A Seinfeld Moment

Did you ever see the Seinfeld episode in which he is scratching the side of his nose in such a way that from the other side it appears as if he's picking his nose, and then his girlfriend sees him and actually thinks that he's picking his nose? Something similar happened to me today, but it does not involve my nose or a girlfriend. Rather, it involves a man in a dirty bathroom. (If this was a TV show, then this would be a great time to cut to a commercial).

So I was at McDonald's today (I have to keep up my Elvis-esque figure--see previous post on Elvis), and I was suddenly overcome with an urge, a burning sensation in my loins that means only one thing in all languages: I had to pee.

So I walked into the bathroom, and noticed that there was only one urinal (and it was occupied, of course), so I opened the door to the unoccupied stall. Before me sat a toilet seat splattered with urine. Oh well, I thought, that just means that I am no longer bound by ettiquet and protocal to lift the lid; so I wizz away. However, I did not expel a haphazard, erratic stream. I hit my target; the mess was not mine.

On the way out of the stall, I heard the door fly open and saw a man grasping at his belt and heading straight for the stall. He clearly had a case of the Virginia Quick-Step. I swung to my side to allow him passage, and I was just at the sink about to wash my hands when I heard him swear. He must have seen the urine spattered toilet seat. While I can sympathize with the guy, he was out of line for saying sarcastically (and loudly), "Thanks. Thanks a lot." That's when I realized that he was blaming me for the mess. I wanted to protest and plead, "It wasn't me!" Instead, I just chuckled and said, "Yeah, that sucks."

The moment that those words left my mouth, I thought to myself, get out of here. And that's what I did.

I'll never know how that man's bowels held up whilst he dabbed toilet paper to the toilet seat. Part of me says that everything turned out all right for him, and that he's just a little bit ticked-off at a total stranger who he will never see again (i.e. me).

However, another part of me thinks that it would be even better if he either A. had to sit on a pee-drenched toilet seat, or B. had an "accident."

Yes, I'll admit that's just mean. However, I have applied the WWJD (What Would Jesus Do?) question, and my knowledge of the Gospels doesn't help. I don't know what Jesus would have done in this situation. Maybe he would have turned the pee into wine? Maybe he would have washed the man's feat while he sat on the toilet. Then again, the guy died for our sins. I don't think that he's obligated to wipe up someone else's piss! That means that I did do what Jesus would do, so HA!

Elvis & I (an impromptu and non-alcohol induced commentary)

I have 440 Elvis Presley songs in my iTunes. He was my first favorite singer, and I've probably read a half-dozen biographies on him.

He was one of the few truly unique singers (I decline to call singers "artists," no matter how good they are at it. I can pass gas with the best of them, but I am no "artists"--though maybe a "fartist"?).

By unique, I mean his sound and style. It's all his. No one before him sang the way that he did. When he first went to Sam Phillips's studio in Memphis to record a song, the receptionist asked him if he could sing in different genres. He answered yes. When she asked whom he sounded like, he said, "I don't sound like nobody." (Let's forgive him the double negative). People used to tell Merle Haggard that he sounded like Lefty Frizzell. People used to tell David Allen Coe that he sounded like Merle Haggard. People tell me that I sound like a deaf orangutan with diarrhea. But Elvis never sounded like anyone other than Elvis.

Think about it. The only people who sound like Elvis are those who are trying to sound like Elvis. Anyone who has ever heard a live Elvis recording can also attest to his talent. Most singers sound worse live than they do in the studio, but Elvis's live recordings are perfect. In some respects, they're even better because they are more tinctured with emotion.

One interesting aspect of Elvis's voice is that it was unique and amazing. Most unique voices aren't really that great: Willie Nelson, Johnny Cash, Tom Waits, Eddie Vedder, Bob Dylan, Hank Williams (Sr), James Brown, Janis Joplin, Jim Croce, Kenny Rogers, Robert Plant, Louis B. Armstrong, Nat King Cole, William Hung...

The thing about great voices is that they really are a dime a dozen. Range and tone are the two key ingredients to a great voice. Consider Frank Sinatra, Celine Dion, Harry Connick (Jr), Josh Groban, Michael Bublé, Julie Andrews (by far the most beautiful female voice ever recorded), Crystal Gayle...

However, a great voice does not necessarily make a great performer. A great performer needs to have emotion and be able to evoke emotion from the audience. Johnny Cash's cover of Nine Inch Nails' "Hurt" does this. In fact, it's this key that makes a unique but not great voice possibly more of an accomplishment and more enjoyable.

Compare James Brown's "I Got You, (I Feel Good)" to Frank Sinatra's "I've Got the World on a String." Both songs are essentially about the same thing. "I've Got the World on a String," is lyrically better than "I Got You," and Sinatra's voice towers over Brown's in overall quality; but Brown's unique voice and the way that he performed gives an intangible quality to his song that makes it not just good, but great. It actually imparts feeling good. I'm not saying that Sinatra couldn't sing with emotion. "That's Life" certainly has this quality, as do "My Way" and "Send in the Clowns," but comparatively, a song with emotion trumps one that's just sung well (e.g. good range and tone). That's why no one will remember Celine Dion in twenty years. There's nothing special about her voice. It's just good, and that's just not enough. Even when she tries to be "powerful," all she's doing is putting more air into the words. The emotion is insincere.

Compare cover songs to the originals. Very rarely do the covers have even an iota of the original emotion that made the song so great in the first place. Perhaps the best (and most awful) example of this is Madonna's cover of Don MacLean's "American Pie." In her version, the wistful angst that drove Roberta Flack to write "Killing Me Softly" is gone. However, you also have some successes. Most notable is Pearl Jam's cover of "Last Kiss." The lyrics and the beat remained the same, but Eddie Vedder added his emotionally broken voice--at times almost an in-tune moan--and made the lyrics sound the way a man who has just "Lost my love, my life that night." Jimi Hendrix added power to Bob Dylan's "All Along the Watchtower," and got it so right that Dylan forevermore sang the Hendrix version.

A cover song only works if it is infused with that emotional touch that segregates performers from singers. This is also why great songs should probably not be covered. In as much as covering a song is concerned, Elvis Presley was in a class by himself. His cover of Big Mama Thorton's "Hound Dog" is very different from the original. It had to be, for the original was great. But Elvis brought his own Midas touch to the song, rearranged it and made it his (seriously, had you even heard of Big Mama Thorton?--Golf Guy probably saw her in concert...).

Here's some more:

Elvis and at least five other singers covered David Hill's "All Shook Up," but it's Elvis's version that survives.
"Are You Lonesome Tonight," origianlly done by Ned Jakobs
"Big Boss Man," originally by Jimmy Reed
"Blue Hawaii," first recorded by Bing Crosby (that's right, Elvis did better than Bing)
"Blue Suede Shoes" was great when Carl Perkins did it first, but Elvis made it immortal
"Help Me Make It Through the Night," originally by Kris Kristofferson, whose version is riddled with angst, but Elvis still brought something more
"Lawdy Miss Clawdy" by Lloyd Price--check out Elvis's live version from his '68 Comeback Special). It was his opening song for the special, and it was freaking perfect.
"Bridge Over Troubled Water," a Simon and Garfunkel song done perfectly by Simon and Garfunkel, but Elvis's powerful tenor does something that Garfunkel's angelic alto cannot.
"Love Me," originally by Willy & Ruth
"Love Me Tender" --I don't know the original singer, but I know that it's been covered over 20 times. Do you know any other than Elvis's?
"Make the World Go Away," was a Ray Price original/
"My Way" was a Paul Anka hit Sinatra's magnum opus, but I've got to go with Elvis again.
"Suspicious Minds" (I don't know the original)
"Sweet Caroline," a Neil Diamond classic done even better by The King
"That's All Right," by Arthur Crudup was Elvis's first hit for Sun Records
"You've Lost that Lovin' Feeling," yes, the Righteous Brothers' version is awesome, but Elvis's is perfect--especially in the one live performance when he ad libs, "Baby, baby, I'd get down on my knees for you--if this suit wasn't so tight!"

There are others, but I've made my point. With the exception of a few, Elvis's versions are the ones we remember or enjoy more. Even those ones that may not be better than the original--I'll accept challenges to "My Way," "Bridge Over Troubled Water," "Sweet Caroline," and "You've Lost That Lovin' Feeling,"their only problem--if there is one at all--is that they are covers of singers who are darn near peerless in their own rights.

His impact on music and culture is manifest by the fact that so many have refused to let him die. 2Pac fans have done the same thing, but do they know that they're just doing a bad cover of something that Elvis did perfectly the first time?

So why all of this disorganized "Elvis Is Great" ranting? It's because I was looking at myself in the mirror today, and I realized that I'm a lot like Elvis. We both struggle with our weight--fat, thin(ish--in my case), fat, thin, fat, thin, etc. And we both think that Elvis was awesome. I may not have all the talent, money, and women, but let's not nitpick.

If you managed to read through this whole thing, and you have the ability and inclination, test my assertions. Pair Elvis covers with the originals. Pair Elvis originals (or covers) with subsequent covers.

