Lost Continent Words

out and away

Going to be out of town for a wedding for several days. I'll be back with more entries on the 8th of March. Happy Leap Day!

Is God Dark Energy?

Recent studies from cosmology are presenting strange views of the universe. Could these new studies create a scientific theory of divinity?

In reading Gregg Easterbrook's excellent "Easterblogg" (highly recommended), I read this entry about some of the new theories of cosmology (the study of the universe, its creation, and its processes) about "Dark Energy". For those unfamiliar, dark energy is the theorized energy that is responsible for the continued acceleration of the universe outward. Given the energy that is observed in the universe, it doesn't make sense that the universe should still be expanding, rather than starting to contract again (due to the force of gravity overtaking the initial force of the Big Bang. While we can grasp the need for this energy to explain the expansion, no one has been able to detect or observe this energy directly (hence the moniker "dark"). Easterbrook's article is very thought-provoking, but he doesn't get the science completely right. The existence of dark energy does not require the repeal of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (here it is again in a more high-level form). It merely requires that the universe cannot be a closed system. The second law would not allow energy to be created within the closed system of the universe, but energy can be transferred in from outside the universe.

Think about this now. The universe is all we can observe. If energy is appearing without our being able to observe it, but having a noticeable impact, doesn't that square with our conception of the divine? Something outside of and apart from the universe, adding energy over time to keep the clock running, to keep entropy at bay?

I am not a theist at heart (although I do have a conception of the divine which I believe in), but I am very excited about the potential of this sort of discovery. Ironically, the 2nd Law is often cited by creationists as proof that evolution is impossible. Of course, this argument is meaningless for the same reasons as above: The earth is not a closed system, but receives energy constantly from the sun, which allows it to become more ordered. Could it be that this explanation which supports evolution could also be used to demonstrate the existence of divinity?

Notes:

The 2nd law vs. evolution argument is refuted here (as are a few other common misconceptions about evolution).

A paper relating dark energy to Einstein's cosmological constant(not for the faint of heart, but pretty clear for an academic paper. Also includes the fantastic sentence: "A socially acceptable value of [lambda] cannot be such as to make life impossible, of course.")

An article from Astronomy.com (a little friendlier for lay readers)

Funeral

Thanks for your comments, Kurt. I've always been in support of more dialogue and less "faking it". Of course, I'm very good at "faking it" myself, so it's ultimately a hypocritical opinion.

I'm going to get back to posting this week. It was just too much. I'd already posted up about Emily, and I haven't really been able to think about anything else for a while. But hopefully I'll get things back running again this week.

The service was nice. It was also horrible. Just a room filled with people who don't understand and feel so empty they can't find a way out of it.

There was a luncheon afterwards for people to get together. As we left, I said good-bye to Emily's dad, and thanked him (I'd spoken to her mother the day before). And it was awful, because he was trying to be a good host and gracious, and was doing a good job of it, but I looked in his eyes, and I could see it. And I realized that I felt horrible, sickened and awful and had felt that way for days, but I could approach 1% of what he felt and it wasn't even over yet. It almost knocked me down it was so palpable. I wish there was something I could do for them.

The whole weekend I kept feeling like we (The Troupe) had failed her. I still feel that way, and I hope that as a group and as individual people we can improve to not let that happen again. Because I, for one, can't take it. It was great to see everyone, but I dont want to meet like that again. Ever.

Nothing

I'm taking the day off. If you haven't gotten it from somewhere else, I will post all necessary details on services for emily at this location.

For Emily (1978-2004)

I still feel awful. And mostly, its just been a feeling like I'm going to be sick, all day. But I never get sick, just continue to feel awful. She's gone.

Emily killed herself last Friday, and I can't even make up my mind how to feel about it. It's so hard to decide between angry, upset, depressed, guilty, exhausted, disappointed, crazy, and just plain red-hot pissed.

Troupe (the improvisation group I was in at MTU) has always been like family for me, and it always will be. I don't think I'm alone in this, I think most of us feel the same way. Even when I meet Troupers that I've never met before, it's like meeting your 2nd cousin Naomi or your great uncle Greg, there's an incredible bond that is just there because of the shared experience. And I know I would do anything to help another Trouper that needed me. Even years now after leaving, I'm still very close to many of the people I was in Troupe with, talking regularly and getting together.

