This roller coaster we call life

spring 2010 grades

2010-05-13T22:37:00.000-06:00

The spring semester at CU ended last week, and all of my grades have now come in:

Organic Chemistry 2 - B+
Organic Chemistry 2 Lab - A
Physical Chemistry for Engineers - B+
Chemical Engineering Fluid Mechanics - A
Introductory Logic - A

OChem 2 and PChem were two of the hardest courses I've ever had. I feel confident in my understanding of the material, and did well on the final exams. These two B+'s are the lowest grades I've received at CU, but I'm perfectly content with that fact. :)

7 1/2 years later, more of the same intelligence failures

2010-01-07T20:34:00.001-07:00

Note: This post takes a more in-depth look into a single document than I'd normally care to do, but I feel the way I've done it is the only way to make the conclusions clear.

"Information systems contribute to every aspect of homeland security. Although American information technology is the most advanced in the world, our country's information systems have not adequately supported the homeland security mission. Databases used for federal law enforcement, immigration, intelligence, public health surveillance, and emergency management have not been connected in ways that allow us to comprehend where information gaps or redundancies exist. . . . To secure the homeland better, we must link the vast amounts of knowledge residing within each government agency while ensuring adequate privacy."

(From the first National Strategy for Homeland Security, released in July 2002. This document was commissioned by President Bush, and prepared by the Office of Homeland Security. That November, OHS was expanded into the Department of Homeland Security; one of its primary objectives was to fix the problems described above.)

Fast-forward 7 and a half years. The White House today released a preliminary analysis of the systemic failures that allowed for the failed Christmas day terrorist attack. It starts off like this:

"Though all of [the information needed to recognize the plot] was available to all-source analysts at the CIA and the NCTC prior to the attempted attack, the dots were never connected, and as a result, the problem appears to be more about a component failure to "connect the dots," rather than a lack of information sharing."

The point the review is trying to make here is that the systemic failures this time were different than the ones that led to 9-11, and later to the creation of the DHS. However, the following can be found later in the review:

"No single component of the CT [counter-terrorism] community assumed responsibility for the threat reporting and followed it through by ensuring that all necessary steps were taken to disrupt the threat. This argues that a process is needed to track terrorist threat reporting to ensure that departments and agencies are held accountable for running down all leads associated with high visibility and high priority plotting efforts, in particular against the U.S. Homeland."

In other words, everyone in the counter-terrorism community assumed someone else would handle it. Sounds to me like a failure of communication, of precisely the sort that the DHS was made to prevent.

This can be seen more clearly later in the review, when it gets into questions about the terrorist watch lists, saying that "Although Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was included in the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE), the failure to include Mr. Abdulmutallab in a watchlist is part of the overall systemic failure." The watchlisting process is described in the review as follows: First, the NCTC "consolidates all information on known and suspected international terrorists in the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment. NCTC then makes this data available to the FBI-led Terrorist Screening Center (TSC), which reviews nominations for inclusion in the master watchlist called the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB)."

This is the process that was used in considering whether Abdulmutallab should be placed on the watchlist. However, according to the review, "Hindsight suggests that the evaluation by watchlisting personnel of the information contained in the State cable nominating Mr. Abdulmutallab did not meet the minimum derogatory standard to watchlist. Watchlisting would have required all of the available information to be fused so that the derogatory information would have been sufficient . . . Watchlist personnel had access to additional derogatory information in databases that could have been connected to Mr. Abdulmutallab, but that access did not result in them uncovering the biographic information that would have been necessary for placement on the watchlist." (emphasis mine)

A bit of extra research led me to an audit of the FBI's watchlist nomination practices released in May 2009, which found, among other things, that "initial watchlist nominations created by FBI field offices often contained inaccuracies or were incomplete, leading to delays in the inclusion of known or suspected terrorists on the watchlist."

So, it seems the complete picture on the watchlist question is something like this: All the information necessary to secure a place on the watchlist for Abdulmutallab was available in intelligence databases. However, the nomination for his consideration (likely drawn up by someone at the FBI) did not include enough information to get him on the list. Those who reviewed the nomination likely assumed that it had all the pertinent information, and they found that it wasn't enough to put Abdulmutallab on the watchlist. Furthermore, this precise sort of problem has been recognized at least since last May, but the gap has not been fixed. The administration's review tries to confuse the issue and make it about individual failures to "connect the dots", but a careful analysis makes it clear that this is precisely the sort of communication problem that the DHS was supposed to make a thing of the past. The intelligence was there, but communication was so poor that nobody involved seemed to have known whose job it was to analyze it more thoroughly - those who drew up the nomination, or those who reviewed it.