Deep Thought

I caught this one today, and it made me think of Mark.

If they ever come up with a swashbuckling School, I think one of the courses should be Laughing, Then Jumping Off Something.
--Jack Handey

Flipper in Special Ed.

http://www.playfuls.com/news_001953_Dolphins_Are_Not_That_Intelligent_Study_Says.html

I've always wondered why these supposedly "gifted" creatures can't figure out how to stay away from tuna nets.

It's because they're dumb, like tuna.

It doesn't matter if they're cute. Jessica Simpson is cute. Case closed.

Freedom of Religion AND Speech

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14409224/

I am not trying to offend anyone here. The fact that I need to make such a disclaimer before a perfectly rational argument shows just how irrational is the opposition.

I believe in freedom of religion. I also believe in freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and a host of other freedoms too numerous to list in this forum. I am a Libertarian, after all, so I believe in the freedom of everything excepting the infliction of deliberate and unjustified physical harm to another person, theft of another person's property, and actions all actions designed to coerce/restrict another's liberty. Did you ever wonder why religion, speech, petition, the press, and assembly were all thrown together into the first amendment? It's because they are manifestations of the same principle: liberty, without which, we are slaves.

That's why I'm so bothered by this whole depicting an image of Mohammad controversy.

Obviously, many (perhaps most--it hasn't been quantified) Muslims were offended when a Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, published satirical cartoons depicting Mohammad, but I'm bothered by the tone of this reaction--violent at times, nonetheless menacing at others. I'm also disturbed by the fact that too few people have stood up in defense of Jyllandis-Posten.

That's what I'm about to do (*gasp*).

First, let me state that I believe the drawings were insensitive--I'll even grant that they were insulting. They were certainly interpreted this way.

This, however, is all that I am prepared to grant to the plaintiffs in this case.

I stated before that I believe in freedom of religion. I am a Christian, and no one has the right to harm me in any way because of this. Jews have the right to their faith without living in fear of persecution, as do Muslims, Buddhists, Voodooists, Atheists, Agnostics, Hindus, etc.

Just because I believe in freedom of religion, I have no obligation to believe that all religions are equal. As a Christian, I have to believe that other religions are mistaken. Some, in my view, can be closer to correct: e.g. Jews aren't too far off. But others, I have to believe--otherwise I don't really believe that Christianity is correct--are dead wrong.

Atheists are wrong. There is a God. They're more incorrect than polytheists. Polytheists are wrong, but at least they recognize divinity. As a Christian, I believe that Jews error in rejecting Christ as the Son of God. However, Jews are at least closer to correct than polytheists, for Jews, like Christians, are monotheistic. The fact that Christianity sprang forth from Jewish roots also means that I believe that Jews are more correct than Muslims.

Muslims actually share quite a bit with Jews and Christians (starting with monotheism), but as a Christian, I believe that the Jewish prophets (e.g. Abraham, Moses, Jeremiah, Isaiah, etc.) were actually prophets. Muslims, however, choose to follow Mohammed as their chief prophet. I do not believe that Mohammed was one of God's prophets. If I did, I'd be a Muslim. Muslims at least admit that Jesus was a prophet, but they deny that he was the Son of God. Since Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, this troubles me. If he wasn't the Son of God, then he was either crazy (for believing that he was) or a liar (for saying that he was but knowing that he wasn't). Perhaps a Muslim friend or an anonymous reader would be so kind as to explain this one for me.

Let's continue. The same set of scenarios that I established for Jesus can be applied to Mohammed. Either Mohammed was telling the truth, or he was crazy, or he was a liar. Since I do not believe that Mohammed was a prophet, I obviously believe that Mohammed was either insane or a liar. Think about it. You might be too "polite" to put it in this way--for fear of offending someone else--but the logic is solid.

Similarly, if you do not believe that Jesus was the Son of God, then you must believe that he was either a liar or a lunatic. You don't stand on good ground if you take one of those cut-and-paste approaches to Jesus: "He said a lot of wonderful things, but I don't believe that he was the Son of God." Nobody is so kind to David Koresh--either a liar or a lunatic--or Jim Jones--a liar or a lunatic--or the Heaven's Gate people--lunatics. Either Jesus is the Son of God, or he was full of B.S. or had no real idea what he was talking about.

So it's clear. I think that Mohammad was either a liar or a lunatic. Nonetheless, hundreds of millions of people are devoted to Islam, and to him he is God's most important prophet. Since they follow a man who, I have concluded, was either a liar or a lunatic, I must believe that they are mistaken at best or lunatics themselves at worse (I opt for mistaken).

I have the right to tell Muslims that they are wrong. That Mohammad was not a prophet, and that Jesus is the Son of God. I have the right to suggest strongly that they shelve their Korans and locate a copy of the New Testament (Matthew 4:17--"Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand"!). I also have the right to draw Mohammad in any setting, sculpt him however I wish, carve his image out of wood with a chainsaw, whatever. What I cannot do is force Muslims or any other non-Christians into becoming Christians. I cannot even force them to respect Christianity. Similarly, I cannot be coerced into believing or respecting the belief that Mohammad was a prophet. If I'm wrong, the consequences that await in the afterlife will be severe enough.

All people have the freedoms of speech, thought, and expression. More often than not, people use these freedoms to make asses of themselves. That's when we use our freedom of speech to say, "You're an ass!"

I do not believe that people, having these rights, should simply go about saying offensive things. However, if they wish to be friendless and jobless, then let them go ahead. What's wrong with good old-fashioned ostracism?

The Egyptian Grand Sheikh Mohamed Sayed Tantawi demands that the editor of Jyllands-Posten be thrown in jail and that the newspaper itself be forced out of circulation. But whatever cartoons Jyllands-Posten decides to print, Muslims will only see them and be thus offended if they read that particular newspaper. If that newspaper is offensive, then don't read it.

Forcing the world to respect Mohammad is very much a step in the direction of forcing the world to become Muslims. Why should people be forced to respect a man whom they regard as either a liar or a lunatic?

The only reason for respecting Mohammad and not believing in his being a prophet is the desire to be a good neighbor. I don't see any gains by offending Muslims, so I don't try to do so. However, if I have done so in the process of this discourse, then I am not sorry. I will never apologize for believing what I believe unless I am otherwise convinced of the contrary.

People who saw the cartoons in Jyllands-Posten and found the cartoons offensive have a few options. They can dismiss the cartoons as in poor taste but continue to read the newspaper. They can also decline to patronize the newspaper anymore. They can also encourage others to boycott the newspaper. What they cannot rightfully do is demand a violent solution.

Polite people won't intentionally try to piss other people off (I never said that I was polite). Impolite people might. That's why we call them jerks (among other things), and why we don't invite them over for dinner. If I'm correct, the argument against creating images of Mohammed is to avoid creating idols--to be thus worshipped. The worship of a graven image is called idolatry, and idolatry is wrong. Should some people make an image of Mohammed, say what you want about what jerks they are, but don't assume the power to punish them. That's worse than idolatry. That's assuming God's role for yourself.

Perhaps Matt Stone and Trey Parker (the creators of South Park) said it best in their two-episode critique of the issue.

Before I am dismissed as being insensitive, remember that I am a Christian. This means that I have heard, read, and seen countless acts of disrespect towards my faith. Throughout it all, however, I dared not suggest that violence be waged against the antagonists.

It doesn't feel right to end here. My gut tells me that there's more to say. However, the last time I listened to my gut, I ended up with a bad case of heartburn.

Gangstas

The Rev. Al Sharpton goes from shouting the ridiculous to stating the obvious http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14410006/.

It is wrong, he argues, for society to equate "gangsterism and blackness." He levels blame against Hollywood and the media.

Sure, and Dr. Dre, Eazy-E, Snoop, Ice Cube, 50 Cent, etc. are all just a bunch of Uncle Tom's playing into the man's hand.

The problem is that whenever whites try to don the "Gangsta" persona, they are ridiculed (think Vanilla Ice). "Gangsterism" surely does not represent all blacks, but it does represent some blacks. It is not a "White" thing at all.

Does the Rev. believe that society has blindly associated "Gangsta Rap" with the black community? Are the Crips and the Bloods a racially diverse group?

Would the stereotype fit in, say, the suburbs of Oakland County? Let's try this Eazy-E verse modified for these specifications.

"Woke up quick, at about noon,
Just thought that I had to be at Lakeside soon
I got to eat breakfast before my day begins
So I can play X-box with all my friends."

Who would buy into this? Actually, all I've done is combated one stereotype with another. However, the stereotype of the black "Gangsta" works because black men (e.g. Dr. Dre, Ice Cube, Ice-T, 50 Cent, Snoop Doggy Dogg, etc.) created and perfected it. Many academics have noted that "Gangsta" rap chronicles the daily struggles of young black men.

Critics might reply that the aforementioned enterprising individuals simply jumped onto society's stereotype and exploited it fabulously for their own personal purposes.

