So...I finally finished "Chasing Molecules" (by Elizabeth Grossman), and the overall story seems to be that, despite the fact that you should probably never touch or buy anything made in any sort of traditional chemistry (from the past 50 years) ever again, there is hope for the future...if, and only if, people are willing to work together and eschew the slow, bureaucracy-riddled ways of government....
I never used to see the point of New Year's celebrations--what's a number, anyway, considering that the fiscal and academic calendars at the very least don't look the same at all; and, more importantly, that you have to study history in patterns, not in years--but now it seems like a good idea to have some sort of reference point.
Like, now, I could call 2010, and the upcoming era, the era of privatization. It's funny if you think about it, because this sort of thing has been really cyclical--in the early Industrial Revolution era, big business had it all; then along came TR and Taft and all their trustbusting, and now it seems we're back to the start, except that now lobbyists are a lot quieter about what they're up to.
So, resolutions for the government:
*Transparency
*Privatization where feasible, and where there are enough third party or nonprofit agencies around to prevent it all from tipping in favor of the old system of sticking to whatever works, even if it doesn't actually work that well
And for the world:
*Stop global warming! Start reversing damage!
*Do not be a silly place any more
If you'd like to put a wager on any of these things happening in the next ten years--no bet.
12.30.2009
12.25.2009
Sherlock Holmes
Okay, so for the record? I really, really hate that guy. I mean, in the books he's always all 'ohhh Lestrade what a dumbass I'm too good for Scotland Yard haha this case is all solved up but the only person I'm going to explain it to is Watson because he's the ooooonly one who can appreciate my awesomeness.'
The movie just proves that Robert Downey Jr., a giant screen, and good screenwriters can in fact make someone annoying totally awesome. And the best part is, they didn't give Watson a second-rate role either! I mean, yeah, he'll always be second fiddle, but they didn't try making him into a bumbling idiot or anything.
They did take the liberty of making him get kind of depressive every time a case ends, but he did live in a dark hovel (or was that *cough cough* the original Dupin?), and when you see what they have him do and how Watson deals with it, you'll forgive them.
Also the sets were totally sweet. Unfortunately, I could still tell where bits were digitally painted and all, but they were well executed, especially since the movie seems to largely have been filmed in New York.
OH. And--this is always been one of those annoying things about any sort of detective show--they actually give you the clues! So if you have a wide knowledge of poisons and chemistry and such, you can figure out what happened before he explains it all. (Okay, you can still figure out what happened, but not in such detail, or with exact terms.)
So, anyway. Totally worth a view (even a full price view!), especially if you're as pissed as I am about the lack of decent movies with hand-to-hand combat (yes, there be pugilism, and it's not only in the one scene the trailer gives!) and explosions at this time of year.
Also, if you are from Chicago, you will be awed and jealous at the five minutes of sunlight they have.
The movie just proves that Robert Downey Jr., a giant screen, and good screenwriters can in fact make someone annoying totally awesome. And the best part is, they didn't give Watson a second-rate role either! I mean, yeah, he'll always be second fiddle, but they didn't try making him into a bumbling idiot or anything.
They did take the liberty of making him get kind of depressive every time a case ends, but he did live in a dark hovel (or was that *cough cough* the original Dupin?), and when you see what they have him do and how Watson deals with it, you'll forgive them.
Also the sets were totally sweet. Unfortunately, I could still tell where bits were digitally painted and all, but they were well executed, especially since the movie seems to largely have been filmed in New York.
OH. And--this is always been one of those annoying things about any sort of detective show--they actually give you the clues! So if you have a wide knowledge of poisons and chemistry and such, you can figure out what happened before he explains it all. (Okay, you can still figure out what happened, but not in such detail, or with exact terms.)
So, anyway. Totally worth a view (even a full price view!), especially if you're as pissed as I am about the lack of decent movies with hand-to-hand combat (yes, there be pugilism, and it's not only in the one scene the trailer gives!) and explosions at this time of year.