The review itself even seems to concede that it's talking about the same old intelligence problems. In the very next paragraph, it states that while Abdulmutallab had a U.S. visa, revocation of it "would have only occurred if there had been a successful integration of intelligence by the CT community, resulting in his being watchlisted." If "the CT community" failed to integrate intelligence, why try to frame the issue as failures of individual components?

The fact that many people within the CT community had access to databases with the information necessary for decisive action is commendable, but ultimately irrelevant. There was, nevertheless, a remarkable failure to communicate. There's a big difference between making a massive database of mostly useless information available to several agencies, and effective communication between those agencies regarding which pieces of that information are most relevant, and who has the responsibility for connecting each of the dots. For instance, if the concerns of the terrorist's own father that he was planning something of the sort had been communicated with the sort of priority any rational person would place on them, it's hard to imagine it wouldn't have shown up in the watchlist nomination, and even harder to imagine that it wouldn't be enough to get him on the watchlist.

People sometimes make mistakes. Systems sometimes fail. The men and women of the counter-terrorism community cannot be expected to be perfect. But the last thing they or any other American needs is an administration that passes off the same old failures that clearly ought to have been more thoroughly addressed in the past, as something completely different. This was a failure of inter-agency communication and cooperation, and must be discussed as such if anything good is to come of the intelligence review.

Update (1-8-10): It turns out the watchlist nomination was made by the U.S. embassy in Nigeria, after CIA officers there spoke with the suspect's father. However, the nomination seemed to suffer from the same problems detailed in the FBI audit, so the same point still stands.

Sources (all PDF files):

National Strategy for Homeland Security, Office of Homeland Security, July 2002

Summary of the White House Review of the December 25, 2009 Attempted Terrorist Attack

The Federal Bureau of Investigation's Terrorist Watchlist Nomination Practices; U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Audit Division; May 2009

Fall '09 grades

2009-12-22T02:51:00.000-07:00

Intro. to Differential Equations with Linear Algebra - A
Material and Energy Balances - A-
Organic Chemistry I - A-
Ethics - A

Term GPA - 3.86
Cumulative GPA - 3.95

Sure, it's the lowest term GPA I've had yet at CU, but I think it's quite alright. :)

college announcements

2009-12-10T20:58:00.000-07:00

I've done very well this semester, but none of my grades are determined until I make it through finals, this Saturday through next Tuesday.

My first final is on Saturday, and it is in differential equations, the last dedicated math course on the standard chemical or biological engineering curriculum.Of course, being in an engineering major means this won't by any means be the last I see of math. But I have had class time dedicated specifically to math in all the time I've been in school since I started kindergarten, and it will be strange to leave that behind.

I've decided to add a minor in philosophy to my planned coursework at college. I have always been interested in the field, and I've enjoyed my Ethics class this semester immensely. I'm signed up for two more philosophy courses next semester, and I'm very much looking forward to them.

Mission statement (work in progress), take 2

2009-11-23T14:25:00.002-07:00

To remain actively engaged in life.

To look at the world with wonder, and embrace my natural desire to understand it more fully.

To embrace the full spectrum of my emotions, rather than running from the ones that make me uncomfortable.

To take full responsibility for my choices.

To try my best to understand others, fully realizing that everyone has hopes, fears, desires, and the other things which drive me.

To seek out kindred spirits, and to intensify life with and through mutual respect and understanding.

To maintain a true and independent identity by being true to myself above and before all else.

The free market

2009-11-16T23:55:00.000-07:00

The other day, I was paying for groceries with my debit card at one of the self-checkout lanes of a grocery store. It occurred to me that the entire process is incredibly bizarre.

After all, I walked into the store with nothing of value, left nothing of value behind, and left with enough food for a week. I did this without dealing with a single representative of the store or its interests. And this was perfectly legal.

Paper money works essentially the same way; but at least when cash changes hands, this is an exchange of a physical good which has a definite worth determined by the market. The only thing you have to have faith in when accepting cash is that it will be worth what you think it's worth when you decide to spend it.

With debit cards and the like, there is a virtual, rather than physical, exchange of money; so there are two layers of good faith involved in the exchange: faith in cash, and faith in the digital systems' ability to properly represent cash flow in a virtual environment.

Does it really make sense to rely on these two factors? With the state of the economy, the public debt, and the projected budget deficits for the next several years, it seems as though our nation's financial course is unsustainable. It's not difficult to imagine the total financial collapse of the Federal government, which would result (among other things) in a massive devaluation of American cash. Computer systems, furthermore, are accessible to all the immoral computer geeks of the world.