But it had been many months since the last I'd spoken to Emily, and even that was too short. A friend of mine once said that it's never too late to write. That there's always a chance to catch up again, and you should just keep trying. But that's not true, because now it is too late. I won't get a chance to talk to her again, to hug her again, to cast her in a play to talk dirty because I knew she couldn't get embarrassed.

Emily was a lot of fun. She had an energy that was contagious, and to be honest, some days a lack of energy that was contagious too. She was fiercely honest and independent and demanding, and she expected no less from herself than she did from others. She loved music (especially the Beatles) and troupe and being incredibly silly. She was very good at all of them. In Troupe and out, I was glad for the time I had with her. Some days she made me laugh, some days she made me think, and some days she pissed me off. But she has never made me as angry as I feel right now. We were all out here, and we would have loved to hear from her and we wanted to tell her how much she was loved, how much she was wanted. Dammit, Kerby! Pick up the phone, write an email, something!

But she didn't, couldn't maybe. And I didn't either. And I don't know at all if it would have made a difference, but God how I wish I would have tried anyway. Maybe a short note from a friend was what she needed at a vulnerable time. I was shocked this morning, but maybe not surprised. Emily had never been completely stable, always on one edge or another, but always bouncing back. When I wrote my play, "Thunder Only Happens..." she helped me to critique it, and offered her perspective on how suicidal people feel. We talked about it a bit, but not enough. There is a universe of pain, built out of things left unsaid.

So, you, I'm talking to you reader. Listen to me. Say it. Tell the people you love, make them feel it. Maybe it won't make a difference, maybe we can't stop the road from ending, maybe its just words, but say it, say it, say it.

I love you, Em. I wish I'd said it more often. I wish so many things, and they're all useless now. "The only Emperor is the Emperor of ice cream." I love you, Em, and I miss you.

Evolution in GA

Evolution is no longer a dirty word in Georgia. But this case wasn't about teaching creationism, and even with the word, religious forces are weakening an understanding of science with a politically-correct approach to fact.

While I was not thrilled about the original decision by the Georgia schools (initiated by Superintendent Kathy Cox) to avoid using the word evolution in teaching of biology, I could understand the rationale behind it. It did not appear to be an attempt to rewrite the natural history of life on this planet, but rather an attempt to avoid contraversy by not using one of the most loaded words in the current debate between science and religion. While this policy may be ill-advised, Superintendent Cox was accused by the religious right for not introducing teaching of creationism, by the old right for intruding into people's lives, and by the left for attempting to make all children in GA stupid and poor. She was even criticized by Former President Carter for embarrassing the state.

The issue of evolution vs. creationism is a thorny one, filled with bias and dishonesty. So, in the spirit of full disclosure, here's my position. Religious education belongs in the church, in the home, and in the individual's mind. Any form of religious education or endorsement by government, schools, or institutions is wrong. Religion has survived for thousands of years without government support (and even with government oppression) and it doesn't need help now.

Many people have a black and white position like the one above or like the opposite of the one above. Which I suppose explains the attacks on Ms. Cox. But I applaud her, no matter what I think of the policy for making some attempt to inject compromise and reason into a process that is mostly about getting one over on the other guy.

However, in the announcement of the recent decision to scrap this policy, I'm troubled by the characterization of evolution. Here's a short excerpt of the CNN article below.

The vast majority of scientists believe the theory of evolution -- which states that all living life forms evolved from earlier, more primitive life forms -- is the basis for the teaching of biology.

Some religious beliefs do not accept that view.

A new section of the proposed curriculum addresses possible controversy.

"Perhaps science courses can acknowledge the disagreement and concentrate on frankly presenting the scientific view," reads part of an overview section of the draft. "Even if students eventually choose not to believe the scientific story, they should be well informed about what the story is."

In an attempt to be PC, evolution is continually referred to as a "belief". The rhetoric commonly heard from the creationists is that evolution is "just a theory", and that "they believe in evolution and we believe in God." But belief is not a fair characterization for how scientists view evolution. A theory requires experimentation, and experimentation requires predictability, repeatability, and falsifiability. This is far from "having a belief" but instead represents years of study and experimentation. It also represents the fact that the theory can predict the behavior of the natural world, and continues to do so effectively. The fact that there are some holes or things that can't be predicted only further validates the process as being only interested in what it can prove, and not making claims it cannot back up.