Also, if you are from Chicago, you will be awed and jealous at the five minutes of sunlight they have.
12.21.2009
New Year Dawning
Holy fuck, we're almost onto a new decade of the new millennium!
Although I would like to point out that...shit, almost ten years ago, I would be totally pissed if you said that. Because we go by the Roman count, and the Romans were not awesome enough to invent zero, so that technically the first decade of the new millennium ends with the start of 2011.
But now I'm swaying to the side of perceptions being more important than truths, and as far as perceptions go, we're officially in the future!
*Kids born in the year 2000 are now able to walk and talk, and sometimes even construct coherent sentences.
*Kids born in 1990, one year after the Internet was invented (by Al Gore...actually I totally hate how the media misquoted him, not least because I didn't want to see Dubya in office), are now college age.
*The majority of elementary school students today do not remember September 11th, and as a result probably have no idea what the fuck we're doing in the Middle East.
And, as for the less scary:
*We have CLOUD!
*Green technology. I just learned about thorium as a potential nuclear fuel, and wow is it totally sweet--with no weapons uses, besides! (I'm reading a book called "Chasing Molecules," and will probably have more to say on the topic later.)
*Hybrid cars. These are cars that are called hybrids!
*But seriously corn utensils are still kind of awesome to me....
*Netbooks and smartphones. Web 3.0, here we come! Also along for the trip, a drastic rise in myopia.
*Data, data, data. Awesome computers make number crunching the new way to predict trends!
Personally, this was not the most awesome decade ever, but I think my judgment is colored by the fact that I was old enough to be cynical about it. Oh, and I didn't get to spend it in southern California. Why the fuck didn't I go to Berkeley....
Although I would like to point out that...shit, almost ten years ago, I would be totally pissed if you said that. Because we go by the Roman count, and the Romans were not awesome enough to invent zero, so that technically the first decade of the new millennium ends with the start of 2011.
But now I'm swaying to the side of perceptions being more important than truths, and as far as perceptions go, we're officially in the future!
*Kids born in the year 2000 are now able to walk and talk, and sometimes even construct coherent sentences.
*Kids born in 1990, one year after the Internet was invented (by Al Gore...actually I totally hate how the media misquoted him, not least because I didn't want to see Dubya in office), are now college age.
*The majority of elementary school students today do not remember September 11th, and as a result probably have no idea what the fuck we're doing in the Middle East.
And, as for the less scary:
*We have CLOUD!
*Green technology. I just learned about thorium as a potential nuclear fuel, and wow is it totally sweet--with no weapons uses, besides! (I'm reading a book called "Chasing Molecules," and will probably have more to say on the topic later.)
*Hybrid cars. These are cars that are called hybrids!
*But seriously corn utensils are still kind of awesome to me....
*Netbooks and smartphones. Web 3.0, here we come! Also along for the trip, a drastic rise in myopia.
*Data, data, data. Awesome computers make number crunching the new way to predict trends!
Personally, this was not the most awesome decade ever, but I think my judgment is colored by the fact that I was old enough to be cynical about it. Oh, and I didn't get to spend it in southern California. Why the fuck didn't I go to Berkeley....
12.17.2009
How is That Still Interesting?
Okay, so here is something I really do not get.
Take a pervasive issue like global warming, or healthcare, or the economy. At the start of the issue (or, if it's been around that long, new news-following generation), people are all, oh man!! But, within a few weeks, interest fatigue means that they hardly pay attention to the latest headlines on the issue.
Now, take a person. Say, a celebrity. They do something bad, it's everywhere. They do something bad three months later, it's everywhere. Six months, a year, ten years--people are still interested. And not just at home, but comics talk about it, it's a hot topic online....
Why does it seem that interest level in famous people accumulates, whereas for important issues that might actually have a bearing on one's lives, it decumulates (yes, I made that up, and yes, I know that there are plenty of real words out there)?
