This is by Joe Rao of Space.com:
You've probably heard that line before – no doubt fairly recently, thanks to a bogus e-mail that unfortunately received wide circulation on the Internet this summer with promises of Mars being as big as the full moon.
But this fact is absolutely true: Mars, the only planet whose surface we can see in any detail from the Earth, is now moving toward the best viewing position it will provide to us until the year 2014. Planet watchers have already begun readying their telescopes.
If you haven't seen it, it will be well worth looking for the red planet next week, even though you'll have to wait until after midnight to see it well.
Mars is currently midway between the zodiacal constellations of Taurus, the Bull and Gemini, the Twins and during this week it will rise shortly before 11 p.m. local daylight time. There is certainly no mistaking it once it comes up over the east-northeast horizon. Presently shining like a pumpkin-hued, zero magnitude star, Mars is currently tied for fifth place (with Vega) among the 21 brightest stars.
But as it continues to approach our Earth in the coming weeks and months, Mars will only be getting brighter: it will surpass Sirius, the brightest star in the sky by Dec. 9 and during the latter half of December it will even almost match Jupiter in brilliance.
Late next Wednesday night (or more precisely, early on Thursday morning), Mars will hover about 7-degrees above and to the right of the last quarter moon as they rise above the east-northeast horizon (your clenched fist held at arm's length is roughly 10-degrees in width). As you will see for yourself, the so-called "Red Planet" actually will appear closer to a yellow-orange tint – the same color of a dry desert under a high sun.
How close?
Every 26 months, or so, Earth makes a close approach to Mars, as our smaller, swifter orbit "overtakes" Mars around the sun. Because both the orbits of Mars and Earth are mildly elliptical, some close approaches between the two planets are closer than others.
This current apparition of Mars will be nowhere near as spectacular as the oft-referred approach of August 2003 when the planet came closer to Earth than it had in nearly 60,000-years.
Rather, on this upcoming occasion, Mars will come closest to Earth on the evening of December 18th (at around 6:46 p.m. Eastern Standard Time).
The planet will then lie 54.8 million miles (88.2 million kilometers) from Earth as measured from center to center. Mars will arrive at opposition to the sun (rising at sunset, setting at sunrise) six days later on Christmas Eve, December 24th.
How big?
That recent Martian e-mail message – a hyperbole which was widely circulated for a fourth consecutive year – lead people to believe, with liberal use of exclamation marks, that on Aug. 27, Mars would appear as bright as (or as large as) that night's full moon in the night sky. The subject header urged viewers to prepare to view "Two Full Moons."
It was amazing (and a little disturbing) to see just how many people actually believed that Mars could loom so large in our sky. But the truth is that even when at its absolute closest possible approach to Earth, Mars can appear no larger than 1/72 as big as the moon; to the unaided eye it would appear as nothing more than an extremely bright, non-twinkling star.
When it comes closest to Earth on December 18th of this year, Mars' apparent disk diameter will be equal to 15.9 arc seconds. To get an idea of just how large this is, wait until darkness falls this week and if you have a telescope, check out Jupiter, gleaming in the southwestern sky; it'll appear about 35 arc seconds across.
In contrast, Mars' disk will appear less than half as big as Jupiter's when the Red Planet comes closest to Earth later this year. While this may sound small, keep in mind that this is still atypically large for Mars. In fact, from November 30th through Jan. 5, 2008, Mars' apparent size will be larger than at any time until April 2014. Around the time that Mars is closest, amateurs with telescopes as small as 4-inches and magnifying above 120-power should be able to make out some dusky markings on the small yellow-orange disk, and perhaps the bright white polar cap.
Size isn't everything
From Dec. 15 through Dec. 29, Mars will blaze at magnitude -1.6, a bit brighter than Sirius, but just slightly inferior to Jupiter. Mars will still be positioned between Taurus and Gemini, at a rather high declination of about +27-degrees.
So almost as if to compensate for its relatively small apparent size, Mars will literally soar in the night sky of late-December.
When it reaches its highest point in the sky at around midnight local time, its altitude will be 70-degrees at Seattle, 76-degrees for New York, and an exceptional 83-degrees at Los Angeles. Meanwhile, amateur and professional astronomers stationed in southern Texas and central Florida will see Mars pass directly, or very nearly overhead!