This process does not hinge upon belief. You don't have to believe in evolution to watch it occur. The furthest you could go is in saying that scientists believe in the scientific process to be an effective way to arrive at the truth. But even this is a belief that has been validated by experience. There are many holes and things left undiscovered. But, the next time you want to ponder the ignorant belief in science, then pick up the phone and call your doctor about the results of your MRI, so you know if its safe for you to fly to Antarctica. But before you get into your car, don't forget to get online and laser print your boarding pass. Then figure out how to do it all in 1500, by faith alone.

Update: more free energy

I visited the website for John Hutchinson, who was featured on Tech TV. Laura pointed him out to me (in the comments of this article).

Just to express again how much of a cookie cutter philosophy these people have, John Hutchinson uses crystals to create his free energy machines, which is different from some of the designs that are out there. but guess where his ideas came from... Secret research from Nikola Tesla, utilizing zero-point energy.

Please don't listen to this man

Dr. Atkins created a diet intended for elite athelets and sold his soul to make money. The result is an incredible threat to public health, which will likely only rear it's head a decade from now, after it's too late.

It's a theme I've already dealt with and am likely return to, but I'll say it anyway. If it seems too good, it probably is. And if it doesn't make sense, stay away. Anyone who tells you its good for you to eat nothing but eggs and bacon is lying to you, and selling something at the same time. Nutritionists say that the Atkins diet is a terrible idea, and they have the medical community with them. The jury is still out on a lot of the research, with conflicting studies being released both pro and con.

However, even the study that seems to support Atkins doesn't show appreciable differences in weight loss over the long term, as much of the weight lost by Atkins participants is put back on. As well, many doctors say that while Atkins participants do frequently lose weight, they are losing it in water by dehydrating themselves (as Ketosis (the act of converting protein to carbohydrate) requires a lot of water, and incidentally induces lots of byproducts that are toxic and can cause liver damage) and by losing muscle (because their body is cannibalizing their muscle mass due to it's perceived starvation due to lack of carbohydrate fuel), rather than by actually burning fat. Also, even if Atkins is a more effective way to lose weight than traditional low-calorie diets, there is no understanding of the potential long-term health effects. All of current medical knowledge says that the profile of what Atkins allows is dangerous to your long-term health. The only part which is currently supported is the use of fish-oils. Of course, regular use of fish-oil in your diet can be added to any health regimen, and does not require Atkins. Finally, Atkins is a low-calorie diet, which can explain many of the results.

Most (over 80%) of the carbohydrates in our body are used to feed our brain for regular functioning. This may explain some of the popularity of the Atkins diet, as after a few weeks of eating your "healthy" hamburgers without buns, you become increasingly stupid on your way to brain damage.

I'll avoid commenting on the recent contraversy over Atkins weight at his death, as the explanation released seems plausible (that Atkins had severe bloating and organ failure while in the coma following his fall). Here is the latest story and you can decide for yourself what it means, while tracking through the previous versions.

I can't help the feeling that the Atkins diet will be akin to Thalidomide, in a public-health crisis that only becomes clear many years after it's too late.

Update: Disney

Comcast bids to buy Disney

Any hope of Disney reforming can likely be dashed by recent news that Comcast intends to take over the media company. Comcast is not known as a "creativity first" company, but they smell blood and see an opening.

Free Lunch for Free Energy

In the spirit of many great philathropists, I hereby offer my own endowment: I will buy lunch for anyone who can reliably demonstrate a free energy device. However, I'm not real worried about having to pay out, since, as Heinlein observed, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch", and free energy follows right behind.

Perhaps Heinlein's maxim could be extended as: There ain't no such thing as a free lunch, and anyone who tells you different is selling something. In the case of the moon, that something is expensive drinks, in the case of free energy, it's an "Investment Opportunity".

The inspiration for his entry comes from a friend sending me the Nullgrav website. This isn't anything new really, you'll find similar sites all over the web, promising you infinite energy and perpetual motion and telling you how stupid the science establishment is for not believing them. It is slightly more interesting in that it is located in L'anse, MI (a tiny town in the Upper Penninsula that I know quite well), but mostly it's the same as the rest. When you've gotten used to seeing these sites (and the glossy magazines and pamphlets that came before the web) you start to get jaded, and forget how easily people can be taken in. So here's the quick report: It's a crock, and will always be a crock. You want some proof? Here's the easy answer... They've been saying this crap for over 20 years now, but we all still have to put gas in the car. The 20 year figure only refers to "gyroscopic free energy devices", other perpetual motion schemes have been going for centuries.

