Science comes to the aid of careless students and error-inclined presidents!

“Researchers say they are rapidly closing in on new types of materials that can throw a cloak of invisibility around objects…”

(a few paragraphs down)

“The latest research papers describe how metamaterial could be fabricated to bend light in carefully curved paths around the object to be hidden, so that an observer would see right through it — or more accurately, right around it — to the other side.”

- Original Article


How very cool! However… SHHHH… don’t tell Bush. I can just see the headlines: White House speculates that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction were hidden beneath invisibility cloaks!

This could also make for an excellent new excuse for lost homework: Oh, teacher, I finished it, really... I just must have dropped my invisibility cloak on it. Oh, the possibilities!

(Road) Signs

Pennsylvania is the longest freaking state in the country. After consulting THE LONGEST LIST OF THE LONGEST STUFF AT THE LONGEST DOMAIN NAME AT LONG LAST*, I concede that I am indeed grossly exaggerating. However, after spending the majority of last Sunday merrily making my way across route 80, I make no apologies for doing so.

It wasn’t all grumbles, though. Pennsylvania has lovely mountains and reasonably frequent Taco Bells.** However, my favorite part of Pennsylvania was, by far, the excess of construction signs. Below is a reconstruction of my hastily scribbled notes describing the signs found leading up to and during just one bout of construction:

Road Work: 5 miles

Prepare to Stop!

Take a Break now at Exit 12B.

Construction: Slow Traffic

Road Work: 4 miles

Expect Delays!

Road Work: 3 miles

Right Lane Closed Ahead

Expect Delays!

Road Work: 2 miles

Construction: Slow Traffic

Rubble Strips Ahead

Road Work: 1 mile

Right Lane Closed: ½ Mile

Lane Shift: 500 ft

((Big Arrow Pointing Left))

Single Lane: 3 Miles

Emergency Pull Off: ¼ mile

Emergency Pull Off

Emergency Pull Off: ¼ mile

Emergency Pull Off

End Construction

A sign that likely should have been included for my benefit: Warning, you may crash and DIE due to attempts at writing while driving through construction.

Even with my unwise scribbling, I made it out alive and even had an epiphany***. The state of Pennsylvania should run FEMA! About three months before a major natural disaster, they’d send around postcards to all potential victims: Earthquake: 3 Months! A few weeks later: Danger, this House May End and Area will be Reduced to Rubble. A few more weeks: Earthquake: 1 Month! followed by, You should Exit This Area. Pennsylvania. FEMA. How brilliant is that?


* In case you were wondering, the longest state is Alaska. Additionally, the longest marriage was 85 years, the longest life was 128 Years, 273 Days, the longest banana split was 4.55 miles, and the longest spider 28 cm.

** An essential for the vegetarian road-tripper.

*** Okay, perhaps not an epiphany. The discovery of a somewhat clever idea, maybe. Maybe.

Our War on Drugs

In a report commissioned by Taxpayers for Common Sense, Boston University economist Jeffrey A. Miron estimated that the federal government spent a cumulative total of $257 billion (in 2003 dollars) over three decades on anti-drug efforts, and some $3.67 billion in 2004 on programs designed to reduce marijuana use. Still, Miron wrote, "Marijuana-use rates are little different now than in 1975."

Republicans in Congress have been scrambling to cut federal spending to reduce a record deficit. Their 2006 Deficit Reduction Act would cut a paltry $40 billion over five years. If they want to find more savings, they should look to dubious spending on the dubious war on drugs -- to the high cost of incarcerating first-time nonviolent drug offenders, of mandating longer sentences for crack cocaine than powder cocaine and of using federal clout to raid medical-marijuana clubs, prosecute offenders and house them in prison. Cut these programs and Washington could move this country closer to what President H. W. Bush announced as his goal, "a kinder, gentler" America.

- Marijuana madness

***

Marijuana smoking does not increase a person's risk of developing lung cancer, according to the findings of a new study at the University of California Los Angeles that surprised even the researchers.

They had expected to find that a history of heavy marijuana use, like cigarette smoking, would increase the risk of cancer.