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Military Creditability For Sale
Something happened this last week that was both sad and unfortunate. David Petraeus, the four star general and commander of the War in Iraq, testified before the Senate in the hope that he could persuade the public at large that the latest war strategies would soon yield acceptable results. Now the unfortunate part of this event is not that the that current plan still incorrectly assumes that the Iraqi people want the Democracy and will put apart their divide to allow it to flourish, it’s that when the plan ultimately fails the military will take yet another blow to its creditability.
Remember back to April of 2002, when then Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the UN Security Council about the specific locations and quantities of the Weapons of Mass Destruction? The vast majority of his creditability came not from his position, but from the fact that he was a solider. Though we did not know the specifics of his 30 year military career that spanned from a Second Lieutenant all the way to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we knew that it was heroic, noble, and done at great personal sacrifice for the country. In time we learned that the things that he were not true. Our belief in him, and in creditability of the military, slipped.
Fast forward to the present, as we are still digesting General Petraeus’ testimony and we see that General was put in the same fateful position as the previous Secretary of State: trade himself for the mission. Once a solider always a solider. And just as a solider will throw himself on a grenade to save his unit, the officer will throw himself on a report to save his superiors. This belief in always giving yourself to the call of your country should never be abused by anyone in a higher position. Our soldiers, whether it is a grunt in the field or a four star general, deserve to be treated with the honor and dignity that they deserve.
The United States turns a sad page in our history the day that we cannot look to our enlisted men and women and immediately see them with the assumed creditability that they deserve to have. So in time, when the Iraq War has finally ended and we have a chance to look back on those soldiers who represented the military to the public, we will mourn their loss of their creditability, trust, and honor.
Remember back to April of 2002, when then Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the UN Security Council about the specific locations and quantities of the Weapons of Mass Destruction? The vast majority of his creditability came not from his position, but from the fact that he was a solider. Though we did not know the specifics of his 30 year military career that spanned from a Second Lieutenant all the way to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we knew that it was heroic, noble, and done at great personal sacrifice for the country. In time we learned that the things that he were not true. Our belief in him, and in creditability of the military, slipped.
Fast forward to the present, as we are still digesting General Petraeus’ testimony and we see that General was put in the same fateful position as the previous Secretary of State: trade himself for the mission. Once a solider always a solider. And just as a solider will throw himself on a grenade to save his unit, the officer will throw himself on a report to save his superiors. This belief in always giving yourself to the call of your country should never be abused by anyone in a higher position. Our soldiers, whether it is a grunt in the field or a four star general, deserve to be treated with the honor and dignity that they deserve.
The United States turns a sad page in our history the day that we cannot look to our enlisted men and women and immediately see them with the assumed creditability that they deserve to have. So in time, when the Iraq War has finally ended and we have a chance to look back on those soldiers who represented the military to the public, we will mourn their loss of their creditability, trust, and honor.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Ahoy You Rumsoaked Scallywags
It be the 19th of September, National Talk Like a Pirate Day, and I’m here to tell the lot of you that you be keelhauled for mutiny if you don’t participate in this here holiday. Where else are you going to get the change to let your inhibitions take over that crusty exterior you’ve put up against the world? So let your true rebellious self shine through and make civility and proper English walk the plank.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Decide My Fate
As someone who teaches for a living at a couple different universities, I have a certain amount of flexibility when it comes to social norms. I am almost expected to be slightly eclectic and/or eccentric. Unfortunately, I'm about as jeans and t-shirt as you can be. So that is why I have decided to let you nice people out there in internetland vote on something simple and easy.
I am at the point where I need a haircut and would like a yes or no vote as to whether or not I should just let it grow long. So what do you think? I will go with whichever side has the most votes. Please respond to this blog to cast your vote.
I am at the point where I need a haircut and would like a yes or no vote as to whether or not I should just let it grow long. So what do you think? I will go with whichever side has the most votes. Please respond to this blog to cast your vote.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Happy Constitution Day - Whatever that means...
I love my country just as much as any person and consider myself a true scholar in American history (not to mention that I am working on a PhD in US Public Policy), but forced patriotism has always seemed very undemocratic to me. So I was not surprised to read the following in today’s paper:
The new holiday, enacted in 2004, seems to completely miss the point of the Constitution. Simply celebrating the document does absolutely nothing to further the understanding of it. And if anything, it discourages conversation and research into it because students believe that they are getting enough of it by celebrating and discussing it for one day. It’s a single day where the lesson plan changes, some interesting facts are trotted out, and we all give thanks for our Fore Fathers. Blah. Just one more thing the students can ignore now and while later claiming that they were schooled in it.
