Marriage amendment

Bush said the following during tonight's State of the Union address:

"Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage."

1. State of the Union Transcript

Marriage is a sacred institution? Secular marriages are commonplace; divorce rates are at record highs. What is the threat that same-sex marriages pose to our society?

Furthermore, is the president implying that non-traditional marital practices are a threat to the "foundation of society"? Is hearing "Mr. and Mr. Smith" or "Mrs. and Mrs. Johnson" that blasphemous? Will modern society crumble upon hearing such things?

But more importantly, what business does a clarification of marriage have being enacted in the form of a constitutional amendment? Aren't controversial social issues best left up to the community and state respectively?

The heat of 2005

A manifestation of global warming?
1. Greenhouse gases blamed for making 2005 hottest year to date

And if this is true, there is something seriously wrong:
2. Climate expert says NASA bids to muzzle him: report

Icelandic sustainable energy

1. Iceland the First Country to Try Abandoning Gasoline

The partisan mind: emotion over reason

1. Emory study reveals the political brain
2. Political opinions based on emotion, not reason

Silent Hill movie poster

I was somewhat excited for the upcoming Silent Hill movie (thinking that it would be good and right the travesties that were Resident Evil, Alone in the Dark, and Doom), but then I saw this:


If someone isn't familiar with the series, this is awful advertising. If someone is familiar with the series, this is awful advertising. I'm practically a diehard fan and I kind of don't want to see the movie just because of that poster.

Update 3/20:


Why oh why didn't they go with this? This image practically guaranteed that I would buy the ticket to see it in theaters. I imagine it would do the same for anyone who has played Silent Hill 2.

Oh, also:


1. Read my lips: A film poster inspires self-expression

Seems New Yorkers can't resist putting on a happy face. Everything from simple smileys to huge, gap-toothed grins to O-shaped pouts have appeared on the mouthless mug of 11-year-old actress Jodelle Ferland, who co-stars in the film, opening next Friday.

This world of ours 1

As we enter a "golden age of planetary space exploration", we are finding that people are of lesser intellectual capacity soon after waking than when sleep deprived.
1. A new golden age of space exploration
2. Sleep study is unwelcome wake-up call

Meanwhile, the use of plastic bags in Rwanda has been made unlawful, and global warming has encouraged the spread of a fungal disease that is bringing many species of amphibians close to extinction.
3. Rwanda gets tough on plastic bags
4. Climate Change Drives Widespread Amphibian Extinctions

In politics, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf recently became the first female president of Liberia (and the first in Africa), Cambodia's prime minister did something kind of weird, Australia defends it's uranium trade with China, and violence is Sri Lanka escalating. UN secretary general Kofi Annan doesn't believe that a return to war in Sri Lanka will resolve any differences between the the government and rebels. Oh, and the US military released 500 Iraqi prisoners, some of them journalists.
5. Liberia's 'Iron Lady' takes helm of country in chaos
6. Cambodia frees critics as 'gift' to US
7. Australia Will Start Talks Today on Uranium Exports to China
8. Sri Lanka remains in a violent limbo precariously close to war
9. UN cautions Sri Lanka against return to war
10. U.S. Military Frees 500 Iraqi Prisoners

O, this world of ours— a tangled, intertwining web of actions and events.

The mighty wombat

"Irresponsible debate" and the role of war-time propaganda

President Bush said the following Tuesday:

"The American people know the difference between responsible and irresponsible debate when they see it. They know the difference between honest critics who question the way the war is being prosecuted and partisan critics who claim that we acted in Iraq because of oil or because of Israel or because we misled the American people...

I ask all Americans to hold their elected leaders to account and demand a debate that brings credit to our democracy — not comfort to our adversaries"

1. Bush Sees 'Irresponsible Debate' Over War in Iraq
2. Bush to Democrats: Don't slam Iraq policy
3. Democrats ignore Bush's advice
4. WH Press Briefing: McClellan Calls Dean's War Critique "Irresponsible"

(Article #4 captures the conflict of opinion fairly well.)

In context, I think this plea is for Democrats to not resort to hyperboles and misinformation regarding the war in Iraq in order to secure votes. It hurts morale and ultimately doesn't work in our favor for the war ahead (elections, public opinion, etc.). I agree with it in that sense.

The one sour note that I'm hearing, however, is in bold:

They know the difference between honest critics who question the way the war is being prosecuted and partisan critics who claim that we acted in Iraq because of oil or because of Israel or because we misled the American people

In what way is that a necessarily partisan claim? I think it is a completely legitimate argument on the part of the Democrats, it targets the administration's credibility-- and with some reasonable cause. If the other two cases (oil and Israel) grow to claims beyond speculation, I think that they should be considered as well. To not address these concerns in the discourse of the public and media would discredit our democracy- regardless of their implications overseas.


