Friday, May 30, 2008

Of Sex Toys, $300, Malkin and Racism

Today found me awake at 4am and full of an inexplicable surplus of energy. By 5am, I was driving down Massachusetts Avenue in Cambridge, looking for a place to buy the Boston Globe. To the extent that I was on a "mission," I failed. I did, however, find Verna's open for business at 5:30. Verna's happens to be a bakery. A few minutes later I was on my way home with mocha cakes and a "Figure 8" for myself. If you don't know what a "Figure 8" is, I won't ruin the mystery by describing it. They're wonderful little taste delights that I've been fond of for years. Back in the day, my father and I would stop at Verna's for coffee and the aforementioned pastry in between cleaning houses in Cambridge.

So there's a history here.

Unfortunately, Verna's was sold, but the new owner kept the name and is still making fairly good pastries. Not as good as they were, though. Trust me, I would know, being a fat fuck and all.

I really need to be in therapy. If only I could muster the courage and fortitude.

Were I a woman, I'd be a lesbian
with a Jack Rabbit
But enough about pastry and self-improvement, let me write awhile about money and sex. The "money" portion of today's entry involves the telling of a sad tale, of wealth discovered, claimed and subsequently taken away. I'm talking about the "Stimulus Check" that Bushie sent to just about everyone. Even I was supposed to get one, po' little me. I had such plans for that $300, so many ways I could stimulate the economy. Toys in Babeland, a lesbian-run sex toy shop out of San Francisco, sent me promotional email suggesting that I buy a rubber vagina or butt plug with my $300. In the abstract, I'm a big supporter of all sex toy users, but I never got into it myself. Even the purple, absurd rubber vagina that Clare bought for me two years ago sits in a box in the closet, unused. Well, used once. I need not toys...another whole human being is enough. The butt plug coupon was amusing, however, as it literally proposed that I shove the stimulus money up my ass. They had so many toys to choose from; strap-ons, dildos, vibrators, sleeves, bondage leather, oils, and the famous "Jack Rabbit." While I sincerely enjoyed the prospect of buying $300 worth of sex toys, essentially giving my Bush money to a lesbian couple in San Francisco, it would have been a waste. I love sex, to a degree that my lover might call annoying, but I simply don't need a tool box of silicone cocks and Mandelay. Well, Mandelay does have something to offer me. Enough about that.

Two of these fitted bras cost me $186,
Nancy wanted to smack me
Then I thought of buying clothes, which is tough to do when one is a poor child like me. A new Fedora would suit me, as would a shirt with French cuffs. Sigh.I also thought of pissing it away on a vacation here or there. A neighborhood cat needs to be captured and "fixed," I could have done that with my $300. Or bought 60 boxes of Ring Dings. Or paid some bills.

What I'm trying to relate here is that I really had plans for my $300. A windfall to a tramp like me. Alas, sex toys and Ring Dings are not going to be in my future...immediate future, anyway (could a Ring Ding itself be a sex toy?). With great consternation, I found out via two letters that arrived the same day that my check was on it's way. The next letter I opened had me ensconced in a modicum of anger and sadness; my check had been "intercepted" by my student loan company.

 You may have noticed that I am the very picture of erudition. Oh, yes, you must have. Ha! But that fancy book-learnin' didn't come cheap. As of now, I still owe nearly $49,000. I'd like to say that it's a little less now, what with the involuntary $300 payment I made, but I can't. It didn't even cover a small portion of the interest, let alone the principal.

Woe is me.

I'm not going to complain, however. This has been a good week for the Democrats, and Left in general. Michelle Malkin made an ass out of herself when she accused Rachel Ray of being an "Islamic apologist" after Ray wore a paisley scarf in one of her Dunkin' Donuts commercials. The scarf resembled a "keffiyah," which is traditionally worn by Islamic men. If you haven't heard of this story, by all means find it via Google. It is among the stupidest things a public figure has said since the 2003 "Freedom Fries" nonsense drummed up by two Republican Representatives, Bob Ney and Walter Jones. Michelle Malkin isn't high profile generally, but the marginal Right Wing loves her.
Attending university while working full time is
great. It creates hope for a brighter future.
And it's ironic that her position mirrors the Iranian government position on wearing keffiyah, that it should be worn by men only.