Just compare Constitution Day with Easter. I bet you that just about anyone can give you a decent one sentence description of either, but can they actually give you any details about the holiday? I would hazard to guess that if you quizzed them they would have more questions then answers. I can almost see it now: Where did the “Easter Bunny” come from? What rights does the First Amendment really give us? Ahhhhhh?
Why doesn’t celebrating these holidays inspire us to ask more questions? It’s because we’re too busy celebrating the holiday through their commercialism and associated marketing. Nothing cheapens the memory of something quite like an inspired marketing department.
If you feel you must, go ahead and celebrate your Constitution Day as your school, civic group, or local representatives say that you should. But know this, every time that you tune in to see how wonderful our country is I’ll be sitting here rolling my eyes because I know that it is one less person who will ever understand what it truly means. Don’t believe me, quick tell me what the 9th amendment is and why it is important… .now tell me why the Easter bunny gives out chocolate.
A study being released Monday (9/11/07) by a foundation that focuses on journalism and the First Amendment found that 51 percent of high school students questioned had not heard of the day when they are required by law to learn about the Constitution. The occasion is usually observed on or around Sept. 17, the day the document was adopted in 1787.
The new holiday, enacted in 2004, seems to completely miss the point of the Constitution. Simply celebrating the document does absolutely nothing to further the understanding of it. And if anything, it discourages conversation and research into it because students believe that they are getting enough of it by celebrating and discussing it for one day. It’s a single day where the lesson plan changes, some interesting facts are trotted out, and we all give thanks for our Fore Fathers. Blah. Just one more thing the students can ignore now and while later claiming that they were schooled in it.
Just compare Constitution Day with Easter. I bet you that just about anyone can give you a decent one sentence description of either, but can they actually give you any details about the holiday? I would hazard to guess that if you quizzed them they would have more questions then answers. I can almost see it now: Where did the “Easter Bunny” come from? What rights does the First Amendment really give us? Ahhhhhh?
Why doesn’t celebrating these holidays inspire us to ask more questions? It’s because we’re too busy celebrating the holiday through their commercialism and associated marketing. Nothing cheapens the memory of something quite like an inspired marketing department.
If you feel you must, go ahead and celebrate your Constitution Day as your school, civic group, or local representatives say that you should. But know this, every time that you tune in to see how wonderful our country is I’ll be sitting here rolling my eyes because I know that it is one less person who will ever understand what it truly means. Don’t believe me, quick tell me what the 9th amendment is and why it is important… .now tell me why the Easter bunny gives out chocolate.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Reality is Frequently Inaccurate
I am by no means an expert at transcendentalism, existentialism, logical positivism, rationalism, or most any other philosophical ism -- although I do have a bit of experience in hedonism.
That being said, a little background may be in order. The conscious experiences that you have are known as a phenomenological reality. And those of you who have studied your Descartes know that you exist because you know you exist. So the question now, as it has always been, is whether or not you can trust your phenomenological reality as the truth or is your belief in your that reality simply makes it true to you.
It is said that reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. It is that persistent illusion perpetrated by your mind to get you through the day.
We all need to believe a basic core set of ideas in order to live: Gravity works, bacon is delicious, and if you wander out into a busy intersection at rush hour you will be hit by a bus. The big ones are easy to understand. They are basic and the need to believe them is primitive and simple. You follow them to survive. Where my questioning of reality comes in is in the small things -- mostly because they are easier to argue with at this point.
Which leads me to my want of a special day of discovery. I have been wondering if it was possible to set my mind aside for a day and convince myself that after the scope of basic phenomenological reality I could turn off that programming and see the world differently. Seeing things anew is the hallmark of creativeness, ingenuity, and imagination. So we must all be able to do this at some level. If I could just find a way to reroute for awhile (yes, without drugs), I should be able to understand things differently.
The problem is, I have no idea where to start….
That being said, a little background may be in order. The conscious experiences that you have are known as a phenomenological reality. And those of you who have studied your Descartes know that you exist because you know you exist. So the question now, as it has always been, is whether or not you can trust your phenomenological reality as the truth or is your belief in your that reality simply makes it true to you.