Instead, the study, which compared the lifestyles of 611 Los Angeles County lung cancer patients and 601 patients with head and neck cancers with those of 1,040 people without cancer, found no elevated cancer risk for even the heaviest pot smokers. It did find a 20-fold increased risk of lung cancer in people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day.

- Study finds no marijuana link to lung cancer

***

“… a marijuana grower can land in prison for life without parole while a murderer might be in for eight years…”

“… now there are more folks in prison for marijuana than for violent crimes. More than for manslaughter or rape. This only makes sense in the fantasy world of Washington, where perception counts for more than reality. To an old Democrat, who takes a ground view of politics- What is the actual effect of this action on the lives of real people?- it is a foul tragedy that makes you feel guilty about enjoying your freedom.”

“If the State cuts off your right hand with a meat cleaver on my account and I don’t object, then it is my cleaver and my fingerprints on it.”

- Garrison Keillor, Homegrown Democrat, pg 101

10 Arguments against 10 Arguments against Same-Sex Marriage

I was planning on writing something compelling and informative on this issue, but while researching I became overwhelmingly frustrated and decided it would be more amusing/healthy to mock one of the more ridiculous web sites I found instead. I still may go the compelling & informative route in the near future.

All quotes are from Gay Marriage: Why Would It Affect Me? on NoGayMarriage.com.

Argument #1.
The implications for children in a world of decaying families are profound. A recent article in the Weekly Standard described how the advent of legally sanctioned gay unions in Scandinavian countries has already destroyed the institution of marriage, where half of today's children are born out of wedlock.

Children born out of wedlock. Not relevant to same-sex couples being permitted to marry.

It is predicted now, based on demographic trends in this country, that more than half of the babies born in the 1990s will spend at least part of their childhood in single-parent homes.

Still entirely irrelevant to the subject of same-sex marriage.

Argument #2
The introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one-man, one-woman unions.

This is a slippery slope argument and not valid unless you can prove that the first condition will necessarily lead to the second. When women were granted the right to vote, it wasn’t necessary to offer hamsters the same (though that was an often voiced argument against woman’s suffrage). Similarly, if we grant same-sex couples the right to marry, we wouldn’t have to offer legal backing to polygamous relationships. The best way to avoid falling down a slippery slope is to…. not.

Argument #3
An even greater objective of the homosexual movement is to end the state's compelling interest in marital relationships altogether. After marriages have been redefined, divorces will be obtained instantly, will not involve a court, and will take on the status of a driver's license or a hunting permit.

…. blinks and looks confused ….

I don’t have an answer to entirely unsubstantiated, incorrect statements, except… well… they are ridiculously incorrect. So, to make it clear: the statement quoted above is ridiculously incorrect.

Argument #4
With the legalization of homosexual marriage, every public school in the nation will be required to teach that this perversion is the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman.

Absolutely. Not to mention that when we are describing graphic heterosexual sex to those first graders, we will be morally obligated to include similar homosexual “perversions.” *

Argument #5
From that point forward, courts will not be able to favor a traditional family involving one man and one woman over a homosexual couple in matters of adoption. Children will be placed in homes with parents representing only one sex on an equal basis with those having a mom and a dad. The prospect of fatherless and motherless children will not be considered in the evaluation of eligibility. It will be the law.

Yes, because we certainly have a dearth of children awaiting adoption in the country and therefore all the poor two-parent, heterosexual, unbroken, perfect, wanting to adopt families (are there any of those left?) will be left childless.*

Argument #6
Foster-care parents will be required to undergo "sensitivity training" to rid themselves of bias in favor of traditional marriage, and will have to affirm homosexuality in children and teens.

Sensitivity training!?! Heaven forbid! Homosexual children won’t feel rejected by their foster families and society in general? What an awful, awful thought.*

Argument #7
How about the impact on Social Security if there are millions of new dependents that will be entitled to survivor benefits? It will amount to billions of dollars on an already overburdened system. And how about the cost to American businesses? Unproductive costs mean fewer jobs for those who need them. Are state and municipal governments to be required to raise taxes substantially to provide health insurance and other benefits to millions of new "spouses and other dependents"?

Economic reasons were also cited as a reason why slavery shouldn’t be abolished. Economic factors cannot be used to justify civil rights violations. We’d manage.

