Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Jesus, once again, tries to kill Halloween buzz


The time of year has come once again for many Christian parents to debate whether it's okay to have fun on Halloween or if they should, instead, make their children wait an extra day to celebrate the much lamer All Saints Day.

For the most part, the controversy surrounding Halloween has little to do with practical matters -- say, your child ingesting a razor blade hidden in a candy apple -- and is more focused on the pagan roots of the Holiday. Originally celebrated as a part of a Celtic harvest festival, Halloween marks the time when Samhain, Celtic Lord of Death, sent evil spirits out to attack humans; the logical recourse of humans being to dress up like evil spirits themselves in attempts to fool the demons and avoid harm.

Today, Wiccans still recognize the holiday as a sacred and powerful time, but most everyone else simply finds it to be a good excuse to suit up and gorge themselves on wacky taffy and mini Mr. Goodbars. Is that really so wrong?

Apparently it is. An article I just read suggests that "those who celebrate Halloween either are unaware of its roots, or are intentionally promoting a world where evil is lauded and viewed as an ultimate power??? It is not considered an option, apparently, to be aware of the roots and realize that your kids just want some freakin' candy. The article went on to say that "to counter the evil influence of Halloween, we need to join together and celebrate the reality of the heroic efforts of Christian saints over the evil in their day???

Do I get candy on All Saints Day? Can I dress up like Frankenstein’s monster? Do I get to TP the trees outside Old Man Montgomery's house? If the answer to these questions is no, you can stuff that lame ass holiday up your ass.

Thursday, September 20, 2007

11 Things Women Won't Tell You (and probably why I am divorced)


Editor's note: Some personal thoughts will slip into this list so rants are impossible to avoid.

1. Everything a woman buys for herself – from shoes to skirts and even shampoo – really costs 20 percent more than she tells you. (Nice to know "trust" is doomed in every relationship.)

2. She actually thinks about sex -- with you -- a lot. It's just that by the end of the day she's too tired to do anything about it. (Then just lay there. Not like you do much during anyway!!!)

3. She is just as nervous about commitment as you are. (Why? I'm the one who is going to suffer.)

4. She may be modern and independent, but she still wants you to be "the man." (Proof all women are schizophrenic.)

5. Her ex-boyfriends were not completely terrible in bed. (Are you saying she wasn't a virgin? That lying c**t!!!)

6. She is scared she will turn into her mother. So the worst insult you can throw at a woman you love is, “You’re acting just like your mother.” (Insult? It was the truth!!! Only difference was her mother loved me.)

7. She wants you to be jealous – but just a little bit. (Make up your mind! Do I punch the guy out or tell him to have you home by midnight?)

8. Yes, she fantasizes about hot celebrity guys, but that doesn’t mean she wants you to be one of them. (Is that why we had sex with the lights out?)

9. She tells her girlfriends more than she will ever admit to you but less than you fear. (I have video to the contrary.)

10. She really does notice and appreciate all the chores you do though she won't admit it. (No sex. No thank you. And men are the savages in a relationship? Bull shit! Take out your own trash till you throw a pity fuck my way.)

11. She loves you with all her heart, but she still gets wistful about the fact that she'll never feel that falling-in-love sizzle and spark again. (Blame #2 for the lack of sizzle and spark.)

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Pondering Reality...

I know this site is notorious for its comedic/satirical, rather than overtly intellectual, content. Over the past month I've been mulling around numerous thoughts which have sprung up from my Psychology and Philosophy classes.

First and foremost, the human body is an amazing creation. How it came to be has been endlessly debated for well over a century and a half. Was it evolution? Was it the hand of God? Well, I'm not here to enter the fray of life's origin. I'm just here to posit some of my thoughts for you to chew on. Whether you swallow or spit is really your choice.

My studies have revealed how the human body is constantly evolving. I do not mean over periods of centuries or millennia, I mean during one's lifetime. The human brain is an excellent example with how it rewires and alters its shape and functionality based on stimuli. In effect, our thoughts control and affect us. We are the products of reason, thinking, and reaction.

Now I've believed as far back as I can remember that we create our own realities. There is no real right or wrong. It is what we instill faith in which makes something real. Examples are God creating the universe versus the entire process coming about from a raw, untamed force of energy exploding outward in a "Big Bang". For some the former is real. For others it is the latter. We build our lives around beliefs, create realities from thought.