Most of the site seems to be based on the work of this knucklehead, who, like all science knuckleheads takes Nikola Tesla as his inspiration. This isn't a knock on Tesla, but he does seem to attract crackpots as followers.

Knucklehead A (Bruce DePalma) had a conventional physics education at MIT. Of course, if you look closely at the resume he provides, it is fishy. He clearly states that he got his undergraduate degree in physics from MIT, and that he went on to graduate study in engineering and physics, but specifically avoids saying that he ever graduated. Some of the neat revelations you can get by delving into the site are his experience of realizing all at once that all the conventional laws of physics are wrong (this happened the first time he smoked pot), and his responding to a critic of his theories by saying that the natural disasters in the world represent God's anger at the skeptics.

His profile is not especially rare in this field. I first got into this when I was about 12, with a Discover Magazine article on Joe Newman. He made a pretty big scene in the mid-eighties talking about his free energy machine. Like most of these inventors, he refused to let anyone test it, and it was always "almost ready". He's still telling the same story now, almost 20 years later.

I'm a skeptic by nature, but I stay as open-minded as possible. But it's important to recognize the signs of pseudoscience. Many have done a better job than I can of describing those methods, but I'll offer a quick list.

1) If it looks too good to be true, it probably is.
2) If the science establishment/government/oil companies are fighting to suppress the truth, and that's why they can't show you it working, it's BS.
3) If no one can offer any justification for how it works except other websites and Free Energy journals, then there isn't any good justification.
4) If the new invention will revolutionize the world and change modern science, beware.

One of the most interesting new things I found in looking at this site is the focus on the X-Prize. Some of these people are just delusional, they want to believe that they can create a machine to revolutionize the world, and all the evidence in the world won't convince them otherwise. But the majority are in it to make easy cash on big promises. So using a high-profile science prize as your bait is pretty clever. If you haven't heard about the X-Prize, check it out. That is real new science, and it kicks ass. The idea is to offer a prize ($10M) for the first civilian (privately funded) space travel. There are rigid limits to what has to be accomplished, but it can be done in any way the inventors want. There are some really cool designs, using really interesting technology. If we are ever to achieve real space travel, it will come from private enterprise, not bureaucratic behemoths like NASA.

Related Links of Interest:

The Skeptic's Dictionary

Skeptic Magazine

One of my favorite X-Prize designs

Skeptic Site on Dennis Lee and another, tied for the most famous of the free energy crowd with Joe Newman.

I also intend to do another more researched piece on Tesla.

Future of Technical Writing

Safari Online Books has potential to change the way people get reference information on technical issues.

Don't worry, I'm not climbing onto the "Books are Dead!" platform just yet. I think despite technology's best efforts it will be very hard to banish the book as the preferred "text/image/information delivery medium". But eBooks have their place, and the best use I've seen so far is Safari.

Safari is an online library. You pay a regular fee, and in exchange you get online access to their books. Currently there are only 2000 titles, but they seem to be adding new ones pretty regularly. They've focused (intelligently, I think) on technical IT / Programming related books. Really, this is the perfect market for such a service, as the information changes constantly, and often the information you're looking for would only be used for one project and set aside. An intelligent codemonkey doesn't have a tremendous challenge adapting to new languages, they just need the ability to understand the syntax and learn any special cases. So if they can jump online to get the basics and then be able to refer back to it, they really don't need the physical book. And if they need to refer back to it for a different project a year later, they can jump online and refer to the latest version, which might have more options available to them that they wouldn't get from their older book sitting on the shelf. They can also refer to the book while away from their office or where-ever the book resides, which makes supporting things off-site much better as well.

I've heard that they are associated with O'Reilly, the publishing company, and it's easy to believe as they seem to have every O'Reilly title there is. There are also some business books. I'd like to see some more technical reference titles from an engineering or science perspective.

But it's a great start. It's a valid concern that a CRT is not the best method for reading, either for eyestrain or radiation. But that part is already there, and it's unlikely that this one addition will have that big of an impact. The improvement is to make the dispaly devices better, not look at them less. And while it may not have the comfort of holding a book, most people aren't really curling up on the couch on a Sunday to read Java in a Nutshell anyway.

