The Positivity of Absolute Value

I was over at Wonkette earlier and I read this, and discovered that Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. will be running in the primary.
So here is this and this,
and then here is this and this and this.

Read and be informed. It is important to know who you are voting for, or sometimes more importantly, who you're voting against.

And if nothing else you can look smarter when you are in conversation with a hot chick who may find politically adept perception appealing.

Yesterday was old Benny Franklin's birthday.
He turned 300.
Still looks pretty good.

Just on a side note, nothing significant, he is only 199 years older than my great, great grandmother, who is at the moment watching game shows (probably "the weakest link" at this point in the day) in a bedroom made specifically for her in my parents house.

But anyway, if you only know the Ben basics, or know much more and just want to see a pretty cool website dedicated to his life, then go here.

Yet again I feel myself embarrassed for the democratic party.
Just start here and follow the links all over the place.
Courtesy of Instapundit.
I wonder what James Lileck thinks of these, here it is again folks, shenanigans.
Man that's a great word.

Read this.
First of all I would like to emphasize the irrelevance of this entire article, and this entire issue as it attempts to bare itself upon the world.
Whether or not we will ever have another U2, is perfectly pointless material for debate.
Maybe I am a product of my ipod generation x, but who cares.

Second of all, U2 hasn't been worth mentioning since The Joshua Tree.

And third of all, why don't I see Mr. Dave Matthews and his band anywhere in this article, when they fill stadiums all the time. In fact, I think Dave realizes that he couldn't play a smaller venue even if he wanted to, because there are simply too many people who have to see him.

What a world.

Read this.
It may be the responsibility of those protected by free speech, to show respect for other people and their religions while exercising that right,
but I think that it may also be the responsibility of those offended to:

1. Not murder others at all
2.Not murder those who have offended you and
3. Certainly not murder those who had nothing to do with the original offense at all.

But apparently those exercising their right to speak freely are the only ones with responsibilities, and consequently, any ability to speak at all.

I have begged in the past that you not let Dr. Woo-suk Hwang's shenanigans taint your perception of a field that is already under heavy political pressure.

I still beg. But here is an article expressing optimism in the field and amongst it's scientists. This coupled with an editorial in the March issue of Scientific American is beginning to renew my faith.

Even though the spokespersons for the championing of opposition to genetics are typically loud in their ignorance, as the ignorant usually are, I think that more and more Americans are beginning to realize that not only is genetics not hurting them or their ideology, but may actually be on the road to becoming a great and efficient vehicle to saving many millions of lives.

Please be involved.

Is it just me, or is this a little alarming?
I have been saying for a while now, ever since Jintao was elected President in 2003, that China may be someone to keep our eye on.

Even if only tentatively.
At the moment I believe that China's economy is fifth on the list, bumping off France last year.
And in recently stuffing Google's mouth into quiet submission with a few dollar bills, Hu is showing us how to keep communism real.

Kind of alarming.

This happens to be one of the things I do agree with.
If we had been either pushing for nuclear reprocessing or actually getting it done over the past thirty years, I seriously doubt that we would be having these issues with Iran right now.

We could focus more on things like proving to Ahmadinejad that the holocaust did actually occur, and that maybe if he would acknowledge that then his papers could make threats of belittling it with cartoons in a rebellious outcry over the Danish cartoons allegedly showing disrespect to Islam.
Oh, wait a second...

Anyhow, there is a very interesting, and much more detailed article on this particular issue in February issue of Scientific American.

I must pass this along.
The person who sent this to me is quoted as sarcastically saying (and I hope she doesn't mind me quoting her,) "you have to love Christians.

Thank God for this beautiful and free country, because no I don't
They are the most vial and biologically explained away people on the planet.

I am glad that God endowed me with Darwin.
I am glad that God endowed me with reason and logic.

Of course all of this is farce. The only thing that I am glad about is that I can wake up in the morning and face the new sun...
And this has nothing to do with God.