In short, on a daily basis, we place an enormous amount of faith on these two factors which seem fundamentally unworthy of our faith. Is this a sensible system; and, more to the point, is it a sustainable system?

Separate but equal?

2009-11-06T13:58:00.005-07:00

The fight over same-sex marriage in America rages on.

With the vote in Maine three days ago, gay marriage has now been forbidden by the people in 31 states - every state in which the issue has come to a popular vote. In other words, no American electoral majority has ever supported gay marriage.

Many liberals would be quick to point out that it's important to keep this in perspective, remembering all the progress that has been made, and keeping in mind that the demographic momentum is in favor of same-sex marriage, since young people mostly think gays should be allowed to marry. Others would point to the vote on the same day in which Washington was added to the list of states whose voters have approved "everything but marriage" - civil unions with all or nearly all of the protections afforded by marriage - as a heartening sign.

Many would even go so far as to say that the fact that civil unions appear to be a more attainable goal makes them a more worthy goal. The pragmatist in me understands this line of thought. The pursuit of marriage equality in America is, even today, an incredibly daunting task. Large percentages of the electorate still view homosexuality as not just immoral but sinful; so they naturally believe that it is their duty as Americans to stop any attempts to normalize it, and that by doing so they are saving America from damnation.

These people are willing to do incredible mental gymnastics to find justifications for their opposition to same-sex marriage that appear logical to the average person. But it's much harder to logically justify opposition to civil unions, since they can't be seen to involve a redefinition of traditional marriage. The effect of this fact is that, in places where a slim majority opposes same sex marriage, a slim majority also supports civil unions. And of course, equality of legal recognition for gay couples seems far more important than the terminology; so it seems reasonable to forget about marriage (at least for a while), and focus on getting civil unions.

But let's think, for a moment, of the implications of legalizing civil unions, rather than marriage, for same-sex couples.

The logic of civil unions rests on the precept that homosexual relationships should only be legally recognized by setting up a separate system, for them to use, where normal people would get married. Civil unions, therefore, accept that a homosexual relationship is fundamentally different from what is normal and acceptable in polite society - and that, to reflect this, we must use a different set of legal protections for their relationships. All this, while proclaiming that we are affirming their equal rights.

But how can we possibly affirm equal rights through separate legal protections? Amendment XIV of the United States Constitution says, in part, "No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." For a long time, racial segregation in America was justified by saying that as long as the public services afforded to non-whites were equal, it was alright if they were separate, if society demanded so. In the 1954 supreme court case Brown v. Board of Education, the court unanimously ruled that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." Cannot the same be said of separate legal codes to recognize relationships?

This is why I am a supporter of gay marriage, rather than the more pragmatic civil unions. Granted, I generally think there are far more pressing issues facing America, and the world, than the question of who can marry who - that's why this is the first blog post I've written dedicated to the topic - but that doesn't make the current situation regarding marriage in America any less unjust. It is my sincere hope that the American electorate can manage to get its head out of its ass and realize the clear and unequivocal truth - that gays have, and have always had, the right to marry; and must in turn be given the legal ability to do so.

Mission statement (work in progress)

2009-11-03T08:14:00.000-07:00

To live.

To look at the world with wonder, and embrace my natural desire to understand it more fully.

To remain at all times open to the fluctuations of my mood; to accept all emotions that come to me as parts of the same unified whole.

To seek out kindred spirits, and to intensify life with and through mutual respect and understanding.

To maintain a true and independent identity by being true to myself above and before all else.

cathartic release

2009-11-02T10:22:00.001-07:00

forever and a day
by zach freier

you walked with me
that night through the
empty city streets
under a sky blackened
by clouds.

neither of us knew
the way, but i didn't
care, because
as long as we were
together, i was where
i needed to be.

but every time i
looked at you, you
seemed fainter, your eyes
dimmer, your face
more transparent, and
i knew you were leaving.

i asked if you remembered
all the times you said
you'd always be
there for me,
forever and a day.

you turned to look
into my eyes one last
time, and told me that
i didn't need you,
that even if i
don't know my way,
i'll always walk
in the right direction.

i closed my eyes as
you said you'd always
love me, and when i opened
them, you were gone.

i am lost without you.

Obituaries (Short Story)

2009-08-26T22:12:00.003-06:00

I just realized I never posted the final draft of my Creative Writing short story, "Obituaries". So yeah, here it is.

Maybe I'll get back to writing, now that I'm back in Boulder. Maybe not. Maybe I should stop talking about getting back to writing, because it never seems to happen. Maybe I'm rambling now.