In any case, I'd recommend anyone who does a lot of coding or computer work that can get their work to pay for it to sign up. It's one of those ideas that's really obvious after someone else does it.

Movie for February

This is the first entry in what will be semi-regular recommendations for interesting movies, music, books, and assorted other things. I'm going to start this month with the film Chuck and Buck.

Let me start out this recommendation by saying that I hated watching this movie. Every second was painful and annoying. Which seems a good place to start.

The film was written by and starred Mike White. The quick and dirty set-up is as follow. Chuck and Buck were best friends as kids, but Chuck moved away, and Buck has stayed trapped in his childhood ever since. When Chuck (now called Charlie, and a successful music executive) comes back to town for the funeral of Buck's mother, Buck tries to renew their friendship the way it was before. Buck moves to LA where Charlie lives and tries to insert himself into Charlie's life.

Here's the deal: Mike White gives an outstanding portrayal of an emotionally-arrested man trying to come to terms with his past. The problem is that people like that are incredibly annoying, and make you uncomfortable to be around. White doesn't flinch at all in this regard, to try to make Buck more lovable. In fact, everything in the film seems designed to heighten this sense of discomfort, from the incredibly repetitive (and a little annoying even the first time) musical selection, to the pacing of the dialogue, allowing plenty of screen time for uncomfortable silences where the characters look at each other and try to figure out what to say next. And I must say, White has done an outstanding job of cultivating this feeling of discomfort and annoyance, it persists heavily throughout the entire film. The problem is, it isn't much fun to be really uncomfortable and annoyed for an hour and a half straight. I must have looked at the clock 100 times while watching, in the hopes that time was passing faster than it seemed. (Special Note: White goes further in the movie to heighten the tension by having many scenes and themes with homosexual content and overtones. I am not particularly bothered by the subject, but it is certain that White was aware of how uncomfortable many people are with such portrayals, and did his best to heighten the discomfort that way as well.)

So, you're asking, why in the holy hand-grenade is this guy recommending a movie he hated so much? Well, I suppose the answer is that I didn't actually hate the movie. I just hated watching it. Even now (several weeks later), I'm still not entirely sure that I liked the movie, either, but I know that it made me think a lot. Events in the last act changed my entire perception of what had happened in the first two, and kept me thinking for a good week straight. And, to be fair, from a technical sense everything about the film is done well. It's just not entertaining.

I don't think I really need to include the caveat that this film isn't for everybody. Probably I've scared many of you off. And that's fine, because it won't change your life, and it certainly won't be fun to watch. But if you're still brave enough, it will likely stick in your mind. And maybe (after a couple of weeks to think about it), you'll decide it was actually worth watching.

Blame for Passion?

The Passion of Jesus has been a contentious subject in drama for centuries. But how can one assign blame for something that is the central foundation of Christianity?

I've been hearing a lot about the new film (produced and directed by Mel Gibson) "The Passion of the Christ", and already it is generating a great deal of controversy. If you're unfamiliar with the theological nomenclature, "The Passion" refers to the period of Christ's suffering, from his arrest to his burial. Some say the film's message is anti-Semitic, for its depiction of the Jews role in Christ's death. Some say that any account of the Passion is an assault against Jews, as the account found in the Gospels establishes the Jews as complicit, although we have no primary historical record to establish this. (The Gospels as a historical source are secondary sources as they were written many years after Jesus lived and died. So as historical documents, they are secondary sources. The question of whether they reveal the true literal account and the undiluted Word of God is a question of theology, which I won't deign to answer here. So please don't argue with me on that account, as I'm expressing no opinion on this matter of faith. ) Some argue with presenting it at all, as the most important part is Jesus's life, and to focus on his death creates unnecessary conflict. I won't join in on any part of this bandwagon, as I've always hated the hypocrites who decry a film without seeing it. My question is how did this issue of blame come up in the first place?

I'm a damn poor scholar in Christian theology, I'll admit it. But I know the basics, and one of the central and most important tenets of Christianity is that Jesus Christ had to die to absolve the world of sin. This was part of the bargain, it was God's plan for his people, and it is the core of Christ's New Testament. So how is it possible for there to be responsibility in his death? It was all understood and Jesus asked to be spared if it were it God's will. While most of Christianity in the modern world accepts the doctrine of Free Will, particularly as it relates to the question of Pain and Evil, it is nonetheless recognized that all things are possible through God, and, by extension, God can exert control over the world.

