Celebrity, political, sport scandals seem to be all of the headlines lately and I feel the need to explain a few things to all of you out there who don’t understand how these things can happen to these people. Now I know, if anyone should know should know how far they can fall you would think it would be people in high places; yet time and again they plummet. Whether it’s Michael Vick, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Swaggart, or the recent hilarity of the soon to be ex-Senator Daniel Craig, they all seem to not know any better.
So lets back up a bit and ask ourselves what leads a person under intense public scrutiny to imagine that they can get away with unacceptable behavior?
This is actually quite easy. As public figures rise in power, influence, and fame people who want to share in that spotlight may help them around the rules that govern all of our daily lives. Or to put it simply, these people who surround the rich, powerful, and famous tell them that they are special. They give them everything, whenever they ask for it. So eventually they break the rules because the rules just aren’t there for them anymore. Psychiatrists call the process leading up to this belief “acquired narcissism”.
It happens when someone gradually starts believing that they are not like everyone else. This can be more pronounced in politicians because they believe that since they serve the public, have given countless time, hours, years of their lives, they now deserve a break when it comes to their comfort and desires.
To make matters worse, our whole society reinforces this. We learn not to challenge our bosses, even when we think that they are doing something wrong because we fear being punished or cut out of the rewards. We are all guilty of reinforcing bad behavior, which, when compounded on the same person over time, will almost always lead to them believing that they are special. From children to the President, everyone can be convinced by the people around them that the rules don’t apply to them. And as long as those people around them keep their actions quiet, they are right.
So special people do play by special rules and don’t expect to be caught, until they actually are. At which time they find out that no one is that special and that we all must live in the same world and play by the same rules. Moral of the story: always consider yourself special enough to think that you are one in a million, because with 6.75 Trillion people on Earth it means there are almost 7,000 other people just as special as you. That’s just special enough to feel good about yourself, but not arrogant enough to believe your own hype.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Monday, August 27, 2007
Are Most Antigay Republicans Gay?
Republican Idaho Senator Larry Craig, who flamboyantly endorsed Idaho's successful anti-gay constitutional amendment which banned gay marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships in his state, was recently arrested and pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct after he tries to solicit sex in a men’s bathroom at a Minnesota airport. Now humorous as this is, these stories are way too common. Whether it is evangelical preacher Ted Haggard’s militant stance on homosexuality before being found having had homosexual sex while using crystal meth with a male prostitute or Glenn Murphy Jr., who was the president of the Young Republican National Federation until it was found out that he lowered the pants of a young employee while he was sleeping and tried to give him oral sex, really begs the question, “Are most antigay Republicans gay?”.
It seems that every time one of these guys comes out with an antigay agenda, they’re eventually found out to be gay. Now I would like to point out that many politicians have succumbed to irony’s cruel humor. The best example I can think of is Strom Thurmond, who ran on a segregationist platform for president while fathering a child with a black woman. You would think that before anyone could get elected in this country they would have to pass through a Senatorial Irony Committee to check for obvious future hilarity. Anyone with an extreme stance on anything would be forced to submit to several tests to find out if they were involved or may soon become involved in the very thing that they propose to hate. Unfortunately, no such thing exists. Maybe if one did we would find out which activist antigay Republican was going to be found out next. Personally, my bet is on Senator, and 2008 presidential candidate, Sam Brownback. He has always run on a high-profile platform against gay marriage, porn and abortion -- which according to the custom of the current batch of Republicans, means that he is most likely gay, addicted to porn, and has had a couple past relationships that he would like to forget. Am I wrong? Maybe, but I have a feeling that you wouldn’t take me up on that bet.
It seems that every time one of these guys comes out with an antigay agenda, they’re eventually found out to be gay. Now I would like to point out that many politicians have succumbed to irony’s cruel humor. The best example I can think of is Strom Thurmond, who ran on a segregationist platform for president while fathering a child with a black woman. You would think that before anyone could get elected in this country they would have to pass through a Senatorial Irony Committee to check for obvious future hilarity. Anyone with an extreme stance on anything would be forced to submit to several tests to find out if they were involved or may soon become involved in the very thing that they propose to hate. Unfortunately, no such thing exists. Maybe if one did we would find out which activist antigay Republican was going to be found out next. Personally, my bet is on Senator, and 2008 presidential candidate, Sam Brownback. He has always run on a high-profile platform against gay marriage, porn and abortion -- which according to the custom of the current batch of Republicans, means that he is most likely gay, addicted to porn, and has had a couple past relationships that he would like to forget. Am I wrong? Maybe, but I have a feeling that you wouldn’t take me up on that bet.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
There is no War on Terror
First of all let me say that you cannot win a war unless it is against a proper noun. Terrorism, poverty, drugs are just regular nouns and are too ill-defined and unorganized to fight with. You can, of course, announce that you are going to fight against anything, but unless you have a concrete enemy (such as German in the early 1940s) you cannot win.