Where does thought come from? Perception. But what we perceive is governed by the flesh we find ourselves in. What we see, hear, taste, smell, and feel is radically different from other species and thus not real to them. Our reality is not their reality. It is solely ours. Does that make it more important? Does that humble us in knowing there are shared realities? In fact, how would our realities look should our eyes be capable of seeing beyond the limited spectral plain we now perceive or if we were unable to taste.

Philosophy and science can be difficult subjects to bring together. Science requires true quantifiable evidence leading to a single answer for phenomena whereas philosophy is open to interpretation. What philosophy has shown me is how we structure our conscious realities around us, try to explain the reasons we act. Yet science would say we do not act but simply react. We have been reacting since the "Big Bang", or God's shove (whichever you prefer). Every action has been the result of a prior action, known in philosophy as Determinism. Without a prior act a future act cannot be. If one were to follow this theory to its end, then all action began from one single action yet if action cannot happen without prior action then how can action be at all? Surely everything has a beginning and end. But what if that is merely our view of reality corrupting what it truth? We measure time, action, and event based on temporal structure: past, present, future. Does time really function that way or is it merely a construct of our reality based on limited perception? What if life is truly a circle, constant renewal, growth, collapse, etc. What if there is no beginning, no end, but a constant. Science says energy can neither be created nor destroyed. How did this all arise? Is growth impossible? Collapse as well?

In fact, what if our lifetime is the equivalent of a small town nestled in a valley upon the whole of the Earth. All we see and know is what happens in and around us yet we are part of something larger despite not perceiving it. We cannot see what we believe to be tomorrow over the ridge nor yesterday because of a shroud of mist. Yet it is there just as we are. What if every point functions at the same time yet we cannot perceive it. What if time really is more frequency than passing, layers rather a one way road. What if all were now and as easy to touch as the screen you read this upon.

What interests me most about the human form is its ability to manipulate energy, mostly at the subconscious or unconscious level. Thoughts, sensations, sight, etc. are all nothing more than the body converting energy into electrical, chemical, or some other form which is then deciphered and translated by the brain. Our bodies are repositories of energy. Our souls, that initial spark struck by the union of sperm and egg, flares in our flesh. Thus our soul is really manipulated energy. That force out there in space which governs gravity, light, and so much more at the macro level is within us at a sort of micro level. Yet our manipulation of energy is more than the simple process of chemical reaction, kinetic power, or electrical discharge. We manipulate energy into sentience; consciousness. What does that truly mean? In manipulating energy into creating our personalities what does that say about our flesh? What does that say about death? If energy cannot be destroyed do we dissipate into all things? Do we rejoin some lost galactic whole? Or does our energy signature somehow hold? Do we become a packet of energy, like a transmission, which holds together and continues to survive beyond the flesh? If we were to continue beyond physical death what would that type of existence be like?

Science has shown energy is useless without the physical. The physical manipulates energy, turning into a thing of creation. Could life be the evolution of energy? Could we be giving thought to that once raw, unbridled force? From destruction comes construction.

And what does this say concerning the prior subject of Determinism? If everything can only happen due to a prior act, then do we really have choice? Are we bound by some fate instigated eons ago which continues to play on through us? And if we have no choice then are our thoughts really illusions? If we cannot change things, if we have no control over events, then our thoughts can't truly be unique but the combination of prior events, actions, and material. Thus we serve no purpose for ourselves but only for whatever began the process yet if the process began blindly then we are all struggling forward blindly. Is the individual really real or does it exist simply because that is how we perceive the process of existence?

Energy has evolved and continues to do so through the physical world, but if we truly do have some control over it through our bodies then imagine when we are able to consciously manipulate it. I do not mean through machines but by thought. If all began because of some prior event, mindlessly started perhaps, what if our will became powerful enough to break the onward cycle and we became strong enough to alter our reality beyond perception.

So many large ideas. So much muddling and meandering. What do I truly believe? All I can say is I believe in the right to discover. That is the only way to learn.

