Srdonovic (GOP) for Congress. And Michael Badnarik (Lib) for President. But Badnarik did get 376,000 votes nationwide, more than the Green and Constitution parties combined. Maybe someday a little fiscal responsibilty and secular conservatism will rub off on the GOP and return it to the glory days. I know, I know. But here's hopin'!

A Good Day For Stupid People

And no, I'm not talking necessarily about people who voted for Bush. He's got his bad points but so does Kerry. I'm talking about why people voted for Bush. According to exit polls, 25% of the voters rated "moral values" as their number one reason for voting. And who did you think they voted for? Bush. But why? Abortion? All Bush does is pay lip service to pro-lifers. Stem cell research? Forgetting that the president probably shouldn't have the authority to decide what does and does not get funded, again all he really did was pay lip service to those opposed. A symbolic act that has done nothing except cripple the budding ESC research industry. The war? Even the Vatican, the benchmark of all that is good and holy, has condemned it as an unjust war. The death penalty? I'm not even touching that one. Gay marriage? Ok, you got me there. Even though at the last minute Bush said he'd support civil unions....

But there are more stupid people out there! Let's check them out:

Young People. Hey, young people. Yeah, you who might have to be drafted or who might not get all your social security benefits or who might have to grow up in a world run by theocratic islamofascist fundamentalists (whatever particular way you lean). Yeah, you. You couldn't get off your stoned asses for one goddamn day to vote? When you finally do get off your asses, you're going to wonder how you ever inhereted this fucked-up world. Good job, young people. Your apathy makes me proud. And speaking of stoned slackers, that brings me to...

Alaska! Hey, you guys, up in that big-ass frozen wasteland. You voted to not legalize pot??? What are you thinking? It's not like you have anything better to do with your 3 hour long days than to smoke weed. Give me a break. Think of all the tourism you'd get! All those hot college chicks looking to score some reefer and have a shag. And it's not like you don't do it already. A friend of mine from college used to smoke up with her mayor. Her mayor! Sheesh.... But now we move on to...

South Dakota. Hey, you guys, up there in that squarish state with that funky mountain of presidents. Yeah, you. You idiots were represented by the Senate Minority leader. That's right, your po-dunk little nothing of a state was represented by the most powerful Democrat in Congress. Got that? The most powerful Democrat in Congress. And you voted him out. Why? Why would you do such a thing? Because he wasn't Catholic enough? Because he was a slimey, weasly two-faced politician? Actually, I really don't care. It doesn't matter. You voted out the MOST POWERFUL DEMOCRAT IN CONGRESS. You think anyone's going to give a shit about South Dakota now? Congratulations! You've just successfully voted your state into complete federal obscurity. Way to go, South Dakota!

And speaking of losing incumbants, right here in New York, veteran State Senator Olga Mendez (GOP) lost to Jose Serrano (Dem) by a margin of 5 to 1. Olga Mendez was a senator for over 25 years! Yes, that's right, a very powerful representative from New York City was voted out. A very powerful Republican representative in a Republican controlled Senate that is generally very hostile to us city dwellers and never wants to give us money. Guess who was getting us a lot of what we needed? Olga Mendez. Guess who, as a freshman senator is going to get us nothing? Go ahead, guess... Why, New Yorkers, why can't you get your heads out of your asses for one goddamn minute and realize that sometimes it is not beneficial to have a racially coveted minority as your representative and that not all Republicans are bad? Why?? Why do you do such things? Why? And of course, lastly....

Homophobes. That's right, you asswipes who voted for 11 of 11 amendments to ban gay marriage. Not those of you who voted for it because you don't like social engineering or genuinely believe you are protecting marriage, no I disagree with you but you can have that opinion. I'm talking about you assholes who gave into the fear-mongering of the actual homophobes who are afraid (ie the "phobe") of gays, afraid that legalizing gay marriage will lead to Bible-banning and priests being arrested and the entire ruin of civilization. Why? Why are you so stupid? Why do you let irrational, bigoted fear plague your thoughts and corrupt your actions? And why don't you want me to be happy and well-adjusted? But don't worry. We're going to get ours. Especially you guys up there in Michigan and Ohio. Those amendments are going down! Because we have a secret weapon. No, it's not a powerful culture-eroding ray broguht on by gential-anal contact. No, we've got something more powerful than that...

Old People! Come on AARP! Show us what you've got!

Why You Can't Argue With Conservatives

Out of the dozen or so states that have anti-marriage equality amendments on the ballot today, most of the focus (monetary and otherwise) has been with Oregon and Measure 36, because it seems to have the best chance of not passing. So in an attempt to prove my point about being unable to argue against gay marriage without using horrible talking points and catchphrases, I bring you....