So that begs the question, why is our president constantly touting this War on Terror as a real war? To being with we must realize that any time that the country is at war, the President and Executive Branch as tremendous powers. So when we are in a state of constant war, the powers of the Executive Branch and its President will slowly and naturally expand to allow for more and more powers so that the President has more and more weapons at his disposal to win the war. Stay at war long enough and the Executive Branch will have amassed enough power control the other branches of government unchecked.
Or to quote from Orwell’s 1984 - "The very word 'war', therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous, war has ceased to exist. ... therefore War is Peace."
This comes in contrast to how it is being sold in reference to 9-11. What the Executive Branch has done is attempt to draw a line from 9-11 to all terror, as if all terror is connected with 9-11. Unfortunately, the world is not that simple. One small group of radical Islamic extremists named al-Qaeda, and headed by Osama bin Laden, attacked us. We retaliated by invading Afghanistan because that is where they were hiding and the government in control of that country was not able to give them to us. Failing to capture bin Laden, and failing to really damage the internal structure or power of al-Qaeda, and with other factors best known only to the Executive Branch, we then invaded Iraq under bad pretenses and extremely faulty intelligence.
In order to invaded Iraq, the pretense that Iraq held weapons of mass destruction was used and Congress declared an Authorized Use of Force against Iraq. This Authorized Use of Force is the same declaration that we used in both the Korean War and the Vietnam War, yet the Administration of the Executive is working very hard to not to call this current conflict the Iraq War -- even though all previous conflicts declared under the Authorized Use of Force were called a War with the country that it was declared upon.
What will history call this War? More than likely, we will all one day call it the Iraq War and not the War on Terror. So I encourage all of you to step ahead of the curve and refer to this war in its future tense. Maybe once we admit that we are at war with a particular country, we can work towards an actual concrete goal in Iraq and bring our troops home. I think that all of us prefer solid objectives based in reality to the current indefinite goal of just continuous war against an enemy that cannot be beat.
So that begs the question, why is our president constantly touting this War on Terror as a real war? To being with we must realize that any time that the country is at war, the President and Executive Branch as tremendous powers. So when we are in a state of constant war, the powers of the Executive Branch and its President will slowly and naturally expand to allow for more and more powers so that the President has more and more weapons at his disposal to win the war. Stay at war long enough and the Executive Branch will have amassed enough power control the other branches of government unchecked.
Or to quote from Orwell’s 1984 - "The very word 'war', therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous, war has ceased to exist. ... therefore War is Peace."
This comes in contrast to how it is being sold in reference to 9-11. What the Executive Branch has done is attempt to draw a line from 9-11 to all terror, as if all terror is connected with 9-11. Unfortunately, the world is not that simple. One small group of radical Islamic extremists named al-Qaeda, and headed by Osama bin Laden, attacked us. We retaliated by invading Afghanistan because that is where they were hiding and the government in control of that country was not able to give them to us. Failing to capture bin Laden, and failing to really damage the internal structure or power of al-Qaeda, and with other factors best known only to the Executive Branch, we then invaded Iraq under bad pretenses and extremely faulty intelligence.
In order to invaded Iraq, the pretense that Iraq held weapons of mass destruction was used and Congress declared an Authorized Use of Force against Iraq. This Authorized Use of Force is the same declaration that we used in both the Korean War and the Vietnam War, yet the Administration of the Executive is working very hard to not to call this current conflict the Iraq War -- even though all previous conflicts declared under the Authorized Use of Force were called a War with the country that it was declared upon.
What will history call this War? More than likely, we will all one day call it the Iraq War and not the War on Terror. So I encourage all of you to step ahead of the curve and refer to this war in its future tense. Maybe once we admit that we are at war with a particular country, we can work towards an actual concrete goal in Iraq and bring our troops home. I think that all of us prefer solid objectives based in reality to the current indefinite goal of just continuous war against an enemy that cannot be beat.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Who wants a snack?
I have a friend who is trying to lose weight for a quickly approaching wedding. She is the maid of honor and will be seeing people she has not seen since graduating college almost a decade ago. To do this she has cut down on the size of her meals, started exercising, and is now eating better. This is why when I saw her today staring woefully into her Cinnamon Dolce Frappuccino I asked her how her diet was going. Without looking up I heard a weak, “I don’t understand. I’ve done everything and I haven’t lost a pound”.
With this I said, “Well, you’re having a dessert as a snack”.
She looked up, smiled, and said, “No Brian, this is just a coffee”.
So I turned, walked slowly over to the café and returned with one of the Starbucks nutritional guides. Her Cinnamon Dolce Frappuccino was 490 calories, 50 less than a Big Mac. To which I again replied, “You are having a dessert as a snack”.
Again she looked down woefully into her Cinnamon Dolce Frappuccino, but this time I think that she understood.
Now I am the last person to ever give health advice. I eat copious quantities of most everything -- its part of my whole philosophy to devour life. So I have a few extra pounds, but I’m comfortable with who I am.