So I was on a roadtrip of sorts today with a friend of mine who is gay.
We got to talking about death and I mentioned that I needed to have a living will drawn up because I want to specify that my body is to be donated to science when I pass.
He then told me that he could not do so, nor could he give blood.
I responded with, "why, do they not accept gay organs?"
A very non PC joke I know, but I am known to dish those out from time to time.
And he said, that's correct.
And I said, WHAT?
(I thought I was just making yet another Jay and Dave crude gay joke, revealing my social insecurity toward the subtle, but ever present comfort of gays and their lifestyle), but that is precisely the reason that he cannot donate blood or organs.
So in shock was I, that I initially took his word for it, which I am not prone to do; ever.
So I came home and did a little research, it's here and here, and here is a fun little side article; and he is right.
Read these articles and ask yourself, "do we live in paranoid Magic Johnson and Freddy Mercury 1990, or are we so hyper-technologically evolved that we are above civil reproach?"
What on earth is happening over at the FDA?
Gay men are no more likely to contract HIV than straight men having unprotected sex; and I may venture to say that there are a healthy number of straight men out there doing so.
Take a look at the pregnancy rate.
I am so sick and tired of this nervous laughter, stand and applaud when the light goes off attitude toward the gay community.
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but when we die, we all go to the same place...
Nowhere.

Well, apparently my ex-significant other didn't waste her Valentine's Day sketching graphs and then discussing their different behavioral patterns, as I did.

She played a little speed dating and then played a little hankey pankey with a complete stranger. Good for her.
I'm glad that she is finding constructive ways to deal with her obvious loneliness and remorse.

I don't know what's more disturbing:
Her having some fun less than month after the split, on Valentine's day no less, or...

That I would venture as far to say that I had more fun doing my mathematics then I would have "otherwise."

That is kind of sick isn't it.

Anywho,
Outside of my starck bitterness it is a beautiful day and I am soaking up the sun enjoying literature on the evolutionary biology of religion.
Nothing gets me going more than science.

Seriously, I never knew you could do so much with a Zippo.

Happy middle of the week.
You may want to take a look at this as it potentially concerns you.

While you're at it look here, and here, and here.

And don't have a conniption fit or anything.
Just keep yourself informed and keep reminding your government that we need timely, informed and level-headed decisions.

This time last year:
I think I was lighting the one hundred candles that I had strategically placed throughout my room, in anticipation of having the woman of my dreams walk in and be completely stunned by the display.

A few hours before this last year, I was standing in one of the longest lines I have ever seen at See's Candies, waiting to get the perfect box of chocolates for the woman of my dreams (mostly chocolate with mint, and nothing with nuts.)

After that last year, I was in the second longest line I have ever seen at the flower shop, waiting to pick out the most perfect dozen roses for the woman of my dreams.

One thing has changed from that year to this;
the woman of my dreams.

A dear John letter from Scotland and about one hundred thirty six bottles of cheap whiskey later, I am here writing this post.

It's not that I'm bitter, I will just never be celebrating this "holiday" again as long as I live.
At this point I would rather randomly give all of my puny tax return to good divorce lawyers.
They are the only ones getting real satisfaction on this pitiful corporate excuse of a "national day of romance."

I could never have enough saliva to hurl at this whole day.

So... Happy V.D.

This post, by Glenn at Instapundit is priceless in two respects:

1. He shows all of us that underneath all of Ann Coulter's idiotic jesterhood, there are deeper wounds that she is inflicting, and if we can just see past her deplorable sense, or lack of sense of humor, then we could begin to combat the real threat that is Ann Coulter. I know that sounds like and oxymoron, real threat-Ann Coulter, but think globally; Glenn helps you do this... Read... And

2. That before you complain, and complain, and complain again on an issue in which the defendant/recipient is probably much more informed, not to mention more intelligent, than you are on said issue, you may want to read what the person has actually said.

Now I know this may require actual reading, and that sucks for those of us on the left that don't know how to read, hire someone to read it to you.

Glenn posted on each and every one of the things that you are irresponsibly chastising him for, time and again.

Get a life, and hooked on phonics.

So my first mid-term is due tomorrow for my poli-sci class.
It was one and a half page essay, roughly five hundred words, and the question was that if the Equal Rights Amendment were proposed today, would it receive the three remaining state votes necessary to be ratified.

I maintained that it would not.
I gave a brief history of the socio-cultural change of the last thirty years and expressed what I saw as the technology boom, and the inherent necessity for at least a four year education to make a living moving into the 21st century.

And though "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" (Jefferson Declaration of independence), with the rise of the necessity of education, and the rise of the cost of that education, along with the ever growing expanse between the very rich and the very poor in this country, I fear equality, the freedom to reach for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, may be fading slowly away.

I coupled that with a brief history of the proposed amendment itself.
conceived in 1923 and presented to congress every session since; in 1982 it won the two thirds vote necessary from both houses and procured 35 of the 38 state votes necessary for ratification.
But then, I believe, a few key republican states reversed their loyalties because someone realized that if the amendment passed, because no one would be denied equal rights on account of their sex, then gay marriage and possibly abortion would become constitutionally protected.
They couldn't very well have that now could they.