You know what else is probably un-democratic? This.
1. U.S. Military Covertly Pays to Run Stories in Iraqi Press

And arguably this.
1. US Army worried about Blogs
2. U.S. military 'shuts down' soldiers' blogs


prop·a·gan·da: The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

The question is whether or not the end justifies the means. I can see the argument go both ways. Freedom of speech or security? The last thing that we want to do is seem inauthentic and oppressive... or to give away information to benefit the insurgents. I personally think that we should draw the line where expression isn't restricted unless it has direct repercussions. So, if a blog reveals classified information or has photos that reveal locations, it could justifiably be censored. But if it is censored because it paints a grim image to people back home who will, in turn, look at the war in a less favorable light, it is wrong.

If someone looks at the war differently after reading a blog, it's not a bad thing. It's simply a renewed evaluation of whether or not what we're doing is really worth it, and if one believes the war is truly worth it, they'll stand by their evaluation . To manipulate (i.e. restrict, supplant) the public view is wrong because it prevents people from making up their minds based on the best available information (since they are only exposed to one side of the story). If the state determines that the war is just and therefore justifies "propaganda" (i.e. manipulated expression, information) under the pretense that it will improve the situations of the war, that is un-democratic; people have the right to decide for themselves whether or not the war is justified in the first place, and then advance those views accordingly.

Constructed language

A little while ago, there was a featured Wikipedia article on Ido, a reformed version of a "constructed language" called Esperanto. All languages are "constructed" so-to-speak, but the purpose of these languages is different from "natural" ones: it's to be easily learned and understood rather than act as an auxiliary extension to culture (and with that, expression within that culture).

The origin of language is cultural. There was a rudimentary system of communication that became used and later accepted on, and as it is continued to be used by that culture it got more and more subtle complexities. These complexities are almost the "beauty" of literature and poetry-- the right combination of meaning and phonetic tonality (and perhaps the arrangement of letters?). They also pose numerous hurdles to properly understanding a language.

I don't think constructed languages will ever be considered as "beautiful" as natural ones, if only due to their artificial simplicity. However, that's because it's not the intent of a constructed language. The intent is to encourage understanding among the numerous speakers of complex natural languages that, due to their cultural intricacies, have become difficult to learn. Also, if a natural language was to become a "universal" language, it would be preferential of that culture.. so constructed ones are more objective in that respect.

I think that the global community should look toward a international standard and encourage its use both socially and scholastically, as it did with the metric system (which we in the US should more stringently adopt, as there's no real lyrical "beauty" in gallons and yards as formal measurements). This is not to say, however, that universal standards in language and measurements should become primary, especially in the case of language. The cultural portions are still important. A balance needs to be drawn between culture and understanding. The easiest way is to make understanding secondary yet compulsory, which befits the goal of understanding quite well.

X-treme stock analysis

I saw this show on CNBC yesterday that left me dumbfounded. It's called Mad Money and is on the air at 6pm, 9pm and 12am EST on weekdays. I can't really describe it. It's about stock market investments, but it has a strung-out and "X-TREME" edge to it. Surprisingly, this edginess and the hard distorted guitar music in the background actually work-- the show seems entertaining and insightful (if one is actually interested in investment).

I think it's like the Iron Chef of stock analysis shows.. even if you don't like cooking shows, the prospect of seeing an ice cream made regardless of the theme ingredient (e.g. asparagus, salmon) almost merits your attention, and similiarly even if you don't like analysis of company stock, watching the host go on a rampage while doing it is a sight to behold.

Measures of intelligence

I don't like the concept of "intelligent" or for that matter, "dumb" and the like.

I don't like it because it's a relative term. It's not like being "black" or "white" because those are definite independent states. Being "intelligent" is like being "bright" or "dim". The term is relative because there is a comparison being made. If something is "bright" it is "bright" compared to its surroundings; something by itself cannot be "bright" or "dim", nor "smart" or "stupid".

There can't really be a "black" or "white" (extremes) made from the ideas of intelligent or stupid. Actually, "black" could maybe be something that cannot be classified as intelligent because it doesn't think (i.e. independent of the concept altogether.. e.g. inanimate or dead), but there's nothing that can be considered white. True "white" would mean infinite intelligence, a point where it is just as beyond the concept of intelligence as something that is dead or inanimate.

As with how our eyes see light, there isn't really an ultimate "white". White-painted walls aren't absolute white, because they are dependent on the room's lighting. Even a lit florescent light bulb isn't the brightest it could be if compared to another, more intense, source. A blinding light could conceivably be outdone by a yet more intense light, and so on. And even a "white" light bulb wouldn't be considered "bright" if the only two shades available to the viewer were it and a more intense and blinding light source.

I don't like this comparison (measures of intelligence), furthermore, because we don't have the ability to accurately assess such a characteristic. We could perhaps go as far as to determine that one person is capable of assessing something more quickly than another, but the speed at which it is i done is irrelevant in general practice. The resulting ideas are what are valued, not the minute (I hate homonyms.. I mean 'small') differences in how long it took them to be had.

I think everyone has the capacity to make any judgment that can popularly be seen as conceived by "strokes of genius". It's just that not everyone has the proper experiences to cause them to narrow in on those areas and the interest and devotion to follow through with them. Generally, I believe that great strides the sciences and philosophy are a product of circumstance and intellectual work ethic, not intellectual superiority.