Saturday, August 25, 2007

Life on Mars

Recent news has revealed the possibility of life on our planetary neighbor, Mars. It is not simply an astounding moment when humanity may finally open up to new perspectives on the origins and diversity of life, but also a redefining of what it is to be human. There are those in the scientific community who doubt the data, not surprising in a community where many prefer gradual change rather than radical redevelopments (such as the acceptance of the helio-centric model, the Theory of Relativity, etc.). A positive note is that recent polls show over 65% of Americans believe in the possibility of the validity of the findings of life on Mars. What follows is the article:

Martian soil analyzed 30 years ago by NASA 's Viking landers might contain life, according to a controversial new study that one scientist called "bogus."

A scientist has called a report saying soil on Mars may contain microbial life "bogus." The report was based on a new interpretation of data first collected 30 years ago.

The dry, freezing Martian surface could be home to microbes whose cells are filled with a mixture of hydrogen peroxide and water, said Joop Houtkooper of the University of Giessen, Germany. But other scientists are skeptical of his results, which is the latest in a long series of contentious claims about what the Viking landers might or could have found.

Houtkooper reanalyzed data from the Gas Exchange (GEx) experiment carried out by the robotic landers in the 1970s and speculates the martian soil contained detectable amounts of life.

"It comes out to a little more than one part per thousand by weight, comparable to what is found in some permafrost in Antarctica," Houtkooper said.

Norman Pace, a microbiologist at the University of Colorado, is skeptical of the new claims. "It sounds bogus to me," Pace told SPACE.com. "I don't consider the chemical results to be particularly credible in light of the harsh conditions that Mars offers."

The findings were presented by Houtkooper at the European Planetary Science Congress in Potsdam, Germany this week and are detailed in a recent issue of the International Journal of Astrobiology.

The GEx experiment detected rises in oxygen and carbon dioxide gas in soil samples collected on the martian surface.

Currently experiencing technical difficulties. Please refresh page or try again later.

"If we assume these gases were produced during the breakdown of organic material together with hydrogen peroxide solution, we can calculate the masses needed to produce the volume of gas measured," Houtkooper explained.

Houtkooper and his colleague Dirk Schulze-Makuch from Washington State University speculate that an organism based on hydrogen peroxide and water could survive the harsh martian climate, in which temperatures rarely rise above freezing and can reach -238 degrees Fahrenheit (-150 degrees Celsius) at the poles. The hydrogen peroxide would act like antifreeze for the cell, preventing its insides from crystallizing due to the cold.

Hydrogen peroxide-water solutions also tend to attract water, so the alien organisms could scavenge water molecules from the Martian atmosphere, the thinking goes. However, if such creatures were exposed to too much water or atmospheres with high humidity, they could theoretically die through over-hydration.

The researchers think this could account for the anomalous GEx results. The experiment exposed samples to water vapor which might have killed any hydrogen peroxide-water microbes died. The resulting breakdown of their cells would release oxygen and their organic compounds would react with the hydrogen peroxide to release carbon dioxide, water vapor and traces of nitrogen.

Houtkooper thinks the microbes could be detected by NASA's Phoenix lander, which launched on Aug. 4 and will arrive at Mars next May.

While rare, terrestrial organisms are known to use hydrogen-peroxide. The bombardier beetle, Brachinus Crepitans, uses a 25 percent solution of hydrogen peroxide to shoot steam into the face of pursuing predators.

No one suspects there are any beetles on Mars. But most experts have yet to rule out the possibility of microbial life.

"There does not appear to be any basic reason why hydrogen peroxide could not be used by living systems," Houtkooper said. "While organisms on Earth have found it advantageous to include salt in their intracellular fluids, hydrogen peroxide may have been more suitable for organisms adapting to the cold, dry environment of Mars."

But Pace, the University of Colorado microbiologist, thinks there is one very important reason why hydrogen peroxide life is unlikely. "Hydrogen peroxide inside cells is deadly in terrestrial kinds of cells," Pace said. "In fact, that's one way that our cells combat bacteria, by producing hydrogen peroxide locally."

For Pace and many other scientists, the definitive experiment performed by the Viking landers was the gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GC-MS) test, which was capable of identifying substances by their chemical makeup. That test failed to turn up evidence of organic compounds. "That's the interesting experiment. Everything else can be explained chemically," Pace said.