It is said that reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. It is that persistent illusion perpetrated by your mind to get you through the day.
We all need to believe a basic core set of ideas in order to live: Gravity works, bacon is delicious, and if you wander out into a busy intersection at rush hour you will be hit by a bus. The big ones are easy to understand. They are basic and the need to believe them is primitive and simple. You follow them to survive. Where my questioning of reality comes in is in the small things -- mostly because they are easier to argue with at this point.
Which leads me to my want of a special day of discovery. I have been wondering if it was possible to set my mind aside for a day and convince myself that after the scope of basic phenomenological reality I could turn off that programming and see the world differently. Seeing things anew is the hallmark of creativeness, ingenuity, and imagination. So we must all be able to do this at some level. If I could just find a way to reroute for awhile (yes, without drugs), I should be able to understand things differently.
The problem is, I have no idea where to start….
Friday, September 14, 2007
Toga, Toga, Toga!
The Greeks and the Romans ruled the Western part of the Earth for over 5,000 years and knew a great deal about how to run a country efficiently with ever increasing technology and constants advancements. They went through a similar period of time where they too became economically comfortable and that translated into every aspect of life. Luxuries were on the rise in the middle class, with each generation rising to become comparatively better than the last. Eventually, they all ended up in reasonable comfort wearing togas and sandals.
This, I predict, is where we are headed. Just in my short lifetime I have seen the average person become increasing comfortable with the world around them. Everything has become more efficient, more potent, and works to aid us in our contentment. To mirror this change it is now fashionable for world leaders to wear suits without ties, offices have gone to “business casual”, and it is socially acceptable to wear flip-flops to just about anywhere.
To continue this path into the future, we can predict societies that will follow this trend towards comfort and ease of clothing. Eventually proper work attire for our world leaders will become jeans and a t-shirt, sweat-suits will be acceptable to wear a wedding, and the rest of us will probably just wander about our daily lives in pajamas. The next step to this devolution of clothing is to realize what the Greeks and Romans new long along -- togas and sandals are all you need. Yes, it will become acceptable for the most powerful and respected people in the world to show themselves in public wearing nothing but a sheet and two pieces of plastic strapped to their feet.
I for one will be pleased when this happens. Too long have I worried about trying to match my shoes with my pants and trying to pick out what ties go with what suit jacket. Instead, I will look forward to just choosing a clean toga and whatever sandals I trip over on the way to the bathroom. And in order to encourage this advancement in comfort over civil decency, I hope to inspire each of you to follow my lead, buck the curve, and go strait to the inevitable by wearing nothing but togas and sandals from here on out. Thank you.
This, I predict, is where we are headed. Just in my short lifetime I have seen the average person become increasing comfortable with the world around them. Everything has become more efficient, more potent, and works to aid us in our contentment. To mirror this change it is now fashionable for world leaders to wear suits without ties, offices have gone to “business casual”, and it is socially acceptable to wear flip-flops to just about anywhere.
To continue this path into the future, we can predict societies that will follow this trend towards comfort and ease of clothing. Eventually proper work attire for our world leaders will become jeans and a t-shirt, sweat-suits will be acceptable to wear a wedding, and the rest of us will probably just wander about our daily lives in pajamas. The next step to this devolution of clothing is to realize what the Greeks and Romans new long along -- togas and sandals are all you need. Yes, it will become acceptable for the most powerful and respected people in the world to show themselves in public wearing nothing but a sheet and two pieces of plastic strapped to their feet.
I for one will be pleased when this happens. Too long have I worried about trying to match my shoes with my pants and trying to pick out what ties go with what suit jacket. Instead, I will look forward to just choosing a clean toga and whatever sandals I trip over on the way to the bathroom. And in order to encourage this advancement in comfort over civil decency, I hope to inspire each of you to follow my lead, buck the curve, and go strait to the inevitable by wearing nothing but togas and sandals from here on out. Thank you.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Entry for September 11, 2007
I think that we all love the individuals in the military. The sheer courage to prove that you will die in the name of our country is the highest level of patriotism and citizenry imaginable. That is why it pisses me off so much when our leaders make choices that obviously are not worth the weight of those lives. Sacrifice should come equally from the Citizenry and the State.