Argument #8
Marriage among homosexuals will spread throughout the world, just as pornography did after the Nixon Commission declared obscene material "beneficial" to mankind.11 Almost instantly, the English-speaking countries liberalized their laws against smut. America continues to be the fountainhead of filth and immorality, and its influence is global.

A fountainhead of filth and immorality? I thought we were god’s chosen country and the Scandinavian countries were the fountainhead of filth and immorality.*

Argument #9
Perhaps most important, the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be severely curtailed. The family has been God's primary vehicle for evangelism since the beginning.

You can still evangelize. I’m pretty sure that the people who would have listened to you before will continue not engaging in same-sex relationships, even if marriage is a legal option.

Argument #10
The culture war will be over, and I fear, the world may soon become "as it was in the days of Noah" (Matthew 24:37, NIV). This is the climactic moment in the battle to preserve the family, and future generations hang in the balance.
This apocalyptic and pessimistic view of the institution of the family and its future will sound alarmist to many, but I think it will prove accurate unless-unless-God's people awaken and begin an even greater vigil of prayer for our nation. That's why Shirley and I are urgently seeking the Lord's favor and asking Him to hear the petitions of His people and heal our land.

If all you were doing was praying, I wouldn’t be concerned. Pray all you want. But quit trying to legislate your morality. Perhaps you could just trust that if your god wants to answer your prayers to prevent same-sex marriage, he will. On his own. A god so powerful surely doesn't need a constitutional amendment to ensure his will is done.



* Yes, my answers to arguments 4, 5, 6, and 8 are little more than sarcasm. However, there really isn’t anything else to offer to blatant bigotry. The arguments assume that homosexuality is a “perversion” and “wrong.” I’ve only heard people be able to justify this (and often weakly) from a religious standpoint. We (theoretically) live in a society governed in a secular manner. The suggestion is not that you be required to change your religion. The suggestion is that people who don’t follow your religion can live without being subjected to the otherwise unsupported laws derived from your religion.

Here’s to You Mr. Robertson

New predictions by Pat Robertson are out! Shockingly, I find once again that Ohio is not destined to be hit by a hurricane (though if it is, I take full responsibility). Doesn’t God get sick of sending water-based storms to areas near water? You’re getting predicable! If you insist on plaguing the coasts, why not mix it up a bit and drop manna or toads or the like instead?

****

In honor of the occasion, I decided to review the highlights of Robertson’s conversations with God from last January and consider how they played out during 2005:

“Well, the Lord has some very encouraging news for George Bush ... What I heard is that Bush is now positioned to have victory after victory and that his second term is going to be one of triumph, which is pretty strong stuff. ... He'll have Social Security reform passed. He'll have tax reform passed.”

First of all, his second term is going to be one of triumph? By the poll numbers, this is yet another indication of God’s trouble with integers, as noted earlier in this blog. Second, Bush’s Social Security reform passed? Right. Sure. Uh huh.

“… his spirit is going to be touching the hearts of many in the Muslim world and they will be turning to the gospel, to Jesus Christ. I think many of them already are, but this is going to be an acceleration that will really amaze the world. ...”

One Afghani man who was reputed to be a bit less than mentally stable doesn’t count. I’m still waiting to be amazed (this is often something I’m waiting for).

“'I [God] will remove judges from the Supreme Court quickly and their successors will refuse to sanction the attacks on religious faith.'"

Yes, Bush has now had the chance to choose two justices. O’Connor could have been described as liberal, though she was appointed to the supreme court by a conservative president. One point for God/Robertson with the trade of O’Connor for Alito. However, Rehnquist could have hardly been one of the oh-so-liberal judges that Pat Robertson asked his followers to pray for the removal of. Did God misaim his smiting?

Overall, I am afraid that I must give God/Robertson a rather poor grade in the prediction department. Perhaps they just should stick to the far less disprovable game of explaining the cause of things that have already occurred… or possibly just harassing Chavez some more. (See this article for all above quotes.)

***

According to Robertson, natural disasters are often sent by God as punishment for various sins, generally committed by feminists, liberals, atheists, homosexuals, etc. However, after careful statistical analysis by the authors of the article I’ve quoted below, it appears God does not indeed hate homosexuals. If we go with Robertson's "correlation equals causation" hypothesis, God possibly hates “Baptists” and “Others”. But still not homosexuals.