John McCain keeps indicating that he isn't up to the challenge of running against Obama. McCain's only hope is that our nations proud hicks and rednecks will make it impossible for Obama to win. I used to think that the racist factor was a minor one, but after the Democratic primaries in Kentucky and W. Virginia, I'm not so sure.

I'll be on later, I'm suddenly struck with an anxiety attack because the phone rang. It happens.

Friday, May 23, 2008

M

The Fogey News Hour, also known as 60 Minutes, has a story this Sunday about how this generation is a bunch of assholes. That fact is loosely connected to how everybody is an asshole, regardless of age, creed or color. I'm told that "Generation M" is particularly obnoxious because they allow their parents to attend job interviews and push professors around, and cannot deal with failure. Dealing with failure is absolutely critical to living. Life repeatedly and earnestly poops in your tub while you're taking a bath.

Earnestly poops.

It's easy for me to sit here and swipe at an entire generation with generalizations and a mocking assessment, so I'll keep doing it. The problem, some maintain, can be traced back to a childhood of scoreless Little League baseball games (no winners or losers), constant reinforcement and doting parents. I'm trying to like this generation, mainly because they are making capitalists miserable and don't seem to give a shit. Upon closer examination, however, one finds that they are very ambitious and arrogant.

So they can cram it.

Thursday, May 22, 2008

Smokin' The World

It's 10:36 in the morning here in Metro Boston, looks cloudy outside and feels and smells smoky in here. My father lives with my girlfriend and I, and he loves to smoke. Eventually, he'll smoke me, the cats, the snake, the dog and Linda. From there, he'll smoke the rug, the kitchen tile, the mailman, and on and on. Undeniably, stranger things have happened.

It would be nice if I could remember my mailman's name, but for all I know he's a fucking robot. Folksy affability is not my atout. Although I have given him a Christmas card almost every year, with something like $5 in it. I don't think you can get away with giving anyone less than $5 unless time travel is involved. And just for the record, I know that it's a mailman and not a mail-person because I have proof. For reasons that are unclear to everyone in the neighborhood, he pushes the mail through the slot with his cock.

Yesterday I made a sad attempt at escaping depression via sleep by taking lorazepam. I hate when it comes to that, but I'd rather knock myself out than be a walking uber-bummer to those in my life.

I'm a walking uber-bummer.

The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) is running an advertising campaign that features a freakish beast out of Greek mythology; a combined donkey and elephant. The campaign is about ending "gridlock" and encouraging compromise between the Republicans and Democrats. This annoys me more than it should. It's such populist bullshit. The assumption that the truth is always in the middle is a commonly made one, and one that will lead us to a very bad place. Specifically, the dumpster behind the Denny's near Caribou, Maine. If not there, somewhere equally unpleasant.

I hate to break it to the peons, but sometimes (even frequently) the best approach is advocated by those firmly in the political margins. How do you compromise on abortion, for example, if one side believes that life begins at conception? Or with people who want to teach "Intelligent Design" in the public schools? You can't. Sometimes the problem is fanaticism. More often, however, it's about the nature of the issue at hand. Surely you know what I'm talking about. You don't? You poor boob. It must be tough being you.

The idea sounds good...to simply compromise on every issue. But it's just not possible, friends and neighbors. Beyond that, I'm not sure how much "compromise" and agreement I want in a country of only two political parties. If they get together too much, we'll essentially have ONE party, and that way lies disaster. When I vote for a representative of any kind, I want him or her to consider the philosophical disposition and rhetoric that won the election. Consider the rhetoric!
I know first-hand how politics can lead to destruction. My beloved Socialist Party USA is currently undergoing a split for reasons so convoluted and obscure that I'm not even going to try a summary. My poor girlfriend has heard me go on and on about it, especially since I briefly took the side that led the faction.


Wednesday, May 21, 2008

The Story of My Right Arm

You may know me, or you may be just passing through, or you may be both. Know me or not, I'd like to introduce you to my right arm. This is part of an 11 part series. Enjoy!