This is anger is compounded when our elected representatives refuse to admit their mistakes and adapt their policies. George Washington is by far the most experienced at learning from his mistakes as he lost almost every battle he was ever in, floundered in his personal life, and killed thousands in vain attempts at the impossible. This was a man who failed and always picked himself back up, learned what he could, and tried to move forward in a different way. That process is why he was ultimately successful and our most beloved president.
Now to wish that our current President George would be like our first President George would be fruitless. Instead, what I would like is a way to help our current president see that the direction in which he is heading is not one that will lead towards success at a cost that the American people are willing to spend. We will not win the war in Iraq, it was not worth the lives spent, it is not redemption for past atrocities as we know it is not in any way connected with its original intention, and it has become yet another situation in which our leadership has failed to learn from past mistakes.
I spent this 9-11 doing the little part that I could to understand who we are and how we fit into the world. I started my day by grading end of semester papers and this evening I reread several of my favorite history books. What I refused to do was tune into the nonstop TV coverage of that horrible day's events because I know that my current mourning comes not for the lives lost, but for the lives we still have yet to loose before a more responsible leadership steps forward to reclaim our country in the name of those who still offer to lay down their lives for the sake of ours. Honor isn't about making the right choices; it's about dealing with the consequences of the bad ones.
This is anger is compounded when our elected representatives refuse to admit their mistakes and adapt their policies. George Washington is by far the most experienced at learning from his mistakes as he lost almost every battle he was ever in, floundered in his personal life, and killed thousands in vain attempts at the impossible. This was a man who failed and always picked himself back up, learned what he could, and tried to move forward in a different way. That process is why he was ultimately successful and our most beloved president.
Now to wish that our current President George would be like our first President George would be fruitless. Instead, what I would like is a way to help our current president see that the direction in which he is heading is not one that will lead towards success at a cost that the American people are willing to spend. We will not win the war in Iraq, it was not worth the lives spent, it is not redemption for past atrocities as we know it is not in any way connected with its original intention, and it has become yet another situation in which our leadership has failed to learn from past mistakes.
I spent this 9-11 doing the little part that I could to understand who we are and how we fit into the world. I started my day by grading end of semester papers and this evening I reread several of my favorite history books. What I refused to do was tune into the nonstop TV coverage of that horrible day's events because I know that my current mourning comes not for the lives lost, but for the lives we still have yet to loose before a more responsible leadership steps forward to reclaim our country in the name of those who still offer to lay down their lives for the sake of ours. Honor isn't about making the right choices; it's about dealing with the consequences of the bad ones.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Sunday, September 02, 2007
Bill O’Reilly is Not Hitler
Lately I’ve been hearing more and more individuals drawing parallels from Bill O’Reilly to Hitler or the Nazi Party. This is both untrue and unfair. Hitler’s party killed 5 million Jews, caused one of the largest wars this world has ever seen, and left a scar on several generations. O’Reilly hosts a TV show where he voices his opinion about current news events. To think that someone who is on TV and speaks his mind is in any way equal to the level of Hitler is pure bullshit.
So why do people claim that O'Reilly is that bad? Basically it comes down to the fact that they don’t like what he is saying, but don’t have enough of an argument or intellect to convince anyone else that he is actually that bad. It is their way of telling the world that they just aren’t smart enough smart enough to make O’Reilly’s comments as evil as they seem them. So anytime you head anyone claiming that someone is “like Hitler”, “like the Nazi Party”, or even “like the Ku Klux Klan”, just know that they are a dimwitted person desperately trying to make you believe something that is not true. People who compare anyone to Hitler are so filled with hate that they want to destroy our very constitution so that they could ban free speech that they do not agree with. These are the true people who hate our country and our way of life.
So why do people claim that O'Reilly is that bad? Basically it comes down to the fact that they don’t like what he is saying, but don’t have enough of an argument or intellect to convince anyone else that he is actually that bad. It is their way of telling the world that they just aren’t smart enough smart enough to make O’Reilly’s comments as evil as they seem them. So anytime you head anyone claiming that someone is “like Hitler”, “like the Nazi Party”, or even “like the Ku Klux Klan”, just know that they are a dimwitted person desperately trying to make you believe something that is not true. People who compare anyone to Hitler are so filled with hate that they want to destroy our very constitution so that they could ban free speech that they do not agree with. These are the true people who hate our country and our way of life.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Entry for August 30, 2007
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.
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