“Before Pat and his Christian cronies get too carried away promulgating the idea that natural disasters are prompted by people who displease God, they should take a hard look at the data. Take tornadoes. Every state (except Alaska) has them--some only one or two a year, dozens in others. Gay people are in every state (even Alaska). According to Pat's hypothesis, there should be more gay people in states that have more tornadoes. But are there? Nope. In fact, there's no correlation at all between the number of gay folks (as estimated by the number of gay political organizations, support groups, bookstores, radio programs, and circuit parties) and the annual tornado count (r = .04, p = .78 for you statisticians). So much for the "God hates gays" theory."

“God seems almost neutral on the subject of sexual orientation. I say "almost" because if we look at the density of gay groups relative to the population as a whole, there is a small but statistically significant (p < .05) correlation with the occurrence of tornadoes. And it's a negative correlation (r = -.28). For those of you who haven't used statistics since 1973, that means that a high concentration of gay organizations actually protects against tornadoes. A state with the population of, say, Alabama could avert two tornadoes a year merely by doubling the number of gay organizations in the state. (Tough choice for Alabama's civil defense strategists.)”

“Although God may not care about sexual orientation, the same cannot be said for religious affiliation. If the underlying tenet of Pat's postulate is true--that God wipes out offensive folks via natural disasters--then perhaps we can find some evidence of who's on God's hit list. Jews are off the hook here: there's no correlation between numbers of Jews and frequency of tornadoes. Ditto for Catholics. But when it comes to Protestants, there's a highly significant correlation of .71. This means that fully half the state-to-state variation in tornado frequency can be accounted for by the presence of Protestants. And the chance that this association is merely coincidental is only one in 10,000.”

“Protestants, of course, come in many flavors--we were able to find statistics for Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, and Other. Lutherans don't seem to be a problem--no correlation with tornadoes. There's a modest correlation (r = .52, p = .0001) between Methodists and tornadoes. But Baptists and Others share the prize: both groups show a definite correlation with tornado frequency (r = .68, p = .0001). This means that Texas could cut its average of 139 tornadoes per year in half by sending a few hundred thousand Baptists elsewhere (Alaska maybe?). “

All of this is quoted from Do Unnatural Acts Cause Natural Disasters? Go read the rest. It’s funny.

Self-Commiseration

Generally, I consider myself a fairly optimistic person… I've found my life, while not perfect, contains far more in the way of sunshine and flowers than rain and toads. Actually, I like both rain and toads, so scratch that comparison and instead just note that my life is generally lovely. Generally. The last seven days have been quite disappointing and I am thus giving my week an overall satisfaction rating of 2, on a scale of 1 to 10. My justification for such a rating:

I’ve had no leads for a subtenant for my office building: -28

I had to sit through a Chamber of Commerce meeting, which turned out to not be a nifty networking opportunity (as I had hoped) and instead just an expensive meal with few vegetarian options: -8

It rained on me on the way back from the meeting: -1

My student still hasn’t shown up for his tutoring session: -3

I’m going to charge him for the session anyway: +2

I’m having staff problems at work: -18

I was turned down for a terribly nifty job: -20

Overall, my financial situation for this summer looks dismal: -42

I found out on Friday that my ex-husband married the person he had an affair with and they are expecting a child in September. As much as this theoretically has no impact on my life whatsoever, I still found myself clutching the edge of the toilet: -60

The person who was my best friend for a significant portion of my life helped to plan their wedding: -60

The wedding was on April 1st, making for an excellent built-in April Fools Day joke. I do love built-in jokes: +58

I sent away my laptop for two weeks to be fixed, and they forgot to fix my battery and instead just wiped my hard-drive: -22

I had backed-up all my files in advance: +12

I talked them into just sending me a new battery rather than requiring me to send my laptop away for an additional two weeks: +4

I continue to have a lovely source of snuggles, sex, and companionship while doing math problems on table coverings in Italian restaurants: +100

Said source of such goodness is being sent away by a mystical being generally known as Williams Sonoma for the entire summer: -70

Based on all the above negatives, god apparently hates me: -1,000,000,000

I don’t believe in god, so the fact that he/she/it hates me has no relevance to my emotional sanity: +1,000,000,000

To end with additional positive notes, in the past week I have not been hit by a car (+53), struck by lightening (+53), or maimed by a wild boar (+52).