My guesses:
a) Reality is scary
b) People are idiots
c) We've evolved to focus more on people than things or abstractions
Of course, only c) has a chance of changing at all. They've found a rise in myopia since computers and not working outside became prevalent; makes sense, do we really need distance vision anymore? At the same time, our brains do need to start evolving to see abstractions as important.
Take a pervasive issue like global warming, or healthcare, or the economy. At the start of the issue (or, if it's been around that long, new news-following generation), people are all, oh man!! But, within a few weeks, interest fatigue means that they hardly pay attention to the latest headlines on the issue.
Now, take a person. Say, a celebrity. They do something bad, it's everywhere. They do something bad three months later, it's everywhere. Six months, a year, ten years--people are still interested. And not just at home, but comics talk about it, it's a hot topic online....
Why does it seem that interest level in famous people accumulates, whereas for important issues that might actually have a bearing on one's lives, it decumulates (yes, I made that up, and yes, I know that there are plenty of real words out there)?
My guesses:
a) Reality is scary
b) People are idiots
c) We've evolved to focus more on people than things or abstractions
Of course, only c) has a chance of changing at all. They've found a rise in myopia since computers and not working outside became prevalent; makes sense, do we really need distance vision anymore? At the same time, our brains do need to start evolving to see abstractions as important.
12.14.2009
Rethink the Environment, Now
Anyone who's been following news on the climate conference in Copenhagen and actually believes that this is where it's gotta happen must surely be feeling more than a twinge of despair by now. For one, politics forbids the rich countries from coming out and admitting that they do not, in fact, give a fuck about a bunch of poverty-stricken undeveloped nations that are just, let's face it, impeding the modern lifestyle.
Honestly, I don't think that any amount of climate conferences, belligerent and tense or otherwise, will make a significant policy difference. Especially since the U.S. is so large and spread out, no single national decision can cover the unique circumstances of every climate and state economy, so we're already screwed there.
More importantly, though, is the way we use preexisting concepts to deal with global warming and environmentalism and all that jazz.
So, if you've been doing your duty and buying all sorts of environmentally friendly products, you've probably seen by now that a big thing they love to mention is the use of vegetable based dyes. And they're even good at making it sound progressive, tossing in terms like 'footprint' and 'carbon'! But about the only thing more primitive than vegetable dye is insect dye. What the hell did you think people did before factories?
Basically, "progress" needs to go to hell. We need to give up on the notion that the more labs we get trying to solve a problem, the better it is. Instead, we should turn to preextisting solutions and use modern science to adapt them into more large-scale solutions. Why are composting, or reusing, or reducing such modern words? Because most people don't bother looking to the past for answers.
Also, notice that the 'balance of power' between China and the U.S. has come up a few times in the talks--although unfortunately information is limited--well, they're not our military or Cold War relic equals, what are they then? Economic equals.
Instead of trying to turn this into a purely state-oriented problem, countries should turn more of the responsibility onto the polluters. The face of the future is "corporate," and if we don't make them accountable now, what are we going to do later when we're so dependent that we cannot protest anything they decide?
Honestly, I don't think that any amount of climate conferences, belligerent and tense or otherwise, will make a significant policy difference. Especially since the U.S. is so large and spread out, no single national decision can cover the unique circumstances of every climate and state economy, so we're already screwed there.
More importantly, though, is the way we use preexisting concepts to deal with global warming and environmentalism and all that jazz.
So, if you've been doing your duty and buying all sorts of environmentally friendly products, you've probably seen by now that a big thing they love to mention is the use of vegetable based dyes. And they're even good at making it sound progressive, tossing in terms like 'footprint' and 'carbon'! But about the only thing more primitive than vegetable dye is insect dye. What the hell did you think people did before factories?
Basically, "progress" needs to go to hell. We need to give up on the notion that the more labs we get trying to solve a problem, the better it is. Instead, we should turn to preextisting solutions and use modern science to adapt them into more large-scale solutions. Why are composting, or reusing, or reducing such modern words? Because most people don't bother looking to the past for answers.