So I don't think, for the same reason (the whole faith based initiative shenanigans) that it would be passed in this session either.

But it was fun to write, though challenging mainly because I was restricted to 500 words.

So I'm about a hundred pages into Daniel C. Dennett's new book, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, and I must say, for anyone who has ever asked themselves; wait a second, what if I'm wrong?
Then this book is a necessity.

Though I am only a hundred pages in and that could change faster than a 18 year old catholic school girl.

I grew up in, first a very catholic household (no I am not a catholic school girl, though I do like the feel of a good pair of plaid stockings), and then we switched to the "non-denominational" type.
Whatever the hell that means.
Were too good to name ourselves but we like to foam at the mouths like an epileptic and we pretend to know multiple different languages like a schizophrenic.

Anyway, the beautiful part of Dennett's book is it's pure, unadulterated, fifth grade logic. Here is all of my evidence, proving that you're religion can do no more than knock on the front door of science's house and run, and you have yet to show me any evidence that you're religion has produced any reputable scientists who are proponents of the Faith-Science coexistence.

In true agnostic form, we scream, show me the proof and we will not only join you're cause, but we will be the most intelligent warriors for it that you have ever seen.
No evidence=no cause=no soldiers.

Celebrate with all of the zeal and valor that your scientific brains can muster.
I don't thank God for Evolution like Patty Fisher does in this article,
but I do thank the scientific, detailed and brilliant mind of one the greatest scientists to have roamed the Earth.
Everyone should give the Origin of Species a read because, like Stephen Hawking, Darwin had an incredible capacity to teach, and his work is easily accessible to anyone with an eighth grade reading level.
And I have said it before and will say it again, with all science, precedent and the constitution on my side, intelligent design is not science, and does not belong in the science classroom.
Be sure that your local politicians are aware of your stance.
Teach ID anywhere else that you want to. It is great history or mythology, but keep it out of the biology classroom, because it is not science.

I had the great fortune of running into a very old friend tonight.
I haven't seen this girl in a little less than four years.
And she is beautiful.
I don't know why it was necessary to add that just then, but it was.
Back in the day, which according to Dane Cook, was a Wednesday (I love that guy), I worked for Barnes and Noble, or "Barnes," as we affectionately called it.
It was at one time the greatest job I have ever had and at the same time the worst job I have ever had.
The worst was when I had to work in the cafe.
We were the most bitter, hateful, spiteful group of people anyone would never like to meet.
But then I moved out into the fiction section and I ran that for roughly a year, and that was awesome. I got to talk about books all day, and to people who actually wanted to know about books, a rare breed these days.
Anyway, the woman that I ran into tonight, used to work in the children's section of the store and I would flirt with her any chance I got because if you saw her, you would say that her nose really does glow.
So I was working tonight, as I always do on Thursdays. I don't really like Thursdays because I wake up at seven and get ready for class, then I go to class until 1:25, and then I drive straight to work for my 2:00-10:30 shift, getting me home around 11:15,11:30. That is a full day and I don't like it.
But that is the nature of the beast and I deal with it.
This Thursday was a little different however because I realized once again that this really is a small world we live in.
Not only did we run into each other, but she gave me her number and wanted to catch up sometime, good news for me.
So I will call her this week and keep everyone informed.
We all know that I need to get over the last one in a very bad way, perhaps the old friend is the new light at the end of the tunnel.
Have a great one.

But I guess it is cartoons we are talking about here.
I was reading Lilek's daily Bleat, as I do every morning first thing when I get up,
and I must say, though it was short, it was entertaining as usual.
Then I was following the links at the end, I came across this one.
Apparently Iran wants to publish cartoons about the holocaust because... "They started it."
Well, if that's how they roll,
I can't wait to see them.
They had better be funny.

Wat's up doc?
A.J. Comblith at The Cavalier Daily gives his view on the unwritten, unspoken code of conduct that apparently any good high school journalist should follow.

Apparently there is a line between the freedom of expression and the obligation of expression.
Maybe there is and maybe there isn't.
That is a whole nother debate in and of itself (and not one that I am unwilling to get into, so by all means).
Regardless, here are the cartoons themselves, in case you have yet to see them, and even though this story is pasted all over the news and all over the blogosphere, they were moderately hard to find.
I mean, not as hard to find as the vibrator that doesn't exist in the top dresser drawer of the hot college chic that has conveniently left the room, giving you the opportunity to snoop through her things; but much harder than green jell-o.