That being said, you people out there need to be honest with that you eat. My wife, Kela, loves these cheap granola bars that we buy at a local grocery store. These seemly healthy snacks have over 120 calories, or about the same as three strips of bacon. A 22oz coke, a favorite snack of most people, comes in with almost 300 calories -- the same as four macadamia nut cookies from Subway.
So listen people, if you want a snack, have an apple. If you want dessert, eat a dessert. But don’t try to fool yourself into thinking your dessert snack is at all healthy.
With this I said, “Well, you’re having a dessert as a snack”.
She looked up, smiled, and said, “No Brian, this is just a coffee”.
So I turned, walked slowly over to the café and returned with one of the Starbucks nutritional guides. Her Cinnamon Dolce Frappuccino was 490 calories, 50 less than a Big Mac. To which I again replied, “You are having a dessert as a snack”.
Again she looked down woefully into her Cinnamon Dolce Frappuccino, but this time I think that she understood.
Now I am the last person to ever give health advice. I eat copious quantities of most everything -- its part of my whole philosophy to devour life. So I have a few extra pounds, but I’m comfortable with who I am.
That being said, you people out there need to be honest with that you eat. My wife, Kela, loves these cheap granola bars that we buy at a local grocery store. These seemly healthy snacks have over 120 calories, or about the same as three strips of bacon. A 22oz coke, a favorite snack of most people, comes in with almost 300 calories -- the same as four macadamia nut cookies from Subway.
So listen people, if you want a snack, have an apple. If you want dessert, eat a dessert. But don’t try to fool yourself into thinking your dessert snack is at all healthy.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
The Environment is Cool!!!
While watching one of the infotainment channels today I caught a story about how a designer, named Anya Hindmarch, has designed a canvas bag that reads: “I’m not a plastic bag”. Needless to say, this brilliant bag is being snapped up by all of the ecofriendly people out there in consumer world. All of the important activists are supporting this bag and it is currently selling on eBay for upwards of $50. Never have I seen a bag so incredible in all of my life.
Well that is, except for the ones that my wife and I have been using for our groceries for the last several years. But in all fairness, most of them don’t have such an important message on them. Come to think if it most of them don’t have anything written on them at all. Up until now we had no idea that in order to be ecoconscious we had to advertise it in a language so simple that it could be understood by a mentally handicapped Australian wombat. Frankly, I don’t know how we missed it. How could we have been so selfish to quietly do our part without telling the world how ecocool we were?
That is why I, Brian Hamilton, have decided to tell the world that I too am ecofriendly. To do so I plan on purchasing the largest vehicle on the market to pull as 20 foot advertising sign trailer that reads “I Love the Environment”. I will then drive this vehicle in heavy traffic for long hours during the hottest parts of the day for maximum exposure. Only then will people understand how passionate I am about saving the environment.
Am I upset that others might try to use my environmental love to market a product to people who are just trying to look trendy and will discard it the second something else shiny is worn by a celebrity? No, because I know that ecopeople are here to stay -- that is, as long as we can each get one of those bags.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
A Few Words about the Impending Impeachment Proceedings
Our Constitution does two very powerful things; it both lays down the fundamental laws of the country and establishes the three branches of government. The Legislative branch makes the law, the Executive branch executes the law, and the Judicial branch interprets the law. This natural balance created a check to each branch that was to keep any one branch from becoming too powerful. The most important thing that we as a country can do is to make sure that this system remains in check. Almost every single one of our laws, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, right to bear arms… were designed with the intent of empowering the people with the ability to keep the branches of power fairly equal with one another.
That is why the upcoming impeachment is so important. The reach of the Executive branch has never been more powerful, and it did not get that way by following the rules of the Constitution. To use a metaphor: When George Washington cut down the cherry tree he used the wood to make a small box and in that box the president puts his powers. Over the years we’ve taken things out and put things in, but on January 20, 2009 if George Bush and Dick Cheney are not appropriately held to account for what they’ve added to the box, this administration will hand over a box with more powers then any president has ever had -- more powers then the Founders could have imagined. That box may be handed to Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Barack Obama, or any number of other potential presidents and whoever gets it is not going to give away the power that they’ve inherited. The only way that we take power out of that box is to punish George Bush and Dick Cheney now so that the next president cannot govern as they have.
The Founders of our country made six separate references to impeachment in the Constitution. They wanted us to know the power of impeachment, use the power of impeachment, and planned for impeachment to keep us strong. It is time to start impeachment hearings and regain the balance that once made our country strong.
That is why the upcoming impeachment is so important. The reach of the Executive branch has never been more powerful, and it did not get that way by following the rules of the Constitution. To use a metaphor: When George Washington cut down the cherry tree he used the wood to make a small box and in that box the president puts his powers. Over the years we’ve taken things out and put things in, but on January 20, 2009 if George Bush and Dick Cheney are not appropriately held to account for what they’ve added to the box, this administration will hand over a box with more powers then any president has ever had -- more powers then the Founders could have imagined. That box may be handed to Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Barack Obama, or any number of other potential presidents and whoever gets it is not going to give away the power that they’ve inherited. The only way that we take power out of that box is to punish George Bush and Dick Cheney now so that the next president cannot govern as they have.