A little numbness in my right arm, followed by a modicum of dull pain that eventually dissipates over several hours. My right hand is in top form, except for a long scar on the back of the hand up to the wrist. That scar is there because of a very poor stitching job in the ER. The cut that required stitches was done by me one day at work years ago. I sliced my hand with a razor blade that I was using to scrape errant paintdrops off the windows before I washed them. I was a window washer. Anyway, it was one hell of a cut. I cut so deeply because of a bizarre logic I was chasing, which I'll soon relate.

The knuckles of the fingers on my right hand are very enjoyable to crack, much to the consternation of my beloved. Both hands are ice cold, probably related to one or all of my medications.

My right elbow is nice and smooth, with no dead or loose skin. Happy day. But higher up, above the elbow, there is very loose skin that came as the result of losing 190 pounds in the last few years. I'd like to have it removed, and may try to do so myself (I have a Time-Life book that covers every "at-home" surgery). It feels vain, to want loose skin surgically removed, but it is something other than vanity. I'm not that exercise will help, but only if I engage in a rather extreme program of muscle building.

I don't want to be in an extreme program of muscle anything.

On the hairy front, my arm is within the parameters of "normal." Some arms have less hair, most have the same amount, or more. Aesthetically, it's an average arm of two skin tones which meet near a border town called, "Hosluphica." Also known as my elbow. My right forearm is tanned a bit from my rare moments in the sun. My upper arm is as white as the alabaster on an ancient Egyptian King's sarcophagus.

One side of Hosluphica faces a white plain that extends to the shoulder and beyond. The other side faces a forest of hair growing from within the most tanned skin one could find on my body. Hosluphica is also the spot where three bones meet up to get down; the humerus, ulna and radius.

In medical terms, there is nothing remarkable about my right arm.

If I were wanted by the FBI, or perhaps Interpol, they might mention the scar on my wrist. Or as a method of identifying my body.

I'm right-handed, so it does most of the work; masturbating, letter-writting, nose-picking and ass-wiping in particular. I also wave and shake hands with it.

So the reason for my cutting so deeply in my beloved right hand and wrist is strongly connected to my being a lunatic. I had gotten it into my mind that I was evil, and I needed to protect myself from myself, and maybe the world, too. I had planned to mutilate both hands, but the nine stitch cut I provided had the effect of robbing the project of its allure. Both the goal and the means were examined and rejected.

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Of Byrd, Kennedy and Paul

For reasons that are unclear to me, and that don't really matter, I haven't written anything on here for quite a while.

Today is the Democratic Primary in Kentucky and Oregon, and with any luck Hillary Clinton will be out by this time tomorrow. That seems unlikely, given that Kentucky will go to Clinton because of her racist base there. Obama will win Oregon, but probably not by enough to end Clinton's run. If her rhetoric is any indication of how she really thinks and feels, then she is going to stay in it until the Democratic Convention. Perhaps I'm underestimating her scruples, and loyalty to the party, but methinks her ambition trumps those factors.

McCain continues to talk like a man who doesn't quite understand the impact of his words. Back in 2000 he seemed like any other moderate Republican. He was wrong most of the time even then, but now he comes across as painfully naive for a man of such experience. Not to mention his absurd and unjustified faith in laissez-faire economics. I'm not big on conspiracy theories, but McCain and Bush remind me of how the Reagan Administration used tax cuts to bankrupt government programs and render them ineffective to the point that it makes sense to advocate their elimination. Basically, to cripple them and then get rid of them entirely. How else can you explain cutting taxes during a war that was supposed to "pay for itself" in oil money, but instead has cost us just under a trillion dollars (just about any source will back that number up, In fact, it's rather conservative).

I just heard that Senator Ted Kennedy has been diagnosed with a brain tumor, located in the parietal lobe of his brain. I'm genuinely saddened by this, as we will certainly need him in the coming years. His retirement will make it easier for clueless Republicans to continue dismantling social programs and cut taxes. I'm quite happy with our two Massachusetts Senators. At one point, I volunteered for Kerry, during a Senate campaign back in 1990. This is around the time that I enthusiastically joined the Socialist Party and started the dance of a marginalized radical. But I understand the cultivated pragmatism of any mainstream politician, including Kerry. Sitting here in my flat, a man of absolutely so consequence, I don't have to worry about compromise and holding my tongue, as it were. Kennedy, who now appears to be in his last term, and Kerry are both good men. Personally, because of my disability and associated povery, I think I owe a lot to them both.