I conclude: my week shall receive a fully justified, highly scientific satisfaction rating of 2. With this compilation, I shall officially reset my “week meter” and begin accumulating points for a new score.

I’m off to a writing workshop in Rowe, MA and won’t be around to post/respond to emails/etc. until Monday. I hope everyone has a lovely weekend, preferably with high satisfaction ratings all around!

Can an atheist be a fundamentalist?

Musings (not mine) as to what a non-fundamental atheist might be...

"It is time to put to rest the mistakes and assumptions that lie behind a phrase used by some religious people when talking of those who are plain-spoken about their disbelief in any religious claims: the phrase "fundamentalist atheist". What would a non-fundamentalist atheist be? Would he be someone who believed only somewhat that there are no supernatural entities in the universe - perhaps that there is only part of a god (a divine foot, say, or buttock)? Or that gods exist only some of the time - say, Wednesdays and Saturdays? (That would not be so strange: for many unthinking quasi-theists, a god exists only on Sundays.) Or might it be that a non-fundamentalist atheist is one who does not mind that other people hold profoundly false and primitive beliefs about the universe, on the basis of which they have spent centuries mass-murdering other people who do not hold exactly the same false and primitive beliefs as themselves - and still do?"

- Original Article by AC Grayling

Attack!!!

“The Senate will debate legislation that would have the Constitution define marriage as the union between a man and a woman early next month, Majority Leader Bill Frist said on CNN's ‘Late Edition.’”

“President Bush supports the amendment, but Vice President Dick Cheney does not. Cheney's daughter, Mary, is a lesbian and has been speaking out against the marriage amendment as she promotes her new book, 'Now It's My Turn.'"

(a few paragraphs down)

“’I basically say, Mr. Vice President, right now marriage is under attack in this country,’ Frist said on CNN. ‘And we've seen activist judges overturning state by state law, where state legislatures have passed laws defining marriage between a man and a woman, and that's being overturned by a handful of activist judges around the country. And that is why we need an amendment to come to the floor of the United States Senate to define marriage as that union between one man and one woman.’”

- Original Article

First, Dick Cheney and I agree on something?!? This is certainly grounds for an official day memorializing the event, or at least a moment of quiet contemplation.

Second, Bill Frist and I don’t agree on something. This deserves no special form of recognition, whether by day, contemplation, or other action. This is normal.

Marriage isn’t under attack from homosexuals. Marriage could, however, potentially be under attack from high divorce rates, affairs with the secretary/gardener, and possibly even just longer life spans (thus allowing people to annoy each other for greater periods of time- darn advanced medicine).

I fully support the rights of all those who oppose gay marriage by promising to not force them to marry members of the same sex. Seems fair, eh?

Oh, Dean

"Dean told Christian Broadcasting Network News that the 2004 Democratic platform declares "marriage is between a man and a woman" — just one of the points he made in reaching out to religious conservatives who are largely hostile to the party.
But the platform does not define marriage that way, and his remarks prompted the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force to return a $5,000 donation from the Democratic National Committee."

"Dean later acknowledged his misstatement, but the group sent back the money anyway. "We need for Governor Dean to demonstrate real leadership on our issues," executive director Matt Foreman said in an interview, 'not to equivocate depending on the audience.'"

"Dean sought to establish common ground with religious conservatives in the interview on Pat Robertson's network, a tall order considering their opposition to the Democratic Party's positions on abortion rights, gay rights and some other social issues."

"Dean said that 'one of the misconceptions about the Democratic Party is that we're godless and that we don't have any values.'"

- Original Article



Oh, Dean. Where shall I start?

I like you! I defend you even though you are a general pariah of the Democratic Party. This is somewhat funny, considering you are also the head of the Democratic National Committee, but true, nonetheless. Few people take you seriously. I have in the past though and certainly felt you were the best candidate out of those running in the Democratic Presidential Primaries in 2004. I would have voted for you, had you made it past Iowa!