But let's be honest. The Crips, The Bloods, and the like hail from urban, African-American strongholds. They have no presence in the suburbs, and their membership is not racially diverse. This "Gangsta" stereotype may not apply universally in the African American community, but they do reflect a very real African American sub-culture. (Hint: It wasn't "H.W.A.:--Honkies With Attitude)

Al Sharpton's comments should not be aimed at Hollywood and the media. They should be aimed at the African-Americans who have made (and continue to make) the "Gangsta" stereotype/persona viable. They should also be leveled against the African American men who really live the "Gangsta" life.

How can the trend be put in reverse? Have 50 Cent release an album for children ("Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star, I do a drive-by in my car"). Have NWA (sans Eazy-E--R.I.P) reunite for a gospel album (Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand, Muthaf---in' Jesus is the Man..." Have Snoop Dogg record songs that don't involve hoes, pimps, violence, bling-bling, ("I got a job at McShizzle's while I study at the Unishizzle of Michizzle...")

It's time for Al Sharpton et al. to stop playing the victim card. Hollywood did not create inner-city gangs and the inner-city lifestyle. Hollywood did not create the mafia, even though it produced The Godfather. It produced The Godfather because it was viable. If it had been set on in a rural farm area of western Saskatchewan, then no one would have bought into it. Hollywood doesn't make reality. There is an Italian-American mafia. They made movies about it. There are Gangstas too, and until there are none, don't ask the recording industry to pretend that there aren't.

Perhaps the real problem is that people actually like Gangsta music. I don't know why, but they do.

Dumb kids

Everyone seems to think that their kids are smart, and then they're shocked when, unsually in junior high, the kid turns out to be pretty dumb. The process begins with denial--my kid is not stupid, he's just special--or he just doesn't like the class. The next step is blame--it's those awful teachers! The final step is acceptance, but this doesn't usually show up until the kid is 30, living at home.

To parents of dumb kids, here are the top ten early signs, courtesy of David Letterman (though I changed #6):

10. Can't find the United States on a map of the United States

9. Nobody knows his I.Q. because he keeps eating the test

8. Sharpens ball point pens

7. He named his dog "Kitty"

6. He reads this blog's comments and says, "Hey, that Science Guy seems really smart."

5. Proudly wears a Knicks jersey

4. Sees photo of himself, says, "Hey, it's that guy from the mirror!"

3. Called FBI terrorism hotline to vote for Bin Laden

2. For his birthday you give him a flashlight and tell him it's a video game

1. Says, "I wish Michael Jackson was my dad!"

Remembering China's Dead

The Chinese government is outraged by Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's decision to visit the Yasukuni Shrine, established in memory of Japanese soldiers killed in World War II.

On the one hand, this is understandable. In the Asian theater of World War II, Japan's armies slaughtered the Chinese. 1,100,000 Chinese soldiers were killed, and 1,800,000 were wounded. Even more significant is the large number of Chinese civilians who died--close to 9,000,000.

On the other hand, these complaints come from a government that has never shied away from murdering its own citizens. In fact, the number of Chinese killed by their own government exceeds those killed by Japanese soldiers by the tens of millions. Consider just one example: Mao's "Great Leap Forward" (a collectivist scheme that led to famine and suffering on a nearly unimaginable scale) led to over 20,000,000 deaths.

To this day, China maintains a strict policy of forced abortion and infanticide--to limit a population growth that had been encouraged under Mao's regime. Political dissidents continue to face deadly persecution, as do Christian missionaries.

See www.victimsofcommunism.org, and http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20031129-105900-4023r.htm

This does not exculpate Japan completely, but it should be noted that the Japanese government that trained, equipped, and deployed its soldiers to China is no longer in existence. The Japanese lost WWII and were forced (by the United States) to draft a new, liberal constitution that forbade the formation of an army capable of waging such a war ever again. Chine, however, continues under the same government, and it's army is massive and continues to threaten war against its neighbors (e.g. Taiwan); it maintains an arsenal of nuclear weapons capable of threatening anyone; and it continues to hold conquered provinces (e.g. Tibet) with an iron fist.

So Japan's Prime Minister is wrong to remember those killed under a now defunct Japanese government, but China is free to neglect its own atrocities? (Chinese textbooks completely omit every single detail!).

Let's be clear: Japan's government is to blame for many awful things from the WWII era. Let's be clearer: China's government is to blame for even more awful things ever since.

We should remember all who died at the hands of evil governments--Japan's, China's, North Korea's, China's, Germany's, Russia's, Iraq's, Iran's, Israel's, The United States', Great Britain's, France's, Vietnam's, Cambodia's, South Africa's, Sudan's, Argentina's, Chile's, Cuba's, Nicaragua's, Bolivia's, Italy's, ad infinitum.

All government's derive their power from their ability to threaten and inflict violence on their own population. There is no such thing as a benevolent government. There isn't even anything like a benign one.

Technical Difficulties

I've had trouble logging in lately, so that's why there have been no new posts. If all goes well, expect some good material tomorrow.

TMI

If I ever write an autobiography, I promise to omit any recollection of the gastro-intestinal distress that afflicted me this past Sunday.

In Bad Defense of Mel Gibson

This link is to an article "explaining" for us what Mel Gibson meant in his now infamous, drunken rant of late. http://www.strike-the-root.com/62/young/young2.html

Don't bother reading this post unless you have read this article.

The argument behind this article is flawed in a few ways. First, it presumes to explain what Mel Gibson actually meant--that he blames Zionists (as opposed to all Jews) for the bulk of the government-initiated violence in the Middle East. The problem with this is that, once sober, Gibson did not qualify his statement in this manner. Instead, he apologized profusely for saying very awful things.

Secondly, the author presumes to know Gibson as "intelligent" and "thoughtful" because he (the author) has either read or heard several interviews of the actor. Is the author really suggesting that Mel Gibson is not an anti-Semite because Mel Gibson interviews well?

As far as the first part of the article (the one about the history of Hollywood and Jews), I'm not really sure where he's going. Is he saying that Hollywood is run by Zionist Jews who celebrate "the war-mongering, terrorist, American state" and are thus complicit in Israel's war in Lebanon or that Mel Gibson cannot be an anti-Semite because he works in an industry founded and run by Jews?

What's with the author's suggesting that Gibson cleverly uttered his notorious exclamations concisely so as to capture the attention of the American people without bogging them down with details that an editor (presumably the author of the article) will later, without having consulted Gibson at all, expand in much greater detail?

He states, "It's a fact that Jewish men were founders and primary players in the Hollywood media business." In doing so, he ignores another fact, that gentiles were founders and primary players in the Hollywood media business as well. He also uses the proper adjective "Jewish" when later he distinguishes between the collective Jew and the Zionist Jew. He does not call these "founders and primary players" Zionist Jews. He simply calls them Jewish men (a.k.a. Jews--the collective). Ironically, the author calls this very same equivocation error one of Gibson's mistakes (the other one being his having consumed and excessive amount of alcohol).

The author also states, "Most people, unfortunately, do not carefully listen and analyze the words of others." Hopefully, in his case, the majority of his readers are among this flock.

The article is either by an anti-Semite who is trying to defend an alleged anti-Semite or a very poorly reasoned apology by a Mel Gibson fan who happens to despise the Israeli state. I'm inclined to assess the latter as the most likely.

As far as I'm concerned, there is not enough evidence to convict Mel Gibson as an anti-Semite. What he said is clearly anti-emetic, but that doesn't make him an anti-Semite for a couple of reason. People say and do stupid things when they are drunk. People also make general statements that they do not really believe.

He could be an anti-Semite. It appears that his father is, but we shan't judge the son by the father's sins. Supposing that he is an anti-Semite, will I shun future Gibson projects? I doubt it. Just because the guy is an idiot doesn't mean that I won't enjoy his movies. I think that most Hollywood types are idiots (e.g. Sean Penn, Alec Baldwin, Oliver Stone, Michael Moore, Susan Sarrandon, Tim Robbins, Tom Cruise, John Travolta, etc.), but this has not prevented me from watching movies. Many musicians are idiots too, but I listen to their music because I enjoy their music.

That's about all I've got to say on this topic, unless someone else has something to add.

I'm Irritated

I would like to walk up to some guy wearing one of those Bluetooth headsets and just punch him in the face.

"Why did you do that?" He will cry from the ground.

"Because," I will shout between kicks to his abdomen, "you're not that important! [Kick] It doesn't make you look cool. [Kick] It makes you look [kick] like a pathetic loser [kick] who wants to be cool [kick], but rather than actually be cool, [kick] you try only to look cool."

If you think that this is an extreme reaction, you'll need to be around me on the next 90+ degree day when some guy says, "Hot enough for you?" That's when I will imagine elbowing him in the larynx and saying, "Painful enough for you?"

Of course, I would never really do any of these things. Notice that the first was introduced with "I would like" and the second with "I will imagine." I would also like to be payed a million dollars a year to post blogs bi-weekly. I will imagine that, if this ever happens, I will also have lost a lot of weight, toned up my muscles, and mastered the panflute (to break the Zamfir monopoly).