When I was a Socialist Party activist back in the day, mostly in the '90's, I worked with the Libertarian Party on something called the Fair Ballot Access Initiative. Libertarians, big and small "L" alike, were fun to work with and, despite many fundamental disagreements, we worked well together.

These days, the Libertarian Party is clearly the third party with the best hopes of cracking the two party system. Unfortunately, I don't think most libertarian enthusiasts are aware of what the party is advocating. A 25 year old stoner from Arizona told me not too long ago that she liked Ron Paul because he wants to get rid of "The Fed." When I asked her to explain why she wanted to go back on the gold standard, she balked. When I informed her that Paul supports an abortion ban, she called me a liar. I don't know what to do with an "activist" like that...by all means, find out everything about a candidate or cause before you order the button and hold the picket sign.

Oh, mercy. Senator Byrd was just on television, crying for Ted Kennedy. When we lose the likes of Byrd and Kennedy, which we will soon, we'll be left with a whole generation of Michael Keatons who think Ronald Reagan is a nation hero. Blurg...

Monday, May 05, 2008

Win Ben Stein's Fetid, Rotten Little Brain

My brother sent me this article after I happen to be talking to my father about Ben Stein. I didn't know until recently that Stein apparently drank heartily from an intellectually poisoned well a long time ago, and feels the need to attack evolution. The attempt to fuse evolution (science) with Eugenics (pseudo-science) and the Holocaust is shameful. The ID'ers can't win a debate, so they turn to propaganda.

Stick to movies, Ben, and definitely not Fast Times at Ridgemont High, cause we all know you were in Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Ha! You haven't the scruples, integrity or brains for anything else.

Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know...

...about intelligent design and evolution

By John Rennie and Steve Mirsky

In the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, narrator Ben Stein poses as a "rebel" willing to stand up to the scientific establishment in defense of freedom and honest, open discussion of controversial ideas like intelligent design (ID). But Expelled has some problems of its own with honest, open presentations of the facts about evolution, ID—and with its own agenda. Here are a few examples—add your own with a comment, and we may add it to another draft of this story. For our complete coverage, see "Expelled: No Intelligence AllowedScientific American's Take.

1) Expelled quotes Charles Darwin selectively to connect his ideas to eugenics and the Holocaust.
When the film is building its case that Darwin and the theory of evolution bear some responsibility for the Holocaust, Ben Stein's narration quotes from Darwin's The Descent of Man thusly:

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

This is how the original passage in The Descent of Man reads (unquoted sections emphasized in italics):

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The producers of the film did not mention the very next sentences in the book (emphasis added in italics):

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.

Darwin explicitly rejected the idea of eliminating the "weak" as dehumanizing and evil. Those words falsify Expelled's argument. The filmmakers had to be aware of the full Darwin passage, but they chose to quote only the sections that suited their purposes.

2) Ben Stein's speech to a crowded auditorium in the film was a setup.
"
Viewers of Expelled might think that Ben Stein has been giving speeches on college campuses and at other public venues in support of ID and against "big science." But if he has, the producers did not include one. The speech shown at the beginning and end was staged solely for the sake of the movie. Michael Shermer learned as much by speaking to officials at Pepperdine University, where those scenes were filmed. Only a few of the audience members were students; most were extras brought in by the producers. Judge the ovation Ben Stein receives accordingly.

3) Scientists in the film thought they were being interviewed for a different movie.
As Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Eugenie Scott, Michael Shermer and other proponents of evolution appearing in Expelled have publicly remarked, the producers first arranged to interview them for a film that was to be called Crossroads, which was allegedly a documentary on "the intersection of science and religion." They were subsequently surprised to learn that they were appearing in Expelled, which "exposes the widespread persecution of scientists and educators who are pursuing legitimate, opposing scientific views to the reigning orthodoxy," to quote from the film's press kit.