So as this is a part of the New Testament with God's people, and as God chose not to spare Jesus in order to fulfill the Testament (the essential tenet of Christianity -- John 3:16), is it truly possible to assign blame or responsibility or complicity in Jesus's Death? Perhaps there's a Christian Scholar out there that can help me with this one. I don't see a way out, though, for responsibility to be possible, especially on the part of an entire race of people. The only way I could see it as theoretically possible is if one assumes that it was part of God's plan because God is omnipotent and omniscient that God knew the will of the Jews to be evil. But this seems unlikely for many reasons. First, the Jews are God's Chosen People, so an assumption of evil is out of place. Second, and much more importantly, it is a morally reprehensible concept that the Jewish people could be, by nature, inclined to evil, by race and in their entirety.

I suppose the short answer may be that the people beating Jews in response to the Passion Plays had not considered the philosophical implications. This is almost certainly the case. But nonetheless, I still frequently hear arguments about whether or not the Jews are complicit or responsible for Christ's death, and cannot recall anyone using the line of argument above. Can someone tell me what I'm missing?

Or course, it's possible there is an answer to this in the vast literature out there on theology which I could look up. But that's a lot of reading, and I have to go to bed. I think I'll just wait for the movie.

Link:
Apologist account of relations between Christians and Jews

This entry itself deals with a philosophical examination of the theological issue, and as such makes a number of assertions consistent with Christian theology. This is necessary to argue within a consistent framework. Of course, the assertions made are a matter of personal faith and the author does not imply them to be either fact or fiction.

The Mouse

I've been in love with The Magic of Disney from a young age. Which only makes it more painful to see what has become of the company that helped to form me at a young age.

I'm not going to deal with this in depth, as many others have done a much better (and more thoroughly researched) job than I could, but I wanted to bring it up at least. I don't think I have to go into too much detail about how the company run today by Michael Eisner differs from the company and vision of Walt Disney so many years ago. And I'm not a complete Disney apologist, either, as even in the original vision there were certainly problematic elements, from environmental impact of a project like DisneyWorld in Orlando to the oversimplification of many issues in Disney films. But Disney represented a simplicity and love of imagination that was truly inspirational for children (and adults).

In any case, something is rotten in Orlando. With the resignation of Roy Disney (Walt's nephew) and Stanley Gold, machinations began to try to remove Eisner. The recent breakdown of talks between Disney and Pixar are adding fuel to the flames of controversy.

Here are some resources you can read for more information.

Website started by Roy Disney and Stanley Gold to begin a shareholder drive to remove Eisner and restore the company to its previous vision.

Article on Slate about the controversy and Eisner's position.

Non-Fiction
Book by Carl Hiaasen (one of my favorite fiction authors) about Disney's culture and specifically its environmental record, entitled "Team Rodent: How Disney Devours the World"

Article in the Washington Post about the Disney-Pixar split. (The bad news being that under the terms of the current contract, all characters belong to Disney, which means we could see a Woody and Buzz movie without any Pixar involvement at all.)

I'd like to think that Disney could be turned around to get back to a "creativity first" company as Roy Disney and Stanley Gold have characterized the old company. But once its turned, it's hard to believe that the demon will crawl back into the box without quite a fight, or without destroying both the demon and the box.

Clap for the vote

As I prepare to cast my vote in the Michigan Democratic Caucus, I'm struck by how similar the situation is to choosing your favorite venereal disease. I think at this point I'm choosing John Edwards and chlamydia, respectively.

I'll admit to becoming increasingly cynical about the political process. But I'm trying to stay involved, and work towards change. But I'm so uninspired by all the same career politicians, whether they're in Washington or Vermont or an Army uniform. And I suppose that's what it takes to get to the highest office in the land, but maybe that's the problem.

Howard Dean started off on the right foot with me, in terms of being willing to be honest, have opinions, and state them, whether they were unpopular or not. But it didn't take long for the political process to eat him and spit him back out as an automaton. Now he's matching his opinions to the polls and hiring lobbyists to run his campaign. Really, he had made me nervous before all that though. He just has a way about him that says, "I know what's best for you, and if you don't agree then you're stupid and you'll take what I give you. " I don't know if it's hypocritical of me to want a strong president with his own opinions who will be willing to take some chances and make changes, but want him not to be too controlling or arrogant. I certainly hope that fascism isn't the only path to change. So Dean is just like the rest of them, but has a dark underside that could turn authoritarian. Maybe I can call that Syphilis.