The Founders of our country made six separate references to impeachment in the Constitution. They wanted us to know the power of impeachment, use the power of impeachment, and planned for impeachment to keep us strong. It is time to start impeachment hearings and regain the balance that once made our country strong.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Modern Female Empowerment is Bullshit
Standing in a bookstore I overhear two well dressed, mid-thirties, successful looking, short haired, long-skirt laden ladies standing in the fitness isle perusing a book called The Art of Pole Dancing: A Spin-by-Spin Guide and heard the following conversation (we’ll call one of them Tiffany and the Christi):
Christi: Yeah, so I’ve been doing it for Jeff for a couple of weeks now.
Tiffany: Oh my God, REALLY?
Christi: Absolutely, its sooooo empowering. I’ve never felt more in control of our relationship. It’s like, when I start dancing, I’m the one who is the boss and he has to sit there and pay full attention.
Tiffany Wow, so if I pole dance for Steve you think that I could take control of him? Do you think it would empower me too?
Christi: Oh yeah, I was watching TV, I think it was on Oprah or something, and they were talking about how we need to empower ourselves more in life. And I think that my dancing empowers me because I feel beautiful and strong when I do it and because Jeff does whatever I say!
Tiffany: I never really know what people mean when talk about empowerment.
Christi: I think it means when a women feels powerful and can do whatever she wants.
Tiffany: Thank God for women’s lib, my mother and grandmother were awesome. Ok, I’m buying the book. Mom, here comes Tiffany's empowerment!
That is when I realized that the feminism of the 60’s and 70’s has been co-opted by the newly redefined female empowerment of today. Empowerment is now being marketed as anything that makes a woman feel good or gets her noticed by others. New shampoos brag about how strong and shiny they make your hair, good makeup gives you confidence, and the vehicle that you drive gives you recognition as an important person with money. All of this pseudo-empowerment is done while constantly bombarding women with juxtaposing and equally persuasive advertisements about body image to reinforce the notion that the females primary role is as a passive sex object to be gazed upon by whoever chooses. Not only did the two women I overheard in the bookstore actually believe that empowerment means getting control over whoever you want by making yourself a pretty piece of meat, but they also thought that it was what their foremothers had intended when they fought for equality.
So please humor me for a minute and let me explain something to all of the women out there who are not still shaking your head in abject disbelief over those two individual’s comments:
True feminism is about absolute equality between the sexes. Empowerment is that ability to act upon that equality. Yes, that means that you can dance around a poll if you so choose, but it also means that you knowingly are taking a subservient position to please someone else at your own expense. You are nothing more then an amusement for someone else. Your power exists only because they give it you. If you forget that part, or choose to ignore it, you will no longer have the power to choose whether or not you want to be submissive because it will be automatically assigned to you.
So please, for the love of my mother’s and her mother’s generation, do not throw out everything they worked so hard for because your man shuts up for a moment and makes you feel pretty.
Christi: Yeah, so I’ve been doing it for Jeff for a couple of weeks now.
Tiffany: Oh my God, REALLY?
Christi: Absolutely, its sooooo empowering. I’ve never felt more in control of our relationship. It’s like, when I start dancing, I’m the one who is the boss and he has to sit there and pay full attention.
Tiffany Wow, so if I pole dance for Steve you think that I could take control of him? Do you think it would empower me too?
Christi: Oh yeah, I was watching TV, I think it was on Oprah or something, and they were talking about how we need to empower ourselves more in life. And I think that my dancing empowers me because I feel beautiful and strong when I do it and because Jeff does whatever I say!
Tiffany: I never really know what people mean when talk about empowerment.
Christi: I think it means when a women feels powerful and can do whatever she wants.
Tiffany: Thank God for women’s lib, my mother and grandmother were awesome. Ok, I’m buying the book. Mom, here comes Tiffany's empowerment!
That is when I realized that the feminism of the 60’s and 70’s has been co-opted by the newly redefined female empowerment of today. Empowerment is now being marketed as anything that makes a woman feel good or gets her noticed by others. New shampoos brag about how strong and shiny they make your hair, good makeup gives you confidence, and the vehicle that you drive gives you recognition as an important person with money. All of this pseudo-empowerment is done while constantly bombarding women with juxtaposing and equally persuasive advertisements about body image to reinforce the notion that the females primary role is as a passive sex object to be gazed upon by whoever chooses. Not only did the two women I overheard in the bookstore actually believe that empowerment means getting control over whoever you want by making yourself a pretty piece of meat, but they also thought that it was what their foremothers had intended when they fought for equality.
So please humor me for a minute and let me explain something to all of the women out there who are not still shaking your head in abject disbelief over those two individual’s comments:
True feminism is about absolute equality between the sexes. Empowerment is that ability to act upon that equality. Yes, that means that you can dance around a poll if you so choose, but it also means that you knowingly are taking a subservient position to please someone else at your own expense. You are nothing more then an amusement for someone else. Your power exists only because they give it you. If you forget that part, or choose to ignore it, you will no longer have the power to choose whether or not you want to be submissive because it will be automatically assigned to you.