However, I must say, should you insist on pandering to the likes of Pat Robertson… well… I might have to find a new Democrat to be the object of my political affections. I hate to give ultimatums, but here it is: shape up or it’s over. This especially holds if you continue throwing “godless” and “don’t have any values” in the same sentence. They aren’t the same, okay?

Pat Robertson? Really??? Oh, Dean.

Positive Social Conditioning?

I had my SAT students write an essay today assessing whether or not technology has made our lives better. One said yes, it had, and cited the following as a reason: in The Scarlet Letter, had Hester Prynne possessed a telephone, she could have called her husband to determine whether or not he was coming back and therefore avoided the entire affair with Dimmesdale escapade. I’m sure he did so because I told him that it was better to stretch a little bit if needed to include a literary reference. Reminder to self: must go over the definition of “a little bit” at the next class.

This was better than when another student several classes ago cited the treatment of this same Hester Prynne as positive social conditioning, mainly because today's student was joking whereas the first student was not.

Sex-ed should include… well.. education

According a recent letter to the editor, the local abstinence-only program told students that condoms break one out of seven times during sexual intercourse, thus leading to pregnancy and STDs.

…confused blinking…

…confused blinking…

…confused blinking…

Condoms break one out of seven times? Erm, that’s crap.

Distorting the facts to scare students into compliance seems like a poor idea. It’s not just inaccurate condom facts (condoms are 98% effective in preventing pregnancy if correctly used, by the way). HIV can be transmitted through tears and sweat?. Touching a person's genitals can result in pregnancy? Half the gay male teenagers in the United States have tested positive for the AIDS virus? Riiiggghhht.

Inaccuracies aside, perhaps abstinence-only education in general is a poor idea. Just telling teens they can’t engage in an activity at least as fun as most Play Station 2 games seems destined to fail. I had sex as a teenager, and I was one of the “good” kids. However, thanks to plenty of knowledge about contraceptives, I’ve remained STD and unwanted-pregnancy free. Students who take abstinence pledges have, in some studies, been shown to delay sexual activity. However, these same students are less likely to use contraceptives once they do start having sex than students who didn’t take abstinence pledges (for 88% of these students, this first time is still before marriage, irregardless of the abstinence pledge).
Other studies have shown no correlation between abstinence only education and the deference of sexual activity.

There are people out there who won't have sex until they are married. However, these are a) the minority and b) likely the people who have enough willpower to not have sex even if someone explains to them how a condom works. Perhaps some of the students who would have otherwise spent their prom night in the back of a car will be so inspired by their health teacher’s words of wisdom that they will swat away their dates’ roving hands. The rest will still be having sex, just without the knowledge they need to prevent STDs and pregnancy. Go ahead, parents and churches, explain to your children why they should wait until marriage to have sex (good luck- for many of them, you’ll need it). Education, however, seems as if it should be, well, educational. And accurate. And possibly even grounded in methods that have been proven effective, unlike abstinence only sex-ed.

Actually, I thought these sorts of programs would be mostly gone by now. I remember the big push by President Bush for abstinence-only programs about a year and a half ago…. and the subsequent studies that noted their ineffectiveness. I found it all quite funny back then. BUT WE ARE STILL FUNDING THESE SORTS OF PROGRAMS INSTEAD OF COMPREHENSIVE SEX-ED. For historical purposes, I’ve posted my… erm… "concerns" (okay, it's just a satire) about the entire fiasco below, as circulated about a year and a half ago. Apparently, important members of the government haven’t been closely reading and acting upon my opinions. I’ll overlook the discretion- this time.

Bush Approves Funding for New “Walking-Only” Drivers' Education Program

Our ever-enthusiastic president has once again shown his concern for legislating the safety of the American* people with the adoption of a new “walking only” drivers' education program to replace the more traditional, tell-all programs that are already offered.

“For years now, those liberals in Congress have been radical enough to support programs educating people about so called 'safe-driving' techniques and seat-belt use. But I said, no sir, not in my god-fearing country. This is not an administration of half measures and careful thought. The only way to prevent car accidents 100% of the time is by preventing driving altogether,” Bush stated at a press conference announcing the new policy.