Also, notice that the 'balance of power' between China and the U.S. has come up a few times in the talks--although unfortunately information is limited--well, they're not our military or Cold War relic equals, what are they then? Economic equals.
Instead of trying to turn this into a purely state-oriented problem, countries should turn more of the responsibility onto the polluters. The face of the future is "corporate," and if we don't make them accountable now, what are we going to do later when we're so dependent that we cannot protest anything they decide?
12.09.2009
Abstinence
Alrighty, who here remembers their middle school sex ed class?
I actually had it twice, in both sixth and seventh grade. The former has the one funny story before tenth grade from any of this, and yeah it's good enough that I'll save it for in-person times.
But at neither time was abstinence on the curriculum. At the time it was kind of a 'no shit' deal...if you don't have sex, you don't get STDs or babies! Nooooo shit!
So I'm not actually against teaching it to kids, in part because I'm convinced that they have the same cap on total IQ points as my generation, and that the greater amount of them means they're all stupider. Stupid enough to not say no before eighteen, even (okay, sex at sixteen, maybe, but I'm going by biology, which dictates that giving birth is unsafe before eighteen).
However....
The people who insist on abstinence education, being a bunch of asshats, have turned into a massive right-wing Christian farce.
1. My sister brought this assignment home that basically translated to a thinly veiled threat. "If you aren't abstinent, you won't have a future!" No, seriously. She was told to put her life goals down, and then describe how being abstinent would help her achieve them. Guess what? Having sex does not, in fact, mean you're going to fail college, so all she could put down for all of them was that she'd have the time for it! The implication being, well, that you'd be too busy constantly fucking too get anything done.
2. They also said that it was okay to have sex after marriage. What if you're gay? And what about divorces? Also, other implication: a child born out of wedlock is a miiiiistake!
3. They haven't learned about sex yet. Basically, a classroom full of the same tweenies who think Disney is awesome and maybe Twilight too is being preconditioned to see sex as bad, or shameful, or gods know what else, before even finding out how, um, it actually works.
So yeah. Thanks, assholes, for making abstinence into your little Christian moral playhouse. Why can't it be taught as an alternative to an insatiable, distracting drive that fucks with your emotions? I mean, how many people have had sex early and then regretted it because it didn't mean they were now in love, but didn't realize that there's kind of a massive gulf between wanting to hump and wanting to live with?
Okay I guess that sounds a little bitter about sex, but honestly, how else can you make abstinence sound like a viable option at all? Damn that pleasure center (I bet if Southern Baptists were allowed to go near science, they'd work on some way to eliminate it..."We," anyone?, so thank God for that).
Totally unrelated: they need to invent the term 'dick flick,' so that "The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day" can be in a category besides totally badass. (No seriously it was fucking awesome, if you just want to see them shoot things and be hilarious assholes for most of it, and are not all hung up on feeeeeeeelings.)
I actually had it twice, in both sixth and seventh grade. The former has the one funny story before tenth grade from any of this, and yeah it's good enough that I'll save it for in-person times.
But at neither time was abstinence on the curriculum. At the time it was kind of a 'no shit' deal...if you don't have sex, you don't get STDs or babies! Nooooo shit!
So I'm not actually against teaching it to kids, in part because I'm convinced that they have the same cap on total IQ points as my generation, and that the greater amount of them means they're all stupider. Stupid enough to not say no before eighteen, even (okay, sex at sixteen, maybe, but I'm going by biology, which dictates that giving birth is unsafe before eighteen).
However....
The people who insist on abstinence education, being a bunch of asshats, have turned into a massive right-wing Christian farce.
1. My sister brought this assignment home that basically translated to a thinly veiled threat. "If you aren't abstinent, you won't have a future!" No, seriously. She was told to put her life goals down, and then describe how being abstinent would help her achieve them. Guess what? Having sex does not, in fact, mean you're going to fail college, so all she could put down for all of them was that she'd have the time for it! The implication being, well, that you'd be too busy constantly fucking too get anything done.