And my question to Mr. Cavalier is, whether there is this law of proprietary PC reverential relevance to potentially keeping you're mouth shut or not, is this any human way to react to it? Is this the rebuttal of a God fearing people attempting to prove to the world that it is a peaceful community bent on communication and diplomacy.
We are all judged on our present and immediate actions, whether we like it or not, and personally I think that 12 cartoons are a lot less harmful than vowing to hunt down and murder the one's who drew them.

Here is a little excerpt retrieved from Glenn at Instapundit, and as he notes, and can as can clearly be seen from the expressions in this note, McCain is a little miffed at Senator Obama's insincere claims to support the quick, bipartisan legislative action that McCain wishes to take on the lobbying issue that congress is currently faced with.

Take a read.

I am sure that you have all at least heard that there is some commotion happening in Denmark, you may have heard something about a cartoon and the Prophet Muhammad, or you may be quite informed on the subject.

Either way, Arthur Macmillan has a pretty informative recap over at the Scotsman.

This is pretty serious business.
A few cartoons depicting The Muslim prophet in a comical fashion has sparked the radical hatred of an already sizzling group.
As the article shows, there have been demonstrations led by people carrying signs that read "Europe, your 9-11 will come," "Annihilate those who insult Islam" and "Freedom of speech, go to hell."
One protestor, Abu Ibraheem of Luton, said "there are no apologies... those responsible have to be killed."
Excuse me?
They are cartoonists. Regardless of the message or the messenger they are still cartoons.
Regardless of religious reverence or freedom of speech, they are still cartoons.
In one of the closing comments, Bashir Maan the Scottish spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain, tells us "I don't think the pictures should have been published. It only widens the gulf between Islam and the West. Maybe they don't appreciate the reverence Muslims have for the prophet."

I think that maybe the Muslims don't appreciate the lack of reverence we may have for the prophet, which is every bit as important to me as their reverence is to them. Perhaps some of us are a bit offended at the fact that they are threatening to kill people over a cartoon.
What makes them any more correct in their crusade against what they believe to be an outrage, than us in our crusade to try and live in a world where everything should have a lighter side.
I will tell you one difference, you never see a cartoonist out there killing people because they did not laugh at their jokes.
There is a lot more than the freedom of speech at stake here.

We are in danger of losing the freedom to live without a belief, strong enough to kill.

Joe Gandelman at the Moderate Voice gives a sequential rundown of the opinions of a few bloggers speaking out on the issue.

And you can too after reading this article.
You will laugh.
But I think you may simultaneously cringe in you soul over the true state of this Oprah debacle.
Someone make it stop.

Just something quick and fun.
For my poli-sci class I have an extra credit assignment to write a letter to my state congressmen and senators.
Which is cool I guess.
I intend to write on this issue, and see what kind of citizen pull one man has in the far-off future world of 2006.
Maybe my voice will be heard, or maybe it will be drowned out by all of the silence that is my fellow generation x.
Way to make yourselves known guys.

This is a very interesting, repeating and of course post-inevitable concern amongst the blogs, and bloggers of the world.
If you have been on My Space, or Xanga and fished around...No not phished around, but looked through some of the personal blogs that these kids -and not only the kids, they are simply the focus of this article- are keeping, it can get a little disconcerting.
Amanda Paulson, the author of "School's grapple with policing Students' Online Journals" found in the CSM, raises a good point, I think.
Never before has such personal information been so widely available in such abundance. You don't even have to be a member of these services to have access to at least free previews of what lies ahead.
Addresses, photos, personal information such as age, height, favorite and least favorite things. These are all just a few of the bits of information that if in the wrong hands could be potentially very devastating.
So, what to do?
Regulate the bloggers and their blogs, right?
Well, of course there are immediate civil issues that are unsheathed. It is one thing to filter blogs in public institutions such as schools, libraries and the like.
But to discuss a filtration system for the home, my first amendment spidey sense just knocked my imaginary gavel out of my hand.
I think that point is pretty widely well established and recognized, but there is mention of writing up a contract that each student, and I imagine each parent will have to sign at this particular school, saying that they will not bully blog or say hurtful or spiteful or vindictive things. Or something like that, I just made it up. I imagine that is how it would run though. Signing a contract like that and whisking away a first amendment right, can be a tricky thing. I only hope that parents are aware of the situation, in Chicago and elsewhere, and that they should be wary of signing a document, or having their children sign a document riddled with invasion of civil liberty.
I don't know.
Should bloggers be kept in check at home if they are writing things that could potentially be construed as near "future violence" ideology?
Let's hear it.