So please, for the love of my mother’s and her mother’s generation, do not throw out everything they worked so hard for because your man shuts up for a moment and makes you feel pretty.
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Entry for August 05, 2007
I had a conversation this weekend with a female friend that really surprised me. We were talking body types and she was dumping on herself for the same reason that all women dump on themselves, because they don’t weigh 90lbs. Now I will never understand why women can’t see this, but no straight man wants a woman built like that. Fashion magazines, supermodels, and clothes designers are generally either gay men or unhappy women. So why on earth would any straight woman believe that that goal of 90lbs is what straight men want? Furthermore, if you think that you need to be 90lbs to feel good about yourself, who the hell are you really trying to please and why?
So here, for all of the women, let me explain what I, a straight male, look for when judging a woman on just physical beauty: Smile, healthy physique, face, and above all else, curves. I want to know you are a woman. A 90 pound rail thin girl looks like a 14 year old boy to me and is, thus, not attractive. So you have a couple of extra pounds? Good, the last thing that any man wants is someone perfect. Perfect people must beget other perfect people. And frankly, I don’t have time, energy, or drive to keep up with that.
So here, for all of the women, let me explain what I, a straight male, look for when judging a woman on just physical beauty: Smile, healthy physique, face, and above all else, curves. I want to know you are a woman. A 90 pound rail thin girl looks like a 14 year old boy to me and is, thus, not attractive. So you have a couple of extra pounds? Good, the last thing that any man wants is someone perfect. Perfect people must beget other perfect people. And frankly, I don’t have time, energy, or drive to keep up with that.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Well, it's ugly
Attached is the ultrasound from tonight. It is due February 8th, 2008 and is currently 8cm, upside-down, and already does not want to cooperate. Also, a certain family member asked me to add the button at the bottom and I had no choice but to comply.
Monday, July 23, 2007
The defining silence of people not watching
Winston Churchill once said that there is no finer investment for any community than putting milk into babies; I believe that this is also true with getting books into the hands of children.
So this last week brought upon a mass migration of people of all ages heading to their local bookstore to get their copy of the last installment of Harry Potter. This, I believe, is a good thing. Any time people turn off the TV, shut down their computers, and pick up a book, they are bound to get smarter -- even if that book is technically a children’s book.
Being that I’m a quick reader, I had it finished early and actually flipped on the TV (very rare for me) to see if I could catch the weather. And there on the nightly news, was a playful exchange of news people talking about how they couldn’t wait to get home and dive into reading. Yep, the people who make their living trying to get us to keep watching TV were telling us that they couldn’t wait to turn off that TV and read a book. It was wonderful and so subtle that I don’t think that anyone else really caught it. Intrigued, I flipped over to one of the 24 hour news channels and there they were showing video of children reading with a scrolling message along the bottom with the projected sales of the book, how long the book is, and some general information about the author and thought to myself: in culture of immediacy and technology, a good book still trumps all.
So this last week brought upon a mass migration of people of all ages heading to their local bookstore to get their copy of the last installment of Harry Potter. This, I believe, is a good thing. Any time people turn off the TV, shut down their computers, and pick up a book, they are bound to get smarter -- even if that book is technically a children’s book.
Being that I’m a quick reader, I had it finished early and actually flipped on the TV (very rare for me) to see if I could catch the weather. And there on the nightly news, was a playful exchange of news people talking about how they couldn’t wait to get home and dive into reading. Yep, the people who make their living trying to get us to keep watching TV were telling us that they couldn’t wait to turn off that TV and read a book. It was wonderful and so subtle that I don’t think that anyone else really caught it. Intrigued, I flipped over to one of the 24 hour news channels and there they were showing video of children reading with a scrolling message along the bottom with the projected sales of the book, how long the book is, and some general information about the author and thought to myself: in culture of immediacy and technology, a good book still trumps all.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
The Shitters
Do you know anyone who is never completely happy with anything? Now I’m not talking about scoring something an 8 out of 10 rating on something or a “Hey that was pretty good”, but people who immediately after finishing something they feel compelled to start degrading whatever it is that they just experienced. You could have just walked from having the best steak dinner, with a perfectly matched wine, excellent ambiance, and they would have to find something to immediately shit on. And I know that we can all slip into this occasionally, but some people just live in this world of constant complaining. I don’t know whether it is some sort of subconscious self-actualizing situation where they feel it necessary to insult everything that might make them feel better then they believe that they should feel. Maybe it’s some sort of holdover Puritan thing about feeling good about yourself or maybe it’s just because they are a miserable people who want to make everyone else as miserable as they are. Either way, these people piss me off and I do not know why I allow them around me - yet, I do.
Friday, July 20, 2007
So, we're gonna have a baby...