2. They also said that it was okay to have sex after marriage. What if you're gay? And what about divorces? Also, other implication: a child born out of wedlock is a miiiiistake!
3. They haven't learned about sex yet. Basically, a classroom full of the same tweenies who think Disney is awesome and maybe Twilight too is being preconditioned to see sex as bad, or shameful, or gods know what else, before even finding out how, um, it actually works.
So yeah. Thanks, assholes, for making abstinence into your little Christian moral playhouse. Why can't it be taught as an alternative to an insatiable, distracting drive that fucks with your emotions? I mean, how many people have had sex early and then regretted it because it didn't mean they were now in love, but didn't realize that there's kind of a massive gulf between wanting to hump and wanting to live with?
Okay I guess that sounds a little bitter about sex, but honestly, how else can you make abstinence sound like a viable option at all? Damn that pleasure center (I bet if Southern Baptists were allowed to go near science, they'd work on some way to eliminate it..."We," anyone?, so thank God for that).
Totally unrelated: they need to invent the term 'dick flick,' so that "The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day" can be in a category besides totally badass. (No seriously it was fucking awesome, if you just want to see them shoot things and be hilarious assholes for most of it, and are not all hung up on feeeeeeeelings.)
12.04.2009
Marriage is Unconstitutional
Marriage is Unconstitutional by therealmleh.blogspot.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. You can edit and/or redistribute as long as the bottom-right credits remain intact.
Of course, what I really want you to do is print this out and take it to a gay rights march!
Yes, the Christian church is, in fact, ass-raping the state in this picture. It's clean because I originally wanted to use this idea for a demonstration, and I'd rather not have to make it censored.
But seriously, it really bothers me that a basic civil right (the right to sharing tax benefits and becoming closest kin with someone you love) has to be voted into law, and that the only reason for this is that churches insist it's not okay.
12.03.2009
What's Wrong with the Gay Marriage Bill
Its existence, in short.
The fact that people have to pass a bill for the right to get married? Is disgusting.
Keep your goddamn church out of my state.
The fact that people have to pass a bill for the right to get married? Is disgusting.
Keep your goddamn church out of my state.
12.01.2009
Presidential Address at West Point
First things first, a few notables:
*"Hope" mentioned three times (once as 'hopes')
*At a few points, Obama paused and basically stood in that classic three-fourths profile view. I swear he's made turning one's head sideways iconic, even if it was for the teleprompter.
*AFGHANISTAN NOT IRAQ. How hard is that?! --he seems to be saying.
*Best of all? He actually mentioned that it's not like the Great Powers of the 20th century anymore! Finally! One of the biggest things that annoyed me about Bush--besides everything else--was that he insisted on fighting an amorphous "war on terror" by invading countries. Yes, Obama still defines the areas that the terrorists are in by the borders of the countries they inhabit--but that's sort of necessary when one is either violating the sovereignty of or allying with a state.
He began the speech with saying that America was right to invade Afghanistan, 9/11--for a moment, I thought I was hearing Bush; except that a) he can pronounce things and b) he still does not approve of our involvement in Iraq. Also, he very clearly right away made the point that neither race nor religion should be an issue, and went on to mention the improved relations with the Middle East. No crusades here.
Three key points guaranteed to appeal to the military, all beginning with d's--disable, dismantle, destroy.
Much better: a specific month (July 2011) for when the U.S. will be out of Afghanistan. Only 2010 specified for Iraq.
Justifications for troop surge (30,000 more), besides having allies: our responsibilities, *I forget the second one*, and interests. (It might have been security. The new rationale for being in the Middle East
Basically, he makes no move to hide the fact that the U.S. has "interests," but never says what exactly these interests are. I'm sure oil is a top assumption on everyone's list...but what about that Cold War relic of spreading democracy? Obama did argue against key objections like the idea that Afghanistan is secretly Vietnam, but there's a reason that comparison has been made, and it's not necessarily a misreading of the history following the end of the conflict.