I'm Turning 30. Big Freaking Deal

In less than one week, I will turn 30 years old.

Granted, given my philosphical dispositions, my life first began prior to being extricated via Caesarian section from my mother's womb, so I'm actually about 9 (though closer to 10) thirty years old. However, birthday is not conception day, so I'm about to turn 30.

And it doesn't bother me a bit.

Why should it? I am married to a wonderful woman, have two exceptional children--yes, I know that everyone thinks that their children are exceptional, but mine are moreso than yours, so live with it--, a job that pays me to do what I love doing, a house, a dog, cable internet service, and several powerful firearms. What more could I want in life other than a motorcycle, an Xbox 360, a PS3 (when it comes out), and for Catherine Zeta-Jones to lift that pesky restraining order on me?

I have outlived my father by three years. I haven't done anything exceptional, but I'm not finished yet. Time is relative. Take Einstein's example, and I paraphrase (and probably badly): "One minute on a hot stove and one minute beside the girl that you love: That's relativity."

I don't feel older. I feel out of shape, but that has nothing to do with my age (rather it suggests something about my eating habits and non-existing exercise regimen). I don't know why people freak out about age. It's stupid to do so, and I'm not stupid, so I don't, and I'm going to keep adding independent clauses with correlative conjunctions, and there's nothing that you can do to stop me, but I might tire soon, so you can read on and hope for the best, for I'm only a man (though a great one), and I can only be amused by something this inane for so long, and I think that I've reached that point.

See, I tire of it.

About Madonna's Toilet

Apparently, Madonna demands a brand new toilet seat at each stop on a tour, that it remains wrapped in plastic until her arrival, and that it is destroyed upon her departure--so that no one tries to sell it on eBay. http://entertainment.msn.com/music/hotgossipc2?GT1=7702

Who would buy something contaminated with urine and fecal matter just because someone famous sat on it? I suppose that the answer to this correlates to those who have helped make American Idol such a popular show.

It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia

I just finished watching season one of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. Thank God for cable because the old school networks haven't been so irreverently funny since Seinfeld. If you haven't watched this show (it airs on FX), do so.

Funny Site

On Thursday, my six-year-old complained of an aching lower belly and that it hurt to poop. I fed her some high fiber foods and gave her an epsom salt solution to drink. On Friday, I asked how she felt, and she said that it was better and that some sunflower seeds had come out. I asked her if she had eaten whole sunflower seeds, and she said that she had. I could tell that she was afraid of getting in trouble, so I very gently told her that sunflower seed shells do not digest well and will either hurt on the way out or plug up the works completely.

Now that we knew what the problem was, I decided to wait and see if she would have another bowel movement. Sure enough, about twenty minutes ago she woke up to go. She went, and came to tell me that there were sunflower seeds in the toilet. I decided to take a look, figuring that there would be a couple floaties (like when you eat corn). Good God Almighty, I did not expect to see what I saw. No wonder the little girl ached. It looked as if someone had dumped an entire bag of sunflower seeds down the toilet.

It was a good sign that she was passing them (no blockage), and there were no traces of blood, so I figured that I would check on-line for some information regarding sunflower seed shell consumption and evacuation. That's when I came across this site.

http://www.poopreport.com/Stories/Content/shell.html

Revised Rehash of the Stem Cell Research Debate Between Me and Science Guy

Let’s deal with Science Guy’s assertions regarding embryonic stem cell research on a more analytical level. Previous discourse was too riddled with analogies and snide comments meant to entertain but not at all helpful.

Regular font represents an introduction to what Science Guy said. Boldfaced font represents what Science Guy said. Italicized font represents my criticism.

In his first reply, Science Guy began appropriately by introducing and defining terms:

There are 3 types of stem cells. There are the embroyonic stem cells(ESC), There are adult stem cells, and there are embryonic germ cells. The last category is derived from a fetus' ovary/testicle.
The most useful one is the ESC. This is because when they are harvested at 4 to 5 days, they contain hundreds of undifferentiated cells. Undifferentiated means that the cell has the ability to grow into any type of tissue (muscle, skin, bone, epithelial, etc.).

By “most useful one is the ESC” I suppose he means most practical for research purposes. It’s easier than harvesting specific kinds of cells, for embryonic stem cells are universally adaptive. This is important to grasp, and it can be inferred from Science Guy’s own statement. Stem cell research and all the possible benefits of it can be done without embryos; it’s just that using embryos is much easier. If good and evil were defined in terms of pragmatics (i.e. what is most practical is best, and what is least practical is worst), then I would be stumped. However, we are arguing an issue of morality, and morals are not contingent upon ease.

Science Guy continues, but now he stops stating fact exclusively

Harvesting embryos is not killing people. A 4-5 day embryo in a test tube is not a person.

So harvesting embryos kills embryos, but killing embryos is not killing people because people are not embryos and embryos are not people. While it is true that I am not an embryo, it is also true that I once was an embryo, as was everyone else. Furthermore, I was a specific kind of embryo, distinguishable from other life forms (e.g. a chicken embryo) buy the fact that I—even as an embryo—was made of DNA unique only to human beings. The species of any creature can be determined by the DNA in a single cell. Get any kind of cell and analyze its DNA, and you can state authoritatively from what creature that cell came. If it’s a cell from a chicken, DNA analysis will prove it to be a chicken cell.

Human embryos have human DNA, so they are humans. The fact that they are only four to five days old means only that they are not completely grown. They are immature. They are immature humans. They are humans. It’s not merely an embryo that will do for these experiments, otherwise we could harvest ESC’s from rats. Only humans work for the kind of research that we are debating. That human embryos contain human DNA and, supposing they do not die naturally or unnaturally, they continue to grow into more easily recognizable humans.

Science Guy goes on:

It [a 4-5 day embryo in a test tube] has no chance to be a person. If left alone in the test tube it would not make it to term. In order for a fetus to develop it must be implanted in a uterus. Failing that it will not be a human. It is just a possible human.

Here Science Guy has either committed an error in clarity or deliberately used his words misleadingly. What he means is “A 4-5 day embryo in a test tube has no chance to be a person if left alone in a test tube. Under such conditions, it would not make it to term.” There’s no debating that an embryo left in a test tube will die. This does not mean that the embryo isn’t human. It means that the embryo will die. This doesn’t make an embryo in a test tube a “possible human.” It means that the embryo is in mortal danger unless it is implanted in a uterus.

Perhaps the issue should be putting embryos in test tubes, for they don’t belong there. Embryos belong in a uterus—as Science Guy inadvertently points out. In fact, it sounds rather reasonable.

As for being a possible human, that is nonsense. It can’t possibly be anything else. It’s not a possible dog.

On the non-implanted embryo, Science Guy states

This failure to implant in the uterus is not common to the "detached" researchers in the lab. It happens on a daily basis to women all over the planet. (Check out this website to learn more about the causes and possible treatment http://www.illinoisivf.com/recurrent-pregnancy-loss/pre-implantation.html)

I think that Science Guy meant to say “This failure to implant . . . is [not] uncommon . . .” But I don’t really get what he’s trying to prove. It seems like a red herring, but it’s more of a non sequitor. The fact that embryos often fail to implant naturally due either to their own flaws or to faulty uteruses does not have anything to do with our debate. People die naturally all the time at all ages—even four to five days after conception.

And Science Guy continues,

Conception does not necessarily make a person. The potential for the zygote to become a person does not make it a person. If that was the case then the arguement could be made that masturbation is as bad as stem cell research. Every sperm is a potential person, it just needs an egg. A woman ovulation cycle is wrong too. Every egg is a potential person, it just needs a sperm. Every zygote is a potential person, it just needs a uterus.

"Let the heathens spill theirs on the dusty ground. God shall make them pay for each sperm that can't be found."
-Monty Python "The Meaning of Life"

Conception, that point at which the ovum is fertilized, represents the first stage of a new life. Up to that point, the separate ovum of the woman and sperm of the man were not people. The separate ovum and sperm are far more what Science Guy means when he talks about possible human or potential person. A single sperm, or even a group of sperm (though, since they swim, perhaps they should be referred in the collective as a “school of sperm”) will not divide into identical halves (mitosis) and thus form a zygote, which will then be an embryo, then a fetus and so forth. Sperm cells only contain half of the chromosomal information that will be transferred to the zygote. The same is true for an egg. During fertilization, the two halves combine (pretty much, that is, for the sperm’s mitochondria are destroyed once in the egg—which is why mitochondrial DNA is inherited strictly from the mother).

Equating the masturbation and the menstrual cycle is a red herring. First of all, neither is comparable to what happens with ESC harvesting. Second of all, they aren’t even similar themselves. Masturbation is an act of volition, while menstruation is involuntary. They also serve different purposes. The point that Science Guy was trying to make was either a joke (hence the Monty Python reference), or red herring to take us away from the real argument, or a very weak argument by analogy. Is he suggesting that a ban on ESC harvesting and research would be akin to a ban on menstruation or masturbation?

Next, Science Guy responds to a disagreement over an analogy, which is quite reasonable, since analogies are bad arguments altogether, and it was my fault for countering his analogies with my own.