I was against it at first, but it sometimes just happens, even in the best of families. This is not necessarily cause for alarm. We think that the important thing is to keep our wits about us and to immediately borrow some money. If that doesn't work, I plan on threatening to give the child to relatives, which should loosen their purses. Baring a failure in that tactic, I will raise the child as I would raise any other living thing, I will leave it alone in the woods and hope for the best. If it finds its way back, I will try to nurture it, teach it, and love it. And if that too does not work out, I hereby leave my future child in your hands, with all perpetuity and legally binding clauses, the reader of this.
Thank you and good luck.
Thank you and good luck.
Monday, July 16, 2007
New Website!!!
Hello All,
Well I did it, the new brianhamilton.com website is up and running. Only one of the six picture pages is currently up, but I am uploading pictures as I write this. In the upcoming weeks an interactive family tree should also appear. Anyway, please give me some feedback and tell me what you think.
Brian
Well I did it, the new brianhamilton.com website is up and running. Only one of the six picture pages is currently up, but I am uploading pictures as I write this. In the upcoming weeks an interactive family tree should also appear. Anyway, please give me some feedback and tell me what you think.
Brian
Sunday, July 15, 2007
If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people.
We are currently approaching ½ trillion dollars in direct costs of the Iraq war. The pentagon current estimates are that by the time that we leave Iraq, we will have spent 2 trillion dollars. With that money we could have bought each of the 300 million people living in the US:
Three 60” HTDV’s, or
New Harley Sportser, or
One semester at Harvard, or
High speed internet for 100 years, or
We could have paid for every single US citizen’s health care for 10 years.
So if we can find the money to kill people, why can’t we find the money to help them?
Are we just too tired and beat-down to do anything about it?
It's your money, how do you want it spent?
Whatcha gonna do about it?
Anything?
Wimp
Three 60” HTDV’s, or
New Harley Sportser, or
One semester at Harvard, or
High speed internet for 100 years, or
We could have paid for every single US citizen’s health care for 10 years.
So if we can find the money to kill people, why can’t we find the money to help them?
Are we just too tired and beat-down to do anything about it?
It's your money, how do you want it spent?
Whatcha gonna do about it?
Anything?
Wimp
Friday, July 13, 2007
Diversity
As I watched Bill Moyers interview Anglican Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori a couple of days ago, I was amazed at the tremendous pressure put on that one woman over how her entire sect of religion is controlled, directed, and labeled. Since becoming the first female Anglican Bishop, she has had to contend with several in her domination refusing to take communion with her and threatening to brake away from the domination altogether. So when asked about religions exclusiveness, she responded, “desire to control, I think, is one of the basic human failings, if we can control access to the sacred, or control how the larger world understands those we like or do not like, [then] we have the ability to change things in creative or destructive directions.” What further intrigued me is that this was a person fighting just to be included in something the she was simultaneously attempting to promote.
This got me thinking about my history. Think back through history to those who have chosen to exclude others, what happened to them? Were they stronger because they kept the same beliefs, with the same people, for a long period of time? Or were they eventually undone by a collective group of people, pooling their assorted efforts, for a common cause against the exclusivity? I believe that in almost every case that I can think of, equality eventually won.
Exclusion, no matter how small, weakens your cause. That is the reason that our Statue of Liberty says:
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
Lady Liberty (or at least the female poet Emma Lazarus who wrote the lines) knew that it the true strength of any Republic rests on the backs of different people, from diverse backgrounds and cultures, who want nothing more than to help your cause. Moreover, it all comes down to simple math. Suppose you had to come up with the best soup ever made, would you select two of your close friends and attempt to make as many recipes as you could? Or would you reach out to the world at large and ask as many people as you could? What if you knew that there were other competing teams trying to come up with the same thing? Now imagine that this is your favorite sports team, your religion, or your government -- wouldn’t you want the best and brightest, no matter what?
So whenever you hear of a group, club, or organization, excluding anyone based color, race, religion, or sex, you should immediately see it for what it is: Either a group about to accept a new member, or one that is about to go extinct.
This got me thinking about my history. Think back through history to those who have chosen to exclude others, what happened to them? Were they stronger because they kept the same beliefs, with the same people, for a long period of time? Or were they eventually undone by a collective group of people, pooling their assorted efforts, for a common cause against the exclusivity? I believe that in almost every case that I can think of, equality eventually won.
Exclusion, no matter how small, weakens your cause. That is the reason that our Statue of Liberty says:
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
Lady Liberty (or at least the female poet Emma Lazarus who wrote the lines) knew that it the true strength of any Republic rests on the backs of different people, from diverse backgrounds and cultures, who want nothing more than to help your cause. Moreover, it all comes down to simple math. Suppose you had to come up with the best soup ever made, would you select two of your close friends and attempt to make as many recipes as you could? Or would you reach out to the world at large and ask as many people as you could? What if you knew that there were other competing teams trying to come up with the same thing? Now imagine that this is your favorite sports team, your religion, or your government -- wouldn’t you want the best and brightest, no matter what?