I Won't Be Redefined Dot Com.

Um, homo say what? First of all this attempt to be edgy and appeal to a younger crowd is fucking ridiculous. Just look at their video. First of all, they have some horrible emo/christian rock band with a "cute" spelling of their name, Kutless, for their background ("I am not what you see, oh no / Not much more than a slave I wish to be", which if it had been sung by Xtina, the religious right would have had a field day, but that is a whole other topic of discussion). They also have faux-hip retro-lettering. Pulling out all the stops, I see...

So anyway, the video starts out with young, hip kids being interviewed about how they, as the church, have failed homosexuals in many ways (aw, thanks guys) but obviously voting "no" to this measure is not the way to "show that we care." Uh-huh. So how exactly is it that you're going to show us that you care? Keep us from making the mistake of getting married, obviously. And really, it isn't the church's fault. "I personally don't think you should bring politics into the church but what do you do when a moral issue becomes political?" Uh, yeah, thank you guy with the tacky Justin Timberlake hat.

But let's talk purpose. Let's talk 5000 years of history. Let's talk the woman in the oh-so-1993 glasses and her oh-so-articulate observation that God "purposed [men and women] to have a destiny together" as she gazes lovingly into her dopey boyfriends eyes. You just know that these two are "promise keepers" and, while they've never technically had sex, she's probably sucked more dick than I have.

Oh, but of course, it isn't all about what God created us for and for the happiness of heterosexuals. It is important for the bi-racial couple holding two very beautiful children to not have to explain the intricacies of life to their three-year-old. Because, oh, actual parenting is too difficult and apparently their moral convictions aren't strong enough to survive two queers getting married, not to mention the fact that this asswipe should shut his mouth because if it weren't for some minorities trying to "redefine [his] culture" then he wouldn't be married to his little blonde wife, now would he? Would he? No! Stop! Sodom Sodom Sodom!!! Ok, back to the video...

Now let's talk civil rights. Apparently, sexual preference isn't a civil right. The idea of the gay gene has been totally rejected by the medical community, says the little raver boy, so you aren't born gay. Uh-huh. Can I get some statistics there buddy boy? Or at least your phone number? (Stop it! Bad Michael!) Maybe nobody told him that, um, the entire medical community hasn't rejected the idea. Or that pre-natal and post-natal environmental factors predispose one towards homosexuality and that just cause their ain't a gene, don't mean it's a choice. Just ask Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian...

But what's been missing so far is how to the blacks feel about this being called a civil rights issue? Bingo! Cue black woman! Of course she and her older relatives are appalled that gays are making that comparison! Appalled! Because didn't you know that the NAACP tradmarked civil rights back in 1964 and no one other than the almighty African-American is truly discriminated against!

But wait! There is another group that stands to be marginalized! It's not the blacks! It's not the gays! No, it's the religious! Cue token accusation of Bible banning: "Scripture could become illegal and outlawed." "Portions of the Bible will be declared as hate literature!" "Maybe I could go to jail someday if I don't [marry two homosexuals]." And if that's not enough fear-mongering for you, the opposition has also recruited young adults to drop out of college to slump for their cause of gay marriage! They're taking your children out of school for this!

And then, three quarters of the way into it, just as we're getting close.... bam! Money shot! "We can't let 2% of the population redefine marriage for us." Cue screen-filling shot of slow-waving American flag and patriotic sounding Chrisitan rock! But wait! We get bonus multiple angle footage! Cue emotional speech ending in idiotic platitude: "If you don't stand up for something you'll fall for anything!" Boo-yah!

Let's fade out with some audio of inspired Christian rock about being a "history maker," followed by the voice of the large crowd singing along and clapping in unison! Kumbaya! I WON'T BE REDEFINED!

Ok, fine. I won't redefine you. I'll keep defining you as an irrational, backwater, oppressive, fundamentalist crackwhore like I always have. Excuse me now, while I go watch the election results with some other godless sodomites, and as I tear at the delicate connective tissues of society, I'll be sure not to redefine you into anything that sounds like you might have an original or rational thought....

If I Were In A Swing State...

... I think that this election would have actually paralyzed me. But I'm done. I've exercised my rights as a citizen of the greatest country on the planet and now all that's left to do is to sit back and wait. And wait. And wait. And wait.

So get out there and get your vote on! Or I forbid you to enjoy the Third of the Month tomorrow...

-----

A Modest Challenge

Every issue has its talking points and catchphrases. I would like to see an honest, well-thought out challenge to gay marriage without using the phrases "redefining marriage," "judicial activism," "judicial elites," or "traditional marriage," or any derivation thereof. I mean, seriously, judicial elites? Talk about spin...