Supporters tout the new program as the only way to really protect the nation's teenagers. The program will not mention seat-belt use, the previous staple for keeping drivers safe, except to cite its failure rates. The creators of the new program maintain that any further discussion of that and other 'safe-driving' techniques would “only provide our teenagers with unnecessary temptation.” While it is unclear to some as to how these new programs will affect the driving skills of students should they ever end up behind the wheel, proponents of the program have assured the public that these programs will indeed make the world a better place, citing numerous articles published in renowned journals such as, “Bush's Vision of a New Nation,” and, “The Right is always Right.”

Under the new law, states will only continue to receive federal funds for roadway maintenance if they implement these new programs within the next twelve months. While there have been limited protests by lawmakers in several ill-reputed blue states, Bush dismissed these concerns as “just another attempt by those Liberals to twist my policies to fit their leftist agenda.” One such liberal lawmaker even suggested that this new policy might amount to coercion by the federal government. “That is the same leftist garbage that they gave us about similar laws encouraging states to set a nationally approved state drinking age and offer only religio… I mean, federally approved sex-ed programs. After this excellent legislation, do we still have problems with underage drinking and promiscuity? I'll let the facts speak for themselves,” responded the president.

A source in the White House, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity, revealed that the president had prayed carefully about the policy. “He told me that this policy would help bring us a bit closer to the way that God** intended us to be. After all, you don't hear about Adam and Eve using cars, now do you? If God had intended us to move around like that, he would have given us wheels instead of feet,” the source said. While Bush mentioned none of this in his speech, and in fact denied that this new program was based on any specific religion, rumors of the policy and it's positive religious** implications have been circulating among his excited followers for weeks.

“Well, I'm just so tickled pink that we have such a darling, God-fearing president in office,” gushed one fervent Bush supporter, “my darling little daughter, Peggy-Sue, wouldn't even think of doing anything as immoral as driving, but you never know what other teenagers might do if they are given too much information.”

* American referring, of course, to the country the United States of America, since we are, in fact, the only country in the entire continent worth mentioning

** God and religion referring exclusively, of course, to Protestant Christian denominations that are pro-life and anti-gay, in addition to having donated a significant sum of money to the Bush-Cheney campaign in 2004

Recommended reading or… How to not “get some.”

Arbitrary enforcement of religious law is unfair. I loved Andrew Bernardin's discussion of homosexuality and Leviticus on his blog last Friday. Go read “Biblical Ignorance” at a A Daily Dose of Doubt. Actually, go read the rest of the blog too. He’s an excellent writer and posts every weekday.

Arbitrary enforcement of religious law is funny. After reading Andrew’s musings about Leviticus, I had to hunt up a letter addressed to Dr. Laura that circulated in 2000. It was as amusing to read it the second time as it was the first.

Finally, arbitrary enforcement of religious law won’t help you get sex. Sami* refused to drink because it violated his religious principles. This was fine. I mind people who don’t drink far less than I mind people who drink far too much. However, as we were sitting together by the fountains in Trafalgar square, he propositioned** me. This was confusing.

I just don’t trust people who won’t drink for religious reasons yet want to have sex with me. It seems like such an odd mix. Yes, we will follow random law from this part of our religion, but no, we’ll ignore another random law that just doesn’t suit us so much. This is probably my issue with most people’s observation with religion. It feels arbitrary. I suppose this is fine, but it’s not for me. So, a note to the religious: fine, be arbitrarily devout... just don’t expect to get some from me as well.

* Somewhat random, met-on-the-street person with whom I spent two evenings while visiting London last summer. I run into all sorts of amusing characters while traveling.

** He was rather French, so propositioned likely isn’t the correct word. Wooed. I was wooed by Sami in Trafalgar square. For the French men I run into, it seems to never be sex, but always "make love." Off-the-top compliments are the norm and they always ask how it feels to have been kissed by a French man. Perhaps some women find this sort of courting charming, but it seems absurd to me and I always have to resist the urge to snicker.