So whenever you hear of a group, club, or organization, excluding anyone based color, race, religion, or sex, you should immediately see it for what it is: Either a group about to accept a new member, or one that is about to go extinct.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Variety is the spice of life
Yesterday I was on the hunt for a spice named Adobo and had mild realizations that, even through the stores are getting larger, the selection is becoming smaller. But maybe a further explanation is in order:
Adobo is an extremely popular spice in the Latin American world for meats. It is very common in every grocery store near even the smallest Latin population. That being said, I live in Michigan, so I expected some problems. Meijers is a huge Super Wal-Mart-like store here in Michigan, so they were my first choice. Strike One. Next up was the Kroger, which is smaller, but located near a small and recently imported Mexican enclave. Strike two. So, with much regret, off to Wal-Mart I went. Surely Wal-Mart, with its selection of billions of items, acres of shopping, and constant market research would have a 2oz bottle of spice. But alas, I struck out.
What happened next surprised me. As I walked back through the spice and condiment isle I realized that I was low on ketchup. Stopping about 10 feet from where the spices ended, I was in immediately dumbfounded of the selection of ketchups available. There were, and this is not an exaggeration, 19 different types of ketchups. Upon choosing one I realized that since I had one item, I might as well pick up a couple of other things that I needed.
It was while picking up these couple other items that I slowly started realizing what was happening. Isle after isle, shelf after shelf, was a cornucopia of remarkably similar items, almost identical in price, size, and type, all next to each other on the shelf. There were over 40 different waters, hundreds of breads, and a selection of cereals that was spread over two 100 foot isles. Yet, everything seemed the same. The cereals were all made by a couple of large companies, the bread was all about the same, with the general variations on white vs. wheat, and the water was, well, water. Nothing that I found in this store had any real variety.
What I did find was massive quantities of similar items with different packing. Everything was a fake choice. It was the equivalent of going to a car lot that spanned acres and acres, to only find Hyundais. Sure, the Hyundai may be economical and cheap, but is it what you always want? Is only having the option of the same bland option an option at all? If your choice comes down to the blue one with the better radio or the red one with nicer wheels, how do you know that you wouldn’t have been happier with a Toyota, Ford, or a used Jaguar from the 80s? And what about motorcycles? Bikes? Electric cars? A scooter? Who knows? Not us, because all we have to see is the same thing in different packaging.
So now I sit lamenting at my computer, Adoboless, and all because I just wanted to add a little spice to my life.
Adobo is an extremely popular spice in the Latin American world for meats. It is very common in every grocery store near even the smallest Latin population. That being said, I live in Michigan, so I expected some problems. Meijers is a huge Super Wal-Mart-like store here in Michigan, so they were my first choice. Strike One. Next up was the Kroger, which is smaller, but located near a small and recently imported Mexican enclave. Strike two. So, with much regret, off to Wal-Mart I went. Surely Wal-Mart, with its selection of billions of items, acres of shopping, and constant market research would have a 2oz bottle of spice. But alas, I struck out.
What happened next surprised me. As I walked back through the spice and condiment isle I realized that I was low on ketchup. Stopping about 10 feet from where the spices ended, I was in immediately dumbfounded of the selection of ketchups available. There were, and this is not an exaggeration, 19 different types of ketchups. Upon choosing one I realized that since I had one item, I might as well pick up a couple of other things that I needed.
It was while picking up these couple other items that I slowly started realizing what was happening. Isle after isle, shelf after shelf, was a cornucopia of remarkably similar items, almost identical in price, size, and type, all next to each other on the shelf. There were over 40 different waters, hundreds of breads, and a selection of cereals that was spread over two 100 foot isles. Yet, everything seemed the same. The cereals were all made by a couple of large companies, the bread was all about the same, with the general variations on white vs. wheat, and the water was, well, water. Nothing that I found in this store had any real variety.
What I did find was massive quantities of similar items with different packing. Everything was a fake choice. It was the equivalent of going to a car lot that spanned acres and acres, to only find Hyundais. Sure, the Hyundai may be economical and cheap, but is it what you always want? Is only having the option of the same bland option an option at all? If your choice comes down to the blue one with the better radio or the red one with nicer wheels, how do you know that you wouldn’t have been happier with a Toyota, Ford, or a used Jaguar from the 80s? And what about motorcycles? Bikes? Electric cars? A scooter? Who knows? Not us, because all we have to see is the same thing in different packaging.
So now I sit lamenting at my computer, Adoboless, and all because I just wanted to add a little spice to my life.
Entry for July 10, 2007
The vast majority of scientists, and the majority of religious people, see little potential for pleasure or progress in the conflicts between religion and science that are regularly fanned into flame by a relatively small number on both sides of the debate. Many scientists are religious, and perceive no conflict between the values of their science -- values that insist on disinterested, objective inquiry into the nature of the Universe -- and those of their faith.
But there are lines that should not be crossed, and in a recent defense of his beliefs and disbeliefs in the matter of evolution, US Senator Sam Brownback (Republican, Kansas) crosses at least one. Senator Brownback was one of three Republican presidential candidates who, in a recent debate, described himself as not believing in evolution. He sought to explain his position with great nuance in a May, 31st article in The New York Times, in which he wrote: “Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the creation order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as atheistic theology posing as science.”