Everyone is telling me that John Kerry is going to win here in Michigan. Well, Kerry is short of syphilis, perhaps, but there is plenty of itching and burning associated with him for me. I just don't see any difference between the John Kerry of 2004 and the John Kerry of 2003. And the John Kerry of 2003 was an uninspiring, old-guard, out-of-touch, Massachusetts liberal with no vision or speaking skills and a poorly design platform and campaign. What's changed? Well, he won in Iowa, and he started lifting the best lines from his opponents (especially John Edwards and Wesley Clark). And now I'm supposed to believe he's superman? I'm not buying it. And electability is a farce. Political science is giving a lot of credit to both parts of its name, as it assumes that politics can be understood, and that science has the tools to do so. Please don't tell me that you, dear voter, can somehow figure out how the other 300 million people in this country would vote, before it happens. So I guess Kerry gets the clap.

General Clark can't seem to be able to decide what he wants his positions to be. They change frequently, and he doesn't even seem to have made up his mind that he's a Democrat. Maybe it's like my friend Chet says, that he is just a true moderate, which is why he can fit into either party. But I don't buy it, as many of his positions seem to have changed as soon as he switched parties. It speaks to me of someone who cares more about being in the office than about what he does there. And it certainly shows that he understands the art of political gamesmanship, for all his talk of "Washington Insiders". But, probably someone that is primarily concerned with how he appears wouldn't do too much damage in the office. So Wes gets the crabs. He makes me very uncomfortable and embarrassed in many situations, but he won't cause any major damage.

So, I guess I'm sticking with Edwards and Chlamydia. He's got the potential to do some worthwhile things, but he creeps me out and I don't know why. He hasn't done anything to bother me yet. But he's a lawyer which is enough to give me a pause. And I just don't know that much. He's charming and reminds me not a little bit of the situation Mr. Clinton was in.

I only hope for the day (and would prefer that day to be November 11, 2004) when I get to choose a candidate I like and believe in. When the two parties offer me something besides voting for either the guy I hate or the guy I dislike. So maybe I'm an idealist after all.

Authors Note: The author would like to state that there was some research involved in this piece, and reassure his mother that he hasn't actually had direct experience with all of the diseases above. For more information about a serious problem that people are afraid to talk about, visit:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/library/factsheets.htm

Opening Letter (excuses)

I suppose it's only proper that I explain myself. Its true: I am becoming a blogger. I'm not certain how to feel about it or what it means, but for some reason the universe has put me here, and I do my best to obey.

I'm not certain what it is I expect to accomplish, or even if I expect to accomplish anything. I've already been struck by the overwhelming apathy associated with writing anything. The mountains of text that modern publishing and our fair Internet have unleashed make the prospect of breaking through the noise quite daunting. And, certainly, weblogs are perhaps the worst path to being noticed even within this avalanche. So, ultimately, if I want to do this, it's for myself. And that's the best answer I have. I'm writing here because I have to, because something tells me to write, and when its published, even for less than a dozen to eventually read, it changes the bargain. If I write only for my own private pages, laziness slips in. There is a rigor that publishing (in any medium) forces from the author, and which I'm sure I can benefit from.

What do I want to say? I don't know yet. I suspect this will be a blog about ideas, whether on politics, society, poetry, science, spirit, language, music, or drinks with umbrellas in them. This at least has something to offer. The "personal" blog has a degree of self-absorbtion that makes me uncomfortable. I want to avoid the daily "Today I ate some soup" and inside-joke amalgamations I have seen. True, there is an arrogance associated with sharing my "ideas" as well, but they at least offer something, in a way that describing my lunch last Tuesday cannot. Even if you think I'm full of crap, at least I can make you consider why.

The writing will likely shadow my own obsessions, listed above, with many others to accompany them. I'll also share the experiences in my quixotic quest to create a global media empire without access to money or influence. Think of that: You can watch me fail in "real-time"!

In any case, I thank you for bothering to read this, and thank you if you bother to come back and continue reading. I'll do my best to make it interesting. My intent is to update "mostly daily", which means you get to watch me fail at that, too!

Yours,
-ish