O.k. First of all your analogy is severely flawed. Are you sure you got more than 200 on your verbal SAT? Sperm:Zygote is not equivalent to Butter:Cookie. Butter is very useful. It’s good on pancakes and vegetables. It’s used to make pie crusts and yummy corn on the cob. Human sperm can make. . . oh yeah, human zygotes. (Plus some interesting stains on chubby interns blue dresses and Motel 6 Bedspreads.) That’s it. Nothing else. Human sperm is created for one purpose only – to make human zygotes.
As to my calling zygotes ‘potential humans,’ I wrote potential because, as I explained, without a uterus the zygote has NO potential other than forming a dead ball of cells. Also, zygote is not a name just to dehumanize the process. A zygote is a fertilized egg no matter what species it arises from. And with the exception of a possible slight variation in size and color, there is no visible difference between the zygotes of fish, frogs, Screech, and humans.

First, Science Guy starts off with an ad hominem assault (he attacks me personally by questioning my verbal skills). He’s right, however, to attack my analogy, for that’s the easiest part to attack. What I’d said was that his comparing masturbation to the killing of a potential human was nonsense because sperm are not humans. They are ingredients to zygotes the way that butter is an ingredient in a cookie. He then decided to take this figurative comparison literally and spin a web of red herrings. Yes, butter has many uses, and sperm has only one: to create life.

He tries to defend his “potential humans” reference by reiterating that an embryo (he says zygote, but he means embryo—for it’s already begun mitosis) will die if it is not implanted in a uterus. However, the fact that it will die does not strip it of its existence. It’s cells divide—that’s how, by definition—it became an embryo, and only living things incur mitosis. Cells do not divide in a dead body. Therefore, an embryo is alive, even if it will die under certain circumstances.

As for what he says about zygotes being the same for all species, that’s nonsense. There are differences (DNA) between human and non-human zygotes. The fact that these differences are invisible to the naked eye is irrelevant. The fact that they look just like frog zygotes doesn’t mean that they aren’t human zygotes.

The following is what happens when people (Science Guy and myself are both guilty) resort to irrational and weak arguments.

Next, the comparison to slavery and the holocaust was poetic. It sprang to mind a future episode of 20/20 where they superimpose a classic clip of tattooed Jews standing in line to be slaughtered with a clip of numbered test tubes in a lab. It was a good ploy to invoke inaccurate sympathies. But the reality of the comparison is not even close. Stem cell research involves no pain, suffering or indignities. The same cannot be said for the holocaust or slavery.

Here he gets me again. I had compared the language used to defend ESC research to the language used to defend slavery and the holocaust: that the language is morally detached and deliberately omits humanizing traits/references embryo, just as the evil of slavery was merely called “The peculiar institution,” and the holocaust was merely “The Final Solution.” I made other comparisons, such as how Goebbles used to portray Jews as sub-human vermin and that this made it easier to kill them. I was wrong. I slipped and used ad miseracordiam and a red herring. While I still see similarities between certain things (read the discussion in the comments of one of the debate posts), I recognize that my analogy did not serve my argument, though it tried to subvert his. I don’t wish to defeat Science Guy. I want my argument to prevail over his because it is right (or at least more right).

However, there is nothing noble about embryonic stem cell research just because it “involves no pain, suffering or indignities.” This fact does not make ESC research moral. It doesn’t even make it immoral. It just makes it less painful and indignant than slavery and the holocaust.

Science Guy rejects my sperm are different from zygotes argument:

Finally, your last rebuttal involving zygotes vs. sperm is flawed as well. That embryos have unique human DNA is true. However, sperm is unique human DNA as well. They both have no thought, feelings or desires. It is not a human baby left in the desert to die. It is no more than a collection of dividing cells. The killing of which is a far cry from murder (which according to Mirriam-Webster is “1: To kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice.).

Embryos’ DNA is unique and far more so than sperm’s. A sperm’s DNA is merely a reflection it’s producer’s DNA. An Embryo is a whole new DNA sequence, made up by the combination of the sperm and the egg. As for saying that an embryo is just a collection of dividing cells, that’s more than debatable. We all are collections of dividing cells. If we weren’t we’d be dead very, very soon. What he means, I guess, is that we have an intrinsic value in our existence, but an embryo does not. I do not know why he thinks so, but that’s what I’ve gathered. The dictionary defines murder as “To kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice.” This means that murder is 1. killing someone illegally and 2. planning to kill someone (premeditated) with wicked intent (malice). Murder is illegal because it is wrong. It’s not wrong because it is illegal. The definition cited by Science Guy is flawed, for it does not recognize the pure immorality of murder. I challenge Science Guy to find the flaw in this explanation of murder: Murder is the unjustified and purposeful killing of a human being. Simply put, the only just cause for killing another person purposefully is in self-defense. If you intentionally kill someone who was not a mortal threat to you or another, then you are a murderer.

Next, Science Guy responds to my having painted an image of morally detached scientists who go about their work without conscience.

The lab workers are not some evil mad scientist types slaughtering babies with maniacal glee. They are trying to find a cure for serious human diseases for the betterment of mankind.

I was out of line to suggest that ESC researchers were like the Nazi deathcamp scientists who performed experiments on inmates, though an argument can be made that certain scientific advancements were made in those camps (which is the principle argument in defense of ESC researchers). Absent from ESC researchers is any malevolence against the embryo. This cannot be said for the Nazis, and I was wrong to imply it. However, the ends (curing serious human diseases) do not justify the means (killing human embryos).

Now Science Guy counters my really bad and in poor taste analogy with one of his own:

I agree that embryos do not deserve to be killed, but neither do deer, rabbits and trout. Yet they are killed and are quite yummy. Even a mosquito does not deserve to be killed as annoying as they are. However they are all killed without a second thought despite the fact that they are all far more complex and feeling than a embryonic collection of human cells. I know, I know, deer need to be hunted. If they are not, they will overpopulate destroying the ecosystem and causing a severe starvation of the herd. By killing off some of the herd you insure the survival and health of the rest. So because some of the deer are going to die we might as well shoot them. Enjoy the sustenance the meat provides and know we are doing good for the animal because there was a good chance it would die a slow painful death of starvation. Harvesting 4 to 5 day old zygotes is a similar principle. The zygote will die without implantation. If we can harvest it before that we can use it to grow new spines or livers etc. This will better the human population and thus the sacrifice of the embryos will be worth it in the end.

If embryos do not deserve to be killed, then don’t kill them. To say that killing an embryo is the same as killing deer, rabbits and trout is incorrect, unless he means killing deer, rabbit, and trout embryos. Humans have a right to life. Deer, rabbits, and trout do not. The fact that they are “yummy” is irrelevant. No matter how much lemon-pepper and basil you put on a human, it is still wrong to eat him. Suggesting that the death of a deer, rabbit, or trout is somehow worse than the death of an embryo because a deer etc. might feel pain is outrageous. Ironically, however, he lapses into saying that killing deer is good just like killing embryos. He says that (and it’s true) many deer will die painful deaths of starvation if we don’t hunt them, so hunting them is good (because it saves them slow and painful deaths). Then he says that this a similar case for embryos! Really? I thought that he said that embryos died painlessly.

He then resorts to pure pragmatism by stating that since non-implanted embryos will die, we might as well harvest their stem cells. The thing is, they’re not dead, and if they were implanted in a uterus, they would be just fine. What we’re somewhat getting at here is that embryos should not be formed outside of or removed from the uterus. That would make this debate irrelevant.

Later, Science Guy says this:

I do not think that I have diminished the value of life. The ‘human’ embryo will die. By using it to cure diseases we have given the ‘human’ embryo meaning to its short life.

Again, the ends do not justify the means. And what’s with patronizing dead embryos by telling them that their short little lives (notice that he said life) has some deeper meaning? Who is he trying to make feel better? The embryos are dead. They’ve been killed. I doubt that they are comforted. Perhaps (and more than likely) he’s catering to the more emotional types who might respond better than they would to logic.

Science Guy thinks that he’s going back to stating facts (the only proper position from which a scientist should argue), but he mixes them with weak psuedo-philosophical remarks.

Humans are animals. We all belong to Kingdom Animalia. The comparison is accurate. And our zygotes are very similar [to other animals]. Yes one grows into a fish and one into a human. But they both have a tail at one point. They both have gill slits. They both contain DNA with the same 4 bases. If you are so against human embryo stem cell research then why aren’t you against rat embryo stem cell research. It seems pretty damn similar to me.

Humans are animals, yes. We all belong to Kingdom Animalia, yes. Our zygotes are similar to other animals in many respects, but all Science Guy cites are superficial similarities: Look, they both have tails! Look, they both have gills! This does not mean that they are the same. Furthermore, we are not talking about research on zygotes, but on embryos. Stick with embryos, Science Guy. Just because it’s harder to compare human embryos to rat embryos doesn’t mean you should change the subject. Moreover, don’t make arguments that you yourself do not believe. You know that rats and humans are different. If I think it’s fine to kill a rat, then I’ll have no problem killing a rat embryo. Since I think that it’s wrong to kill a human, I have a problem with killing a human embryo. Did you think that by throwing in the “damn” that it added some kind of logical force to your otherwise weak argument—an argument so weak that even you yourself don’t follow it?