When exactly did Crossroads become Expelled? The producers have said that the shift in the film's title and message occurred after the interviews with the scientists, as the accumulating evidence gradually persuaded them that ID believers were oppressed. Yet as blogger Wesley Elsberry discovered when he searched domain registrations, the producers registered the URL "expelledthemovie.com" on March 1, 2007—more than a month (and in some cases, several months) before the scientists were interviewed. The producers never registered the URL "crossroadsthemovie.com". Those facts raise doubt that Crossroads was still the working title for the movie when the scientists were interviewed.

4) The ID-sympathetic researcher whom the film paints as having lost his job at the Smithsonian Institution was never an employee there.
One section of Expelled relates the case of Richard Sternberg, who was a researcher at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History and editor of the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. According to the film, after Sternberg approved the publication of a pro-ID paper by Stephen C. Meyer of the Discovery Institute, he lost his editorship, was demoted at the Smithsonian, was moved to a more remote office, and suffered other professional setbacks. The film mentions a 2006 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report prepared for Rep. Mark Souder (R–Ind.), "Intolerance and the Politicization of Science at the Smithsonian," that denounced Sternberg's mistreatment.

This selective retelling of the Sternberg affair omits details that are awkward for the movie's case, however. Sternberg was never an employee of the Smithsonian: his term as a research associate always had a limited duration, and when it ended he was offered a new position as a research collaborator. As editor, Sternberg's decision to "peer-review" and approve Meyer's paper by himself was highly questionable on several grounds, which was why the scientific society that published the journal later repudiated it. Sternberg had always been planning to step down as the journal's editor—the issue in which he published the paper was already scheduled to be his last.

The report prepared by Rep. Souder, who had previously expressed pro-ID views, was never officially accepted into the Congressional Record. Notwithstanding the report's conclusions, its appendix contains copies of e-mails and other documents in which Sternberg's superiors and others specifically argued against penalizing him for his ID views. (More detailed descriptions of the Sternberg case can be found on Ed Brayton's blog Dispatches from the Culture Wars and on Wikipedia.)

5) Science does not reject religious or "design-based" explanations because of dogmatic atheism.
Expelled frequently repeats that design-based explanations (not to mention religious ones) are "forbidden" by "big science." It never explains why, however. Evolution and the rest of "big science" are just described as having an atheistic preference.

Actually, science avoids design explanations for natural phenomena out of logical necessity. The scientific method involves rigorously observing and experimenting on the material world. It accepts as evidence only what can be measured or otherwise empirically validated (a requirement called methodological naturalism). That requirement prevents scientific theories from becoming untestable and overcomplicated.

By those standards, design-based explanations rapidly lose their rigor without independent scientific proof that validates and defines the nature of the designer. Without it, design-based explanations rapidly become unhelpful and tautological: "This looks like it was designed, so there must be a designer; we know there is a designer because this looks designed."

A major scientific problem with proposed ID explanations for life is that their proponents cannot suggest any good way to disprove them. ID "theories" are so vague that even if specific explanations are disproved, believers can simply search for new signs of design. Consequently, investigators do not generally consider ID to be a productive or useful approach to science.

6) Many evolutionary biologists are religious and many religious people accept evolution.
Expelled includes many clips of scientists such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, William Provine and PZ Myers who are also well known as atheists. They talk about how their knowledge of science confirms their convictions and how in some cases science led them to atheism. And indeed, surveys do indicate that atheism is more common among scientists than in the general population.

Nevertheless, the film is wrong to imply that understanding of evolution inevitably or necessarily leads to a rejection of religious belief. Francisco Ayala of the University of California, Irvine, a leading neuroscientist who used to be a Dominican priest, continues to be a devout Catholic, as does the evolutionary biologist Ken Miller of Brown University. Thousands of other biologists across the U.S. who all know evolution to be true are also still religious. Moreover, billions of other people around the world simultaneously accept evolution and keep faith with their religion. The late Pope John Paul II said that evolution was compatible with Roman Catholicism as an explanation for mankind's physical origins.

During Scientific American's post-screening conversation with Expelled associate producer Mark Mathis, we asked him why Ken Miller was not included in the film. Mathis explained that his presence would have "confused" viewers. But the reality is that showing Miller would have invalidated the film's major premise that evolutionary biologists all reject God.

Inside and outside the scientific community, people will no doubt continue to debate rationalism and religion and disagree about who has the better part of that argument. Evidence from evolution will probably remain at most a small part of that conflict, however.