OH. And he included a bit about the economic significance of waging war! YES! (He even went so far as to name the cost of the war this year--$30 billion--but said nothing about how much we'd be spending in the next two years, just that it would be closely watched and made transparent--a word he didn't use; just "honesty.")
All in all, it's very satisfying to have a President who can make references, not just to political science but to key historical periods--using merely the name of past presidents and certain statements ('bringing down walls'--sound familiar?). He mentioned FDR at the end, and it's hard not to wonder why specifically; the Great Depression was mentioned earlier, but what about FDR's role in entering WWII, especially since he was only able to do it after Pearl Harbor? Would Obama have entered Pakistan (by the way, he can actually pronounce some of the places there) and Afghanistan if he had been President during 9/11?
This aside, and even ignoring all the questions raised by what Obama didn't or, sometimes, did say, I have to wonder: how do people in the Middle East react to this? Not necessarily the terrorists, as many of them are too far gone to consider a more diplomatic solution (nor can they be recognized as dignitaries, considering that they generally don't represent states), but everyone else.
Dear Middle East: How do you feel about America the superpower?
*"Hope" mentioned three times (once as 'hopes')
*At a few points, Obama paused and basically stood in that classic three-fourths profile view. I swear he's made turning one's head sideways iconic, even if it was for the teleprompter.
*AFGHANISTAN NOT IRAQ. How hard is that?! --he seems to be saying.
*Best of all? He actually mentioned that it's not like the Great Powers of the 20th century anymore! Finally! One of the biggest things that annoyed me about Bush--besides everything else--was that he insisted on fighting an amorphous "war on terror" by invading countries. Yes, Obama still defines the areas that the terrorists are in by the borders of the countries they inhabit--but that's sort of necessary when one is either violating the sovereignty of or allying with a state.
He began the speech with saying that America was right to invade Afghanistan, 9/11--for a moment, I thought I was hearing Bush; except that a) he can pronounce things and b) he still does not approve of our involvement in Iraq. Also, he very clearly right away made the point that neither race nor religion should be an issue, and went on to mention the improved relations with the Middle East. No crusades here.
Three key points guaranteed to appeal to the military, all beginning with d's--disable, dismantle, destroy.
Much better: a specific month (July 2011) for when the U.S. will be out of Afghanistan. Only 2010 specified for Iraq.
Justifications for troop surge (30,000 more), besides having allies: our responsibilities, *I forget the second one*, and interests. (It might have been security. The new rationale for being in the Middle East
Basically, he makes no move to hide the fact that the U.S. has "interests," but never says what exactly these interests are. I'm sure oil is a top assumption on everyone's list...but what about that Cold War relic of spreading democracy? Obama did argue against key objections like the idea that Afghanistan is secretly Vietnam, but there's a reason that comparison has been made, and it's not necessarily a misreading of the history following the end of the conflict.
OH. And he included a bit about the economic significance of waging war! YES! (He even went so far as to name the cost of the war this year--$30 billion--but said nothing about how much we'd be spending in the next two years, just that it would be closely watched and made transparent--a word he didn't use; just "honesty.")
All in all, it's very satisfying to have a President who can make references, not just to political science but to key historical periods--using merely the name of past presidents and certain statements ('bringing down walls'--sound familiar?). He mentioned FDR at the end, and it's hard not to wonder why specifically; the Great Depression was mentioned earlier, but what about FDR's role in entering WWII, especially since he was only able to do it after Pearl Harbor? Would Obama have entered Pakistan (by the way, he can actually pronounce some of the places there) and Afghanistan if he had been President during 9/11?
This aside, and even ignoring all the questions raised by what Obama didn't or, sometimes, did say, I have to wonder: how do people in the Middle East react to this? Not necessarily the terrorists, as many of them are too far gone to consider a more diplomatic solution (nor can they be recognized as dignitaries, considering that they generally don't represent states), but everyone else.
Dear Middle East: How do you feel about America the superpower?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)