Here he counters one of my bad analogies with one of his own.

If you shoot someone in the head while they are sleeping it is murder. Bad analogy. Here is a better one. A man comes into the emergency room after a bad car accident. He has severe head trauma and will not make it through the night. He is on the donor registry, so the doctors harvest his liver, kidneys and heart for other patients dying from organ failure. Is that murder? Should we start protesting the gift of life registry? The concept is the same. The patient (oh excuse me, there I go trivializing again by using a incorrect term). The human zygote (really small human baby) is terminal. It will not survive. Lets use its cells to grow a new spine for someone who needs one.

Excuse me, Science Guy, but you did mention that the dying man was on the organ donor registry, didn’t you? That means that he volunteered his organs in the event of his severe injury. Since his life is his life, that’s his call, so it’s not murder—at least not by the doctors. Some people might consider it suicide, but that’s not what I’m getting at. Embryos cannot choose to be on a stem cell registry, so it’s not the same. The one concept is one of volition and the other is one of force. Give embryos a choice, then the concept is the same.

Earlier, Science Guy had used the word “sacrifice” to refer to ESC harvesting, and I jumped all over it. If the embryo is not a human, how in the heck is it a sacrifice? He responds,

As for using the term sacrifice, I used that correctly. I never said it wasn’t a sacrifice. I said it wasn’t murder. They don’t mean the same thing.

Actually, if you kill someone else against his or her own will—even if it’s a noble sacrifice—then you’ve committed murder. It’s true that not all sacrifices are murder or are even vaguely comparable to it, but this one is because it involves intentionally killing another human without just cause.

And here is Science Guy standing by his dictionary definition of murder:

By the way, I didn’t intentionally not include other definitions. Here are all of them. What do they have in common? Malice. There is no malice involved in stem cell research.

From Mirriam Webster at http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/murder:

Main Entry: 1mur·der
Pronunciation: 'm&r-d&r
Function: noun
Etymology: partly from Middle English murther, from Old English morthor; partly from Middle English murdre, from Anglo-French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English morthor; akin to Old High German mord murder, Latin mort-, mors death, mori to die, mortuus dead, Greek brotos mortal
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
2 a : something very difficult or dangerous [the traffic was murder] b : something outrageous or blameworthy [getting away with murder]

Main Entry: 2murder
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): mur·dered; mur·der·ing /'m&r-d(&-)ri[ng]/
transitive verb
1 : to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
2 : to slaughter wantonly : SLAY
3 a : to put an end to b : TEASE, TORMENT c : MUTILATE, MANGLE [murders French] d : to defeat badly
intransitive verb : to commit murder
synonym see KILL

Actually, they don’t all have malice in common. Main Entry 1, definition 1 says “especially with malice.” It does not say exclusively with malice. Main Entry 2, definition 2 says “to slaughter wantonly.” The Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law defines the adjective wanton as “manifesting extreme indifference to a risk of injury to another that is known or should have been known : characterized by knowledge of and utter disregard for probability of resulting harm.” Interestingly, that’s pretty much what ESC research is, especially from the embryo’s point of view.

And so ends another rehash of the same debate. Science guy might say that we can agree to disagree agreeably, but that won’t make him any less soundly beaten.

What the Duck?

I was driving to work this morning, and I hit a duck.

There I was, tooling along in my hooptie, listening to Drew and Mike. That's when I noticed it shoot across the road, perhaps three to four feet above the ground. I had no time to react, and I probably wouldn't have done anything anyway. There was a sudden thud as my headlight smashed into it at a cool 45 mph.

I thought two things. First, that the duck was dead. Second, that the son-of-a-drake had broken my headlight. I drove on, however, figuring that if the headlight was broken, I couldn't deal with it until after work anyway and if the duck was dead, then good. If he wasn't dead, and he'd broken my headlight, then I'd find his feathered backside and finish the job.

We were both lucky. Last I saw him, he was rebounding from my Trailblazer, flapping his wings madly, and headed back the way he came. He wasn't flying gracefully, but he did not appear mortally wounded--though it probably did hurt like hell. More importantly, there was no visible damage to my car.

According to Mitch Hedberg:

I was in downtown Boise, Idaho, and I saw a duck, and I knew the duck was lost, 'cause ducks ain't s'posed to be downtown. There's nothin' for 'em there. So I went to a Subway sandwich shop, I said, "Let me have a bun." But she wouldn't sell me just the bun, she said that I had to have something on it. She told me it's against regulations for Subway to sell just the bun. I guess the two halves ain't supposed to touch. So I said, "Alright, well, put some lettuce on it," which she did. She said, "That'll be $1.75." I said, "It's for a duck." And they said, "All right, well, then it's free." See, I did not know that. Ducks eat for free at Subway! Had I known that, I would have ordered a much larger sandwich. "Let me have the Steak Fajita Sub - but don't bother ringing it up, it's for a duck! There are six ducks out there, and they all want Sun Chips!"

Hmmm

You can read a self-help book, but it isn't really--unless you're the author.

Thanks

Good discussion, folks!

Stem Cell Research II: Guest Commentator, Science Guy

Science Guy said...

There are 3 types of stem cells. There are the embroyonic stem cells(ESC), There are adult stem cells, and there are embryonic germ cells. The last category is derived from a fetus' ovary/testicle.

The most useful one is the ESC. This is because when they are harvested at 4 to 5 days, they contain hundreds of undifferentiated cells. Undifferentiated means that the cell has the ability to grow into any type of tissue (muscle, skin, bone, epithelial, etc.).
I apologize to those who already know this. I'm not trying to lecture here.

But I digress from my point. Harvesting embryos is not killing people. A 4-5 day embryo in a test tube is not a person. It has no chance to be a person. If left alone in the test tube it would not make it to term. In order for a fetus to develop it must be implanted in a uterus. Failing that it will not be a human. It is just a possible human.

This failure to implant in the uterus is not common to the "detached" researchers in the lab. It happens on a daily basis to women all over the planet. (Check out this website to learn more about the causes and possible treatment http://www.illinoisivf.com/recurrent-pregnancy-loss/pre-implantation.html)

Conception does not necessarily make a person. The potential for the zygote to become a person does not make it a person. If that was the case then the arguement could be made that masturbation is as bad as stem cell research. Every sperm is a potential person, it just needs an egg. A woman ovulation cycle is wrong too. Every egg is a potential person, it just needs a sperm. Every zygote is a potential person, it just needs a uterus.

"Let the heathens spill theirs on the dusty ground. God shall make them pay for each sperm that can't be found."
-Monty Python "The Meaning of Life"

Aristos responds:

The semen that you so cavalierly shoot about like Egon Spangler in the hotel scene of Ghostbusters is laden with sperm, and your callous disregard results in millions of sperms' death, but this kills no one. Sperm cannot grow into a person. Nothing can be done to make sperm into a person. If it could, then you'd have people popping out of your old socks and wadded up t-shirts. That's like calling butter a cookie, because there is butter in cookies. Cookies are cookies whether or not they are cooked. It's not just "dough" which is why we call it cookie dough. I would be wary on buying chocolate chip dough ice cream, for I'm kind of a stickler for cookie dough. It would suck to take a bite and taste rye.

Your comparing a zygote to sperm seems careless, considering your screen name. Zygotes do grow into people, and human zygotes formed by human sperm and human eggs are humans. They are not potential humans. Do they have the potential to be anything else? You might say that they are zygotes, but you have to throw the adjective "human" in there to be clear. When people wish to deny the humanity of the unborn, they revert to the use of jargon: an unborn baby is a fetus, or an embryo, or a zygote (depending upon its stage of development). Such semantics are not new. Slavery was called "The Peculiar Institution." The Holocaust was "The Final Solution." And Saved By the Bell was called a "Comedy." A human being can be a specimen, if they are the object of the experiment. This sounds awful, so let's just call them embryos, but let's not even do that, let's call it embryo cell research, but let's not do that, let's call it "stem cell" research and show pictures of brave, noble Christopher Reeve. If we do this, then people won't really know what we're doing. Jews who were thrown into boxcars and sent to death camps were told that they were being relocated for their own safety. Goebbels often equated Jews with vermin, and Hitler himself wrote of them in Mein Kampf as parasites. Such manipulative use of language is absolutely essential in order to dehuminze the victims and turn the masses against them.

The destruction of sperm is not comparable to the destruction of an embryo. Embryos have unique DNA, and it is human DNA. Only human's have such DNA, so an embryo is a human. Embryos live, and their lives are human lives. Purposefully killing an embryo without just cause is murder. I've known (or a least known of) some people who deserve to die (e.g. Screech) but that's because of something that they did. Embryos did nothing wrong. They cannot deserve to be killed, so scientists should not kill them.