Old musings of Ann Coulter

I stumbled upon these old Ann Coulter articles earlier while "blog-surfing".
1. (from 2000) Oil good; democrats bad
2. (from 2001) This Is War

In the first, she says:

"Fuel is the metric of prosperity, and conservationism is an acknowledgement that we are in decline of prosperity -- that this is the beginning of the long bleak twilight of civilization. If you posit that we have fixed energy sources and we have to ration them, then we are dying as a species.

The ethic of conservation is the explicit abnegation of man's dominion over the Earth. The lower species are here for our use. God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet -- it's yours. That's our job: drilling, mining and stripping. Sweaters are the anti-Biblical view. Big gas-guzzling cars with phones and CD players and wet bars -- that's the Biblical view.

Producing oil isn't so bad for the environment anyway. During World War II, our boats were going at breakneck speed to get oil to England (what with the war and all). There were oil spills everywhere. Half the beaches in the United States were slathered in oil. Six weeks later all the birds were back.

You couldn't get rid of the environment if you tried. Alaska is immense, caribou love the Alaskan pipeline, they've grouped there, frolicking and leaping over the pipeline ... but I'm lost in an irrelevancy. The point is: We need oil for our CAT scan machines, airplanes, computers and refrigerators."

And in the second:

We don't need long investigations of the forensic evidence to determine with scientific accuracy the person or persons who ordered this specific attack. We don't need an "international coalition." We don't need a study on "terrorism." We certainly didn't need a congressional resolution condemning the attack this week.

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.

Hmm...

The ethic of conservation is the explicit abnegation of man's dominion over the Earth. The lower species are here for our use.
I really dislike the worldview. Inarguably, being human ourselves we will place the greatest emphasis on human interests and civilization in general, but in no way are we independent from regional and global ecology. A fantastic read on this subject is Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. In it, specifically concerning this issue, he offers an anthropological interpretation of Genesis that is fairly interesting. There's a decent summary of this on Wikipedia, although it's not as succinct as in the text.

Big gas-guzzling cars with phones and CD players and wet bars -- that's the Biblical view.
I'm sure that's what Jesus would advocate...

Producing oil isn't so bad for the environment anyway.
I thought for a little while about this, and I'm almost certain it's sarcasm. Oil spills and burning fossil fuels are not bad for the environment? Then what, if anything is? She's making a sweeping conjecture without evidence or common sense.

You couldn't get rid of the environment if you tried.
The fact that the world is still in one piece and there are surviving species (notably us) that remain on it doesn't mean that our actions don't drastically affect it. I'll admit that it the earth is somewhat resilient if that's the point being made, but that doesn't justify needless pollution and species extinction.
1. Extinction Rate Across The Globe Reaches Historical Proportions
2. Deep-water fish 'are facing extinction'

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.
So.. oil consumption is justified because it is in line with Christianity, but we should invade, kill, and convert our enemies? Perhaps go on a Crusade? This doesn't make sense, it's not radically conservative it's an absolute contradiction.

I truly can not understand how serious conservatives can actually look at Ann Coulter in a positive and credible light. I've long thought that this is just an act--that this is just how she makes money. No rational person could really be that fanatical and separationalist. Even if that were the case, she needs to stop. Her books and articles aren't achieving anything. She does nothing to help people reconsider their political ideologies, she makes people with existing "conservative" political standings less reasonable and more arrogant in their opinions.

Prilosec OTC sweepstakes

I was watching The Colbert Report yesterday and saw a commercial for Prilosec OTC, a brand of non-prescription heartburn relief medication. Apparently there's a football-themed sweepstakes to help promote their product where people may enter through promotional codes and UPCs.

What the hell? Would any consumer select their medication because of a sweepstakes offer rather than considering the quality and effectiveness of it and its competition?

I can understand when there is a prize in a box of cereal or an M&M sweepstakes because those are (1) "luxury" or non-essential items (arguably Prilosec only treats heartburn so it's sort of a luxury item) and (2) aimed largely at kids. It could be a reasonable judgment to choose a certain brand of cereal over another because there is a hotwheels car inside, or to choose a brand of candy or soda because you have a chance of winning something. However, in the case of medicine and pharmaceuticals this is simply ridiculous.

What's next? One in ten bottles of Valtrex will win you a free hat? That's shameless marketing.

You don't market health products in the same way you market a skateboard or a knife set. You provide the best product you can and if other products do it just as well at a lower price, too bad--it's better for public health that way. Don't draw up an aggressive marketing campaign like with Axe Bodysprays or Monster Cable Products, Inc. in an attempt to scrounge up profit, that's awful. It doesn't help make products better or help improve society, it exploits capitalism.

Hapless poetry 2

a flight
compounded in emerald
strata, glazed, gleaming
inward, a defined pace.

glossed
inlaid eyes streaming
a black sun-set
foray, a light-shed
birthmark, a blushfaced
sunspot, rocking gently.

in nightscene
wearily the serene
sunscape hallows,
descending in shallow
lukewarm.

softlit
subtleseeming amber
laying, wrapped tightly
by silk, clinging

by candlelight
a flicker rests teeming
sharply upon lancet-arched
sights fading, duskfound
skies shifting, dividing
contrails slashing, startling

green/hazel eyes caught in a restless dream.