Some scientists have speculated the oxygen results from the GEx test came from peroxide-containing iron in the martian soil.

Thursday, August 9, 2007

Zimbabwe in ashes

Over the past few years I have been reading, with keen interest, the continuing stories of Zimbabwe's internal collapse. It is a grim fascination I have with watching a culture crumble. 80% unemployment. 50-55% AIDS infected. 1,000,000% inflation (which is the worst case scenario; 5,000% the best) which forced the government to print the highest denomination in history: 200,000. They lack hard currency due to the collapse of their business sector, the flight of the middle and upper class, and government policies/corruption which has undermined the entire economic infrastructure of the nation. They're unable to pay for imports (even reaching the point of missing payments on shipments) and export nothing due to businesses either closing, factories shutting down, or a basic lack of raw materials. Their schools have all closed. And worst of all, Zimbabwe, once the breadbasket of Africa, now isn't even capable of growing enough food to feed itself when but a decade ago they were exporting food to neighboring countries. This has led to a third of the remaining population facing death by starvation. Another third of the population has fled to other countries, many willing to cross gator infested waters in order to sneak into South Africa. The nation is literally on the verge of evaporation.

My initial interest was drawn when I visited South Africa for the first time back in June 2000. I read an article on Mugabe's land redistribution plan which legitimized the stealing of farms from white farmers in order to give them to blacks, largely soldiers who had fought for Mugabe and independence from the prior white regime of Rhodesia, to further the "revolution". There was a bit of dark comedy involved as some of the "soldiers" claiming land had not been born until years after Mugabe had become leader of Zimbabwe. There also must have been some misunderstanding as these "soldiers" thought they had rights to many of the farmers' daughters too as they raped viciously during their expropriations.

From the get-go it was obvious there was no forward thinking involved in Mugabe's redistribution scheme. First, the process was not properly planned and allocated which led to chaos as multiple groups have laid claims to the same lands. In fact, many farms were seized before official orders were even established for their expropriation leading to Mugabe and his government cohorts to rush to keep up in printing legal decrees for seizures of property. Second, there was no training of these future black landowners in modern farming methods nor a gradual transfer from whites to blacks making it impossible to keep crop yields at then current levels (meaning pre-2000) as blacks proved ignorant of how to tend the land. Third, in disenfranchising the white groups of their land and thus causing a great fear that their savings would be next, Mugabe was rudely surprised by their withdrawal of much of their capital from Zimbabwe's banks as they fled to more hospitable, and law enforcing, lands. If one is to commit to a policy, one must go all the way. Mugabe must be kicking himself now for letting so much money slip through his fingers. He did eventually stop the flow of cash out of Zimbabwe but by then it had become a trickle as the majority of it was long gone.

The minute I read about what was happening I had flashbacks to Idi Amin and his stripping all non-blacks of property and wealth in order to purchase the support of Uganda's black citizens and buy legitimacy after his coup so that he could tighten his somewhat tenuous grip on power.

Amin had come to power via a coup not long after the United Kingdom had granted independence to his nation of Uganda. Despite freedom from colonial rule, many blacks still harbored animosity against their former white rulers, especially since following independence whites and Asians still controlled the majority of businesses, farms, and financial capital. Many blacks had come to think that changes would occur rapidly following indpendence with blacks realizing the prosperity they believed whites had held from them while in power. But political power did not equal economic change and the blacks became impatient and agitated. What many blacks saw was continued dominance by whites and other non-Africans leading to a subconscious belief that nothing had changed (save now there was a black puppet leader whose economic strings were pulled by Britain). What good was power without money? They still lived in slums. They still struggled in poverty. Nothing had really changed.

Amin, once in power, preyed on this belief by gradually clothing all non-blacks in every wrong imaginable for the nation of Uganda much in the same way Hitler and the Nazis had villified the Jews. Thus he began to expand his powerbase and draw support from the black population by turning them on white and Asian citizens, buying the blacks off in effect by giving them permission to seize the property of non-blacks for themselves. Finally power could be used to give the blacks what they wanted.