Just because embryos cannot survive "left alone" means nothing. All babies would die if left alone, as would many old people. This does not make them less human.

It doesn't matter how useful this research might be. It does not justify murder.

Stem Cell Research

Stem-cell research has the potential to save lives. Of course there is no better organism with which to experiment than a human being, but this does not validate it. The ends do not justify the means, lest we should have to re-evaluate the actions of "Dr. Auschwitz," Josef Mengele.

Let's not re-evaluate him. Let's call him a murderer. Let's not use human beings as unwilling participants in medical experimentation.

But embryos are not people, some might say. They have human DNA, so what else are they? They're not Martians. They're not turtles. They're humans who cannot scream; humans who cannot survive to relate the horrible ordeal. That's why it's so easy to kill them.

Don't tell sob stories about those afflicted by disorders that might be cured by stem cell research. Sob stories are irrelevant. They are ad miseracordiam. The issue is, should some humans be killed intentionally and undeservedly (i.e. murdered) in order to save others possibly.

If the government has any authority, it is only to protect the human rights to life, liberty, and the ownership of property. Embryos are human, embryos live, and they have the right to live.

Connotations

In today's forecast, The Detroit News proclaims that a "cold front" is coming in to take us below the 90's. While I, sitting in my non-air conditioned home and presiding over a eutrophic pool, can appreciate temperatures below 90, I have to say something about this supposed "cold front."

According to the weekly forecast, this "cold front" will still leave us in the 80's. The 80's are tolerable (except for music and fashion), but I decline to accept it as a "cold front."

Denotatively, it fits. The 80's is colder than the 90's. However, one must also consider the connotation of a word. There is nothing cold about a weather system that carries temperatures in the 80's. 85 is cold if it's your body temperature (in which case you're either dead or my wife's hands and feet at bed time). 85 is cold if it's your oven setting, and you're cooking meat. When the air is 85, it's quite warm. Maybe it's not [insert profanity] hot, but it sure as heck isn't cold. Something that is not cold should not be called cold, even if it is colder than something else. If the temperature were 150, you wouldn't walk around saying, "Hell this is cold! After all, we could be living on the surface of the Sun!" (or in my living room).

Would you wear a sweater if it's 85? Would you start a fire in the fireplace? Would you turn the thermostat up to 90 because 85 is too cold?

The 80's is not cold, so it can't be a "cold front," even if it's colder than the 90's. The 80's isn't even a "mild front." It's a "milder front," but that doesn't make it mild. Someone who murders fewer people than another isn't by definition more philanthropic.

Like I said, the denotation is appropriate, but there's more to a word than its denotation. If denotation were all that mattered, then I wouldn't get upset if one of my kids told me that the bathroom smelled like [insert profane synonym for feces]. If connotation didn't matter, then I could tell people that I've got a real bitch at home without fear of offending anyone.

*Disclaimer: Nala is a bitch. She's a two year old beagle.*

If connotation is irrelevant, then I could issue any racial epithet with impunity (Polacks can go to www.dictionary.com to look up impunity. Better yet, ask an Ango-Saxon to do so for you).

And this brings me to a new rant. What's with almost every blonde joke being a simple revised Polack joke? Was it decided that jokes depicting a nationality in a bad way are not appropriate (unless it's France), but jokes deriding people with low levels of eumelanin and higher levels pheomelanin are funny?

What's wrong with racial jokes? If the answer is that they're offensive, then blond jokes are similarly inappropriate. If the answer is that they create a false stereotype, then blond jokes are likewise inaccurate.

Is there some fear that I might actually think that racial jokes depict the truth of people? I know many blond people, and I see new ones every day, and I have never assumed that they are stupid because I heard the one about the blond who climbed over the chain-link fence to see what was on the other side (originally, this was a Polack joke).

But connotation is a problem, and it's not easily describable.

There's a difference between racial epithets, racism, and racial jokes. Should I push aside a black guy and say, "Out of my way, nigger," I have used a word with a negative connotation with the purpose of being pejorative. It's not the word that's bad so much as what I meant by using it.

Suppose I should say that I hate dagos? Again, the key is not the word dago. The important and truly pejorative word is hate. Am I somewhat nicer if I say, "I hate Italians"?

Now to the racial joke. When I ask, "Did you hear about the Polack who broke his arm while raking leaves? He fell out," I'm not trying to be hurtful to Poles. It's just for some reason (and I don't know it), they're the butt of jokes, and these jokes depict them as being dumb. By telling the joke, I am not suggesting that Poles are dumb, nor am I expressing my personal belief that Poles are dumb. Just because I laughed at the joke, "What did the black kid get for his birthday? My bike!" doesn't mean that I'm supporting the KKK or about to hang one from a tree. Besides, how would I get him down? (I'd tell some Mexicans that he's a piñata).

Do such jokes support irrational stereotypes? Yes, in some ways they do. However, I still want to know what's so PC about a blond joke? For that matter, what's so funny about a redneck joke, if Jewish jokes are so taboo? If I tell or laugh at a Jewish joke, I'm not saying that Auschwitz was a fine institution. However, if you wish to punish me for telling or laughing at a Jewish joke, then you've got something in common with Auschwitz's proprietors.

What's funny if everything's PC?

Non-PC Joke: How do you confuse a Polack? Stick him in a round room and tell him to pee in a corner!

PC Version: How do you confuse a dignified individual of Polish descent? Send him to a location but provide him with incorrect directions.

Non-PC Joke: Why do Italian men grow mustaches? To remind them of their mothers!

PC Version: Why do Italian men grow mustaches? Because many of them wish to do so, and since it is within their rights to do so, they may so.

Non-PC Joke: What do gay men call hemorrhoids? Speed bumps!

PC Version: What do gay men call hemorrhoids? A condition in which the veins around the anus or lower rectum are swollen and inflamed!

In spite of all of this, I completely disagree with the connotative ignorance of calling the upcoming weather a "cold front." It's not a "cold front" if it doesn't make it cold, and the 80's is not cold. Historically, the 80's weren't even cool.

By the way, if I offended you with my candor, then get a life.

Fantasy Football

One of my Fantasy Football Leagues is a "keeper" league. These players I have opted to keep.

QB: Payton Manning, Ind
RB: Larry Johnson, KC
RB: Rudy Johnson, Cin
WR: Steve Smith

Now I have to decide on whom else to keep
QB: Kurt Warner, AZ (I'm trying to trade him for a draft pick)
RB: Corey Dillon, NE
RB: Ron Dayne, Den
RB: Chester Taylor, MN
WR: Keyshawn Johnson, Car
TE: Tony Gonzales, KC
DST: Chicago Bears

Any advice?

Tsk Tsk Tsk

I said some pretty hard-core things in my "Old People" post, and none of the few (yes, I admit that I am not even a regional phenom) who read this post said anything at all. Shame on you. Either sound like and idiot and argue against me, or step up and show your good sense by saying, "Well done."

Reason for the Previous Post

The reason for the previous post is, if you haven't guessed, that our air conditioner is broken. Some might respond that people lived for eons without air conditioning, but I counter that these people were unfortunate.

People lived for eons without lost of stuff that we now "need." If you want to take that line of argument, then I only ask that you not drive a car or take a bus anywhere. Watch flowers grow, but don't watch TV. Listen to the breeze, but don't listen to Brittney Spears.

Actually, that last one sounds pretty good...

Some people think that air conditioning has contributed to obesity in this country, for it keeps people idle and inside their homes instead of active and outside. I say B.S. I don't have air conditioning, and I'm obese, idle, and, whether I'm inside or not, I haven't the ability to be active. The simple act of typing this is making me sweat.

Still, you might disagree. Perhaps you think that sweating is good for me. Very well, then, continue with your Richard Simmon's routines to Little Richard tunes. Vote Democrat for "social justice." Vote Republican because you're one of the "moral majority." Either way, you're an idiot, and I'm still hotter than hell.

Abolish Summer

There are far more songs written about the summer than any other season. The only season that comes close is winter, and that's only because of Christmas. Seriously, think about it. There's all sorts of winter songs: "Winter Wonderland," "Let it Snow," "Baby It's Cold Outside," etc.; but how many of them are played after Christmas? They're Christmas songs, not winter songs.

I bring this up because I'm tired of celebrating summer. Give me late spring or early autumn. Screw summer. It's too dang hot.

I edged my grass today and nearly dehydrated. I went inside and drank a bit of water (I say a bit, but I mean a lot more because exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement). I decided to sit and do nothing for a while. The problem was, I had to breathe, and that made me sweat even more. I had to get more water. The process of lifting the glass of water to my lips cost me in fluids as much as I consumed. I thought, for a moment, that I might be in Hell: George W. is still president, and that supported this hypothesis. However, I was still able to access Catherine Zeta-Jones on the internet, so I knew that I was OK. She's so beautiful, and to think that the only things standing between us is her marriage to Michael Douglas and that pesky restraining order.

Seriously, what's so awesome about the summer? I'm sweating my [insert dual male organs] off!