Merging at Full Speed

I’ve been told I need to learn to continue moving forward while merging. The speaker meant it literarily; I was driving in New York City for the first time. Whenever I realized I needed to be in another lane, I’d first slow practically to a halt and only then glance around to see if there were any gaps in traffic for me to slide into. I’m sure all the local drivers had great fun rolling their eyes and grimacing at my Ohio license plates.*

I also need to develop better figurative driving skills. When facing large decisions, I tend to throw all my energy into the need to change, and relatively little into continuing on with the daily process of living. I try to make decisions happen so quickly that I forget to consider whether they are practical before shifting into “change mode.”

The person who subleases part of my office gave me thirty days notice last Monday. This throws me into a bit of a financial tizzy. My options: find someone else to sub-lease the space, find some other way to earn that additional amount of money, or buy myself out of my lease and find a full-time job. Any of the options could work, though one and three are likely the most practical.

I’m not sure which direction to merge. My immediate impulse is to pick a lane and try to find a way in. I like making decisions and then following through with them. I like feeling in control of my life. However, if I pick a lane without first looking for openings, then my only option is to stop and wait until something opens up. This is often what I do, but potentially not the best choice in this situation.

Instead, I’m working to create options. I’ve sent out my resume to companies in Austin, London, and Boston. I’m continuing to market summer programs, though I’m not certain I’ll be around to run them. I’ve started advertising for a new sub-leaser. Something will open up.

In the meantime, I’m going keep moving forward and trust that if I find an appealing gap in traffic, I’ll be able to merge at full speed.



* I’ve gotten better. I’d also like to take this moment to point out that in my hometown about 43.57% of the population stops at the end of exit ramps. I’m sure I give them much the same looks of disbelief as I was receiving in NYC.

Torture "widespread" under US custody: Amnesty

"'Evidence continues to emerge of widespread torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of detainees held in U.S. custody,' Amnesty said in its 47-page report."

"It said that while Washington has sought to blame abuses that have recently come to light on "aberrant soldiers and lack of oversight," much ill-treatment stemmed from officially sanctioned interrogation procedures and techniques."

- Original Article

Response to "Trying to Understand Angry Atheists"

Original Article: "Trying to Understand Angry Atheists"


Mr. Gellman,

I am writing in response to your article, “Trying to Understand Angry Atheists.” I am an atheist, but I could hardly be described as angry. I laugh often (and not even bitterly) because my world is darn wonderful and I have much to be glad of. I have sunshine, museums, travel, volunteering, books, coffee, wine, chevre, trees, projects, dancing, animals, love, hope, dreams, and a belief system that encourages me to savor every moment of my life. There isn’t room for the sort of all-pervasive “atheist anger” you describe in the rich, albeit godless, life I inhabit.

I am an atheist because of logic, not because of trauma. I had fairly idyllic upbringing in the Methodist church, where I tried very hard to find the “spiritual bliss” of my fellow worshipers. I was baptized, twice. I’ve explored a wide variety of religions, considered the facts, and see no reason to fake something that just doesn’t make sense to me.

I sometimes find myself indignant- perhaps that is what you’ve mistaken for anger. No, I don’t want my tax dollars used to subsidize religious activities. I don’t want people to confuse biblical law with constitutional law. It does frustrate me when people equate atheism with amorality. I cringe when studies, such as a recent one by the University of Minnesota, find atheists are the least trusted group in the United States. Finally, it’s hard to resist a flash of irritation when people write articles beginning with the assumption that all atheists are angry. We aren’t all angry, but based on how we are sometimes treated and often perceived, a degree of indignation seems only fair.

You write that you “don't know many religious folk who wake up thinking of new ways to aggravate atheists.” Nor do we wake up every day trying to think up new ways to undermine the fabric of society, something of which we are often accused. Yes, I understand, not all “religious folk” are trying to aggravate us. Similarly, were I to play ACDC at full volume in a studio apartment at 2 am, I might not be trying to aggravate my neighbors. More likely, I just want to listen to my music. This doesn’t mean, however, that my neighbors don’t also have a right to not listen to ACDC at full volume at 2 am. I don’t have an issue with other people being religious, but I also believe that freedom of religion should include freedom from religion. Perhaps the “religious folk” you describe above could just consent to using some sort of religious headphones- or at least to turning down the volume a bit. They can listen to whatever sort of music they want; I’d just ask for a minimum of intrusions as I create own tune.