The only problem with this scenario of expropriation was it destroyed Uganda's infrastructure as thriving businesses were taken over by individuals who couldn't grasp simple mathematics let alone how to run a store. One funny incident had various natives, after taking over Asian and white owned clothing stores, selling pants based on their waist sizes believing that the numbers were the prices. So a 30" waist went for 30 Ugandan bucks.

Without individuals trained in management, technical aspects, electronics, etc., businesses rapidly closed down. No one knew how to formulate a plan, restock inventory, upkeep equipment, etc. Thus business, a necessary component for a middle class and a flourishing economy, vanished as no one from outside the country would dare invest in such an unstable climate and no one inside was capable of keeping it alive.

What Amin did, and what I foresaw happening to Zimbabwe under Mugabe, was create a culture of decline and violence, fashioning a climate of destruction rather than invention as he gave permission to the blacks of Uganda to finally release their repressed anger at decades of white rule. White dominance, as well as the rule of law they created, eroded. Safety came to rely not on government but power. Armed groups decided what would and would not happen. They stripped all non-blacks of everything they could get their hands on, businesses, belongings, and savings which took decades to build, and frittered it all away in a few years of wild pillaging. No one stopped to wonder what would happen when they ran out of victims.

The competent and critical elements of society were driven out as supporters were paid off. These supporters, soldiers and the mob, were really nothing more than muscle. They had no experience beyond beating the opposition down. And now they were in charge, a hungering mass that wanted to devour and was incapable of anything sustainable. But that was never their job, to create. They were around to enforce Amin's will. This was the overarching problem.

The loyalty of Amin's core supporters, his hatchet men, was based on what the leader could give them. Amin came to rely on them more and more as he ran out of ways to keep the trust of the majority of Uganda's citizens. Without foreigners and whites to blame, the economy wrecked, and no solution in sight, Amin used the only tool he had in his arsenal: brutal violence.

Thus the cycle continued to play out of divide and conquer. It had seen blacks versus whites/Asians. Once the whites/Asian were gone, Amin split the population between his security forces and the rest of Uganda. The only problem was he was running out of ways to keep the loyalty of his security forces.

As Uganda became more unstable, atrophying and rotting, and Amin continued to snatch whatever he could, he began to discover that after a while there wasn't anything left to grab. His security forces began to grumble because their pay dwindled and the remaining populace began to voice their dissent because of the fact that things were worse rather than better despite all non-blacks being driven from the nation, finally realizing they had been manipulated. The two forces were close to unifying against Amin because neither the security forces nor the citizens of Uganda were doing better than the other. Both were losing under him so why not remove him?

Amin did the only thing he could: he gave free reign to his security forces to murder, rob, and rape as they pleased. He openly sacrificed his own population, following that downward spiral further into the darkness, in order to pay off his supporters with blood when there was nothing left to give them. Thus he removed any chance of his security forces embracing the dissenting citizenry of Uganda.

I knew Mugabe was going to follow the same path. He had secured power from a nation long dominated by whites. There was a simmering anger held by the blacks over the repressive regime they had toppled. It was inevitable, Rhodesia's style of governance being heavily racist and oppressive of blacks.

At first Mugabe took the more enlightened path and followed a farsighted plan utilizing the white population's expertise in education, business, and farming. He had to. Problems with various separatist movements, as well as a war in the Democratic Republic of Congo, gave him viable excuses for why change was taking so long and why he could ill afford any radical economic changes in Zimbabwe. The separatist Ndebele nation allowed Mugabe to galvanize his people behind him against a force he could claim threatened the very independence they had finally won from white rule. Once the Ndebele were crushed, Mugabe embarked on a war in the DRC as a means to acquire economic gains (for natural resources such as diamonds, precious metals, etc.) to fund programs and foster much needed economic gains in Zimbabwe. When the war in the DRC proved too costly, in both men and materiel, and many of his supporters began to call for him to step down because of the effects it had on Zimbabwe, Mugabe decided it was time to divide and conquer.

Mugabe started by claiming in 2000 that whites made up only 1% of the population but held 70% of all arable land. Mugabe charged that whites held improportionate control of the economy and decided it was time to rectify that problem. He seized on the underlying hatred the blacks had for white transgressions from two decades previous as well as frustration at continued white propserity as blacks remained in large part among the lower classes.