Have you ever noticed that most "summer" songs are written by people living in climates that are warm whether or not it is summer? Think about it. Jimmy Buffet hangs out in the Caribbean. The Beach Boys were from Southern California. When was the last time that a "summer" song was recorded by a band in northern Irkutusk? "I Wish They All Could Be Siberian Girls" just doesn't sound right.

I think that summer songs are coolest in the winter, when, ironically, it is coolest. That's when I can curse how freaking cold it is and wish for the warmth of the summer. When the summer comes, bring on the Christmas songs because I'm melting.

Screw summer and screw winter. Give me May and October twelve months out of the year. It can snow on Christmas, which, on my calendar, will be on May 25; and it can be hot on Independence Day, which I will allow to be on July 4, but only because I'm a historian and dates should jive whenever possible (please note that there is conclusive evidence that Jesus was not born on December 25, so my special calendar can still maintain quite a bit of integrity).

This calendar--which will only include the latter half of April, all of May, the first part of June, the latter half of September, all of October and nothing else--would be beneficial to all. All we need is for Congress to vote on it.

If you think that's stupid, that we can't change the seasons by a simple vote, then you must agree that it is stupid for Congress to take steps to stave off global warming. I'll accept that refutation, for I believe that global warming is a natural process and that Al Gore would have preached phrenology in the 19th century and probably believes that a good bleeding will cure whatever ails you.

If summer is abolished because it is too hot, and winter was abolished because it is too cold, the only problem would be changing a few song lyrics. For instance:

"Pleasant time, spring in the city" would replace "Hot time, summer in the city."

And "Oh the weather outside is delightful" would replace "Oh the weather outside is frightful."

If we put our minds to it, we can do it. It's a hell of a lot easier than enduring this unrelenting heat, only to endure piercing cold six months later.

Braveheart

Every time that I watch Braveheart, I want to put on a kilt (I'll fashion one from a beach towel), grab a sword (I guess I'll have to settle for my fireplace poker), and slaughter some Englishmen (Aussies will do just as well, I guess--so look out, Outback).

Old People and My Money

There's nothing really original about this one. It's pretty much old hat, but it's what's got me right now, so live with it.

Medicare should be abolished instantly.

Virtually every rational person that I know recognizes the problem with Medicare, but they think that we're somehow trapped into it, that we owe it to the old people of today and can only hope (at best) to phase it out in the future.

Bull.

No one deserves my money except for me. It's mine, and I should be able to distribute it in exchange for my wants and needs as I see fit. It doesn't belong to anyone else: not old people, not even the government. It's mine.

But [enter unsubstantiated and most likely grossly inflated number] will die! It's like murder to say that Granny can't have her pills. It's our moral duty to care for the elderly.

Shut up. I didn't say that Granny can't have her pills. I said that no one else has the right to my property, and someone else's wants or needs cannot alter this right. Let Granny have all the pills that she can get. I don't care. Heck, I don't even care if she's smoking crack, as long as she's leaving me and my property alone.

Charities would be established to help the elderly pay for their medications. It works for food in this country, and I can't remember the last time that a person starved to death in the country for lack of access to food. Hunger is different from starvation, so if you were about to jump on me for that, you'd better give up (or at least get a stinking dictionary).

Are old people too proud to beg from charity but not too proud to aim guns at me and demand money from my bi-monthly paycheck?

Oh, I'm so heartless. I would leave those poor seniors to die! Some of them, yes. Let me take care of my old people. You take care of your old people.

What about old people who don't have anyone? Well, you read Stave 4 of A Christmas Carol, didn't you? Ralphie finally gets a Red Rider BB Gun, and he accidentally shoots himself in the eye. No, wait, that's A Christmas Story. My bad. In Stave 4 of A Christmas Carol, Ebenezer Scrooge dies alone and is not mourned because he deserves no pity. If you've got no one, then it's your fault. Even allowing for exceptions, I still have the right to my property and should not be forced to surrender it to another.

What about old people whose families are too poor to support them? Well, that's what the charities are for! They're not there now because the government has a monopoly on the industry. Dump the government, and the private sector will provide the service. Even if there is a shortage in donations, and old people start dropping like flies, I still don't see how anyone--even my grandmother--has the right to force me to surrender my property to them. If you care so much, then take out a new mortgage on your house. Leave mine alone.

Old people think that it's not stealing, for they get it from the government. They might call it some gentle euphemism like "state assistance" or (duh) "Medicare." They kid themselves. The government got that money because they threatened me and my countrymen with bodily harm if we did not cough it up.

Old people think that they earned it for putting in years and years of work and taxpaying. The years and years of work was for you. I didn't ask you to do it. As for the taxpaying, it was as wrong then as it is now. Two wrongs don't make a right.

After medicare is gone, let's take out social security. After social security is gone, let's take out the federal income tax. After the federal income tax is gone, I'm going to Ruth's Chris every day for the month of April (and I'll still be ahead!).

You're probably thinking that I've got something against old people, but I don't. I also don't think that churches should receive state funding. This doesn't mean that I'm against religion. Think about it. If I'm a Catholic, how wrong would it be for me to be forced to support a Mosque?

Here's a way to think about things, and I cannot take credit for it. However, I cannot recall the source (Bob probably does, so maybe he'll throw me a bone). If it would be wrong for an individual to do something, then it is wrong for the government to do it. It would be wrong for me force someone into my religion, and it is likewise wrong for the government to force a religion on others. It is wrong for me to force someone to cede his or her property involuntarily, and it is likewise wrong for the government to force someone to sede his or her property involuntarily. There's no difference between the two, but one gets called theft at best (robbery at worst), and the other is let off as taxation.

It's simply wrong to deprive anyone of his or her right to life, liberty, and property; and there is no exception for government, for old people, or alia. There is no exception for need. Even if you need food, stealing a loaf of bread is wrong.

Lastly, let me deal with this: It's easy for you to say, you're young, robust, sexy, healthy, and everything for which anyone could wish. Wait until you're old and in need.

Even if I do sing a different tune when I'm old, it won't alter the truth of what I've said. It will just make me a whining, thieving, dirty, old S.O.B. (aka Democrat) who thinks that AARP is gospel and Matlock should be canonized.

Go ahead and preach about how unChristian and unAmerican what I've said is. A s Shakespeare said, "The devil can cite scripture for his purpose" (The Merchant of Venice). Show me where Christ said, "Goeth ye forth and useth guns to seizeth the property of others for thineself. Getteth viagra and haveth thineself a good time, but seeth a doctor if thine erection lasteth for longer than four hours." Tell me which founding father said that we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of other people's property. I don't even owe anyone for fighting the Japanese and Germans from '42-45. They didn't do it for me. I was born in '76. If I'd been there, I'd have done it myself. I didn't even exist, so don't stick me with the bill for your weakened colon!--An extra thought: what if I'm the immigrant grandson of a man killed fighting the Americans in the big one? How in the hell do I owe this so-called "Greatest Generation"? If this were the case, then I'd owe them a kick in the nuts.

Now's when people jump in about how disgusting it is for me to spit on the graves of vets, but I didn't! First of all, when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, people signed up for one of two reasons: "I'm going to get those Japs for what they did to us!" and "Sweet, a war! I'll be a hero!" Not even my grandfather (a veteran of both the Pacific and European theaters (he was an underwater demolitions specialist--aka "Frogman") signed up for me: "I had relations who were buggered up in Hawaii, and I was doing it for revenge on one side of the spectrum. On the other side, I was doing it for revenge because I don’t like bullies. . . I became revengeful and resentful. But Hitler, I wanted to castrate him, " and I think that the cranky old bastard actually cares about me!

I can't end on this note.

I just wish I could express clearly that I would like to see no one suffer (who doesn't deserve to suffer). People who deserve to suffer: Osama bin Laden, George W. Bush, Richard Simmons.

Dead Ain't Funny

It's really odd when a funny person dies. It's one of those cases in which you say, "He's gone, but we'll always remember him."

Seriously. If you were walking down the street, and you saw a clown dying from multiple stab wounds, that would be both tragic and funny. You'd think to yourself, "Man, it sucks that the clown is dead. Who would stab a clown through the aorta?" But then you'd chuckle when you remembered how, like water, blood shot through the flower on his lapel; and how his face was painted like a smile, but inside he must have been writhing in abject misery. That would be ironic. What do you think, Alanis?

I downloaded a comedy album by Mitch Hedberg and laughed uproariously throughout its 45 minute duration. To my dismay, I later learned that Mitch died last year. He has another album, and I'm sure to get my hands on it, but it won't be the same. While I will certainly enjoy his humor, knowing that this is it, that I will have heard both of his albums and will never hear another, my spirits will be dampened.

Carrot Top lives, and Mitch Hedberg is dead. Add this to the list (between Iraq and extra-large spandex) of what's wrong with this world.

Recommendations

For hours of fun, try "the "Urban Legends Reference Pages" at www.snopes.com. Trust me. You'll be fascinated.

When you're done, check out John Stossel's two bestsellers: Give Me a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the LIberal Media and Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel--Why Everything You Know Is Wrong.