Humans, evolved, body and mind, from earlier primates. The ways in which humans think reflect this heritage as surely as the ways in which their limbs are articulated, their immune systems attack viruses and the cones in their eyes process colored light. This applies not just to the way in which our neurons fire, but also to various aspects of our moral thought. The way that disgust functions in our lives and shapes our moral decisions reflects not just cultural training, but also biological evolution. Current theorizing on this topic, although fascinating, may be wide of the mark. But its basis in the idea that human minds are the product of evolution is not atheistic theology. It is unassailable fact.
This does not utterly invalidate the idea that the human mind is, as Senator Brownback would have it, a reflection of the mind of God. But the suggestion that any entity capable of creating the Universe has a mind encumbered with the same emotional structures and perceptual framework as that of an upright ape adapted to living in small, intensely social peer-groups on the African savanna seems a priori unlikely.
In Brownback’s defense, it should be acknowledged that these are deep waters. It is fairly easy to accept the truth of evolution when it applies to the external world -- the adaptation of the orchid to wasps, for example, or the speed of the cheetah. It is much harder to accept it internally -- to accept that our feelings, intuitions, the ways in which we love and loathe, are the product of experience, evolution and culture alone. And such acceptance has challenges for the unbeliever, too. Moral philosophers often put great store by their rejection of the ‘naturalistic fallacy’, the belief that because something is a particular way, it ought to be that way. Now we learn that untutored beliefs about ‘what ought to be’ do, in fact, reflect an ‘is’: the state of human mind as an evolved entity. Accepting this represents a challenge that few as yet have really grappled with.
It remains uncertain how the new sciences of human behavior emerging at the intersections of anthropology, evolutionary biology and neuropsychology can be best navigated. But that does not justify their denunciation on the basis of religious faith alone. Scientific theories of human nature may be discomforting or unsatisfying, but they are not illegitimate. And serious attempts to frame them will reflect the origins of the human mind in biological and cultural evolution, without reference to a divine creation.
But there are lines that should not be crossed, and in a recent defense of his beliefs and disbeliefs in the matter of evolution, US Senator Sam Brownback (Republican, Kansas) crosses at least one. Senator Brownback was one of three Republican presidential candidates who, in a recent debate, described himself as not believing in evolution. He sought to explain his position with great nuance in a May, 31st article in The New York Times, in which he wrote: “Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the creation order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as atheistic theology posing as science.”
Humans, evolved, body and mind, from earlier primates. The ways in which humans think reflect this heritage as surely as the ways in which their limbs are articulated, their immune systems attack viruses and the cones in their eyes process colored light. This applies not just to the way in which our neurons fire, but also to various aspects of our moral thought. The way that disgust functions in our lives and shapes our moral decisions reflects not just cultural training, but also biological evolution. Current theorizing on this topic, although fascinating, may be wide of the mark. But its basis in the idea that human minds are the product of evolution is not atheistic theology. It is unassailable fact.
This does not utterly invalidate the idea that the human mind is, as Senator Brownback would have it, a reflection of the mind of God. But the suggestion that any entity capable of creating the Universe has a mind encumbered with the same emotional structures and perceptual framework as that of an upright ape adapted to living in small, intensely social peer-groups on the African savanna seems a priori unlikely.
In Brownback’s defense, it should be acknowledged that these are deep waters. It is fairly easy to accept the truth of evolution when it applies to the external world -- the adaptation of the orchid to wasps, for example, or the speed of the cheetah. It is much harder to accept it internally -- to accept that our feelings, intuitions, the ways in which we love and loathe, are the product of experience, evolution and culture alone. And such acceptance has challenges for the unbeliever, too. Moral philosophers often put great store by their rejection of the ‘naturalistic fallacy’, the belief that because something is a particular way, it ought to be that way. Now we learn that untutored beliefs about ‘what ought to be’ do, in fact, reflect an ‘is’: the state of human mind as an evolved entity. Accepting this represents a challenge that few as yet have really grappled with.
It remains uncertain how the new sciences of human behavior emerging at the intersections of anthropology, evolutionary biology and neuropsychology can be best navigated. But that does not justify their denunciation on the basis of religious faith alone. Scientific theories of human nature may be discomforting or unsatisfying, but they are not illegitimate. And serious attempts to frame them will reflect the origins of the human mind in biological and cultural evolution, without reference to a divine creation.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Lewis 'Scooter' Libby's Pardon
I find it strange that the people defending this action are pointing a finger at the Clinton pardons as a justification for Bush’s action. The reason I find it odd is that it is the same people who would rank Clinton at the bottom of presidents throughout our history. So essentially, they are arguing that Bush isn’t the worst president ever. That is how bad it has gotten; the only argument that the supporters of Bush are now using is that he isn’t the worst president ever.
If you haven’t seen it, watch the Olbermann video below. It’s his July 4th commentary and it is good.
If you haven’t seen it, watch the Olbermann video below. It’s his July 4th commentary and it is good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