So Mugabe used the same excuses Amin did; foreigners and non-natives (non-blacks) were blamed for the nation's faults in order to divide his critics and turn them upon one another. His supporters, former members of his militias, government troops, and government officials, were all granted the right to steal farms, businesses, and more from non-blacks under the veil of "returning what was rightfully due to native Zimbabweans". Since Mugabe could not earn their support, he bought it.

The sad part of this entire affair is the ignorance of the native population. In 2005, after years of struggling to make some sort of change in the increasingly dire situation, the international community was able to force Mugabe to hold elections. Once more Mugabe warned the blacks of Zimbabwe that if they did not vote to retain him in office then the West would turn them into a puppet state, returning Zimbabwe to colonial status. This in itself was a joke as Zimbabwe, when it was Rhodesia, was not only better governed but in far better shape when it was a British colony. As was to be expected due to Zimbabwean xenophobia, the majority voted Mugabe back into office.

Do I feel a twinge of guilt at the glee I have at watching Zimbabwe burn? No. Two years ago these people were given a chance to avoid the slow genocide of their lands. Instead they knowingly approved of and continued to follow Mugabe down that broad path towards the cliff.

The people of Zimbabwe are a racist group who use past transgressions, some largely fabricated, to attack, rape, and murder whites in their country in order to satisfy their base desires. Pathetic in their lusts, shortsighted in their goals, and destined to turn on one another when there is no one else left to kill, Zimbabwe will not know peace until there is nothing left to destroy.

This devolving of a nation, the horrific atrocities as Zimbabwe tears itself apart is hypnotizing. Watching civilization crack and splinter, seeing the release of the demons inside these people: it is fascinating.

The only question I have for myself is why do I enjoy seeing this nation dissolve? Perhaps I have no heart; only a pit of darkness where life should beat.

Dark Days

So I'm feeling quite depressed today. Remembering the past, lost moments. It's so hard facing today let alone tomorrow. I just keep looking backwards at what were better days.

Where am I going in life? I really wish I knew. Over a year and a half ago I thought my marriage was solid, I'd finally get that big break, and somehow realize my purpose in all this. Yet here I am now, divorced and alone, still clumsily feeling my way forward in the dark. Sure I'm closing in on another degree, but that is really me just spinning my wheels.

I want to write. I really do. It's the only thing I enjoy. I've created so much with my mind, given it substance on paper, passed it along via electronic waves throughout the net. And yet here I am still pretty much where I started.

I wonder if I am capable of moving forward. The thought of never accomplishing my destiny, whatever that may be, and dying alone...yeah, I never really thought I'd reach this point in life. After nearly thirty years I still haven't defined myself. I'm just a weathered boulder teetering on the edge of a cliff.

Where did my idealism go? Was it eroded by so many storms? It takes will anymore to keep going. Am I lying to myself or inspiring myself? A good question.

I guess I'm really not past the pain of last year. I'm not sure I ever will be.

I know, I am so depressing. Send me a million dollars, commission some work from me, or marry me! Help build my spirits!!!

Out of boredom I wrote some articles on Wikipedia. Yeah, pathetic, but it keeps the mind limber.

So I guess I'm out of here. I have family visiting for the week. Oh, and by the by, I finally sent some new material off to various publishers. Keep those fingers crossed that someone actually picks my stuff up for print.

Thursday, August 2, 2007

Reality

What is real save what I believe,
An illusion all mistakely weave
Around themselves like a collar,
A shroud through which to see.
My whims, my words, my wishes
All carve the 'real' from the darkness.

My world is structured
By the power of will,
With a foundation of experience
Upon which stands a thrusting tower,
Piercing Heaven,
Housing pulsing emotion.

Overtime, my heart reveals
Its traitorous designs.
Each beat steals faith,
Instills doubt,
Wakens me from dreams;
This tower my prison.

Each quake of my heart threatens me,
The beating uncertain.
It rules me.
Tyrant, sadistic despot
Who pains me
Refusing serenity.

But his grasp slackens
And my flesh surrenders.
My tongue dries
As ragged rasps
Pass my cracked lips
Like smoke from a dying fire.

My soul ascends from the vast desert.
Life, once grand, becomes a ruin
As the real collapses beneath me
Crushing life,
Ceasing thought,
And the abyss does swallow my tower.