Enjoy.

Obituaries
by Zachary Freier

It was 5:38, 22 minutes to go on an early summer Friday; and there was nothing to do in CRM Life Insurance's Western Colorado office. My fellow cubicle workers and I had wheeled our identical black leather office chairs into an empty spot in the office – a Friday evening tradition – and they were all discussing their spouses. “My wife and I are thinking of going on vacation soon,” one of them said, to which another replied, “Where would you go?” “We haven't decided yet,” the first said, “somewhere nice.”

This all seemed like rather pointless conversation to me, but perhaps that was just because I couldn't relate to it. I was twenty-eight years old, and I was single. I was one of the only people I knew over the age of twenty-five who hadn't yet eloped; and the others were all perpetual bachelors, a role I didn't fit well into. This had haunted me for the past few years. I felt a sense of urgency about it, like I was running out of time. It was the same feeling that made me drop out of college after a year and start working this dead-end job at CRM.

“Wes,” one of my coworkers said, looking at me, “how's your wife doing?” They all laughed. He was referring to my one true love, my mountain bike. About a year before, I had made the mistake of talking about my bike in the office, using the customary female pronouns; and they just couldn't get enough of it.

“She's holding up fine,” I said, playing along. “We're going on vacation, too. This weekend. I'm taking her to Utah.” The only time I ever felt truly happy was when I went mountain biking. None of them understood that, of course, so they just laughed.

* * * *

I shifted down a few gears, and pedaled faster. Every muscle and tendon in my legs burned as I pushed myself and my bike up the steepest incline on the trail. The mountain's summit was up to my right, several thousand feet above the desert floor, at the northern end of a small chain that seemed out of place in its surroundings. The trail I was riding circled it about halfway up. It was rocky in some places, dusty in others. Pine trees stood on both sides along the whole length of the trail. A few times, it crossed small mountain creeks, which were running low as the last of the previous winter's snow melted from the very tip of the mountain, draining down to the Colorado River.

As I sped around a smooth curve to the right, there was a momentary break in the trees on my left, revealing a breathtaking sight. The mountain sloped downward steeply, plunging into the desert floor. A massive valley stretched out from the base of the mountain into the distance. Rock formations littered the floor of the valley, some clinging to the edges, others standing proud in the middle. They looked like sand castles. Just past the valley, I could barely make out the thin muddy sliver of the Colorado River. The clouds above were perfectly white and puffy, and looked so light that even the slightest wind would send them packing; but there was no wind.

Out of the corner of my eye I realized there was a sharp right turn less than ten yards ahead. I was going far too fast to take it. Out of instinct, I squeezed the brakes hard; but the front brake engaged a fraction of a second before the back. On a bike, when this happens at sufficient speed, it can be disastrous. The back wheel vaulted off the ground before its brake engaged to stop it. The whole bike, along with myself, pivoted over the front wheel.

I had no time to curse my bad luck or my stupidity as the path came flying up to meet me. I landed on my chest first, the rest of my body flopping onto the ground a fraction of a second later. I slid about a foot through the dirt before coming to a stop. My mind went completely blank for a few seconds.

When I came to, my breath was knocked out of me; but I wasn't worried about myself. I'd crashed many times before, and I was bound to crash many times in the future. I knew that the only injuries I'd have would be cuts, scrapes, and bruises. What worried me was that, when I managed to lift my head off the ground and look around, my bike was nowhere to be seen. She must have gone off the edge ahead. Rolling onto my side and gasping for air, I imagined her catapulting over my body, tumbling off the edge, propelled by gravity haphazardly down the hill, and glancing off of several broad pine trunks before finally hitting one square on, stopping her dead and doing God knows how much damage. This thought hurt more than my own landing. She had cost me almost two thousand dollars, and I loved her.

After a minute or two, I managed to catch my breath. I forced myself to my feet, brushing the dirt off of myself and coughing from all the dust in the air. My whole body hurt from the impact, but I could move fine, so I knew I hadn't broken anything. My forearms were covered in scrapes – the sort that sting like hell, but don't look too bad for a few minutes, before suddenly starting to bleed. I walked to where the trail veered off to the left, and my fears were confirmed. The hill before me was even steeper than I had imagined it would be, and the pines were thinner here than elsewhere on the mountain. My bike had tumbled about fifty yards down the hill before one of the trees had stopped her.

I descended the incline sideways, slowly, careful not to lose my footing. As I neared my bike's resting place, it became quite clear that I would not be riding her again any time soon. The front wheel was impaled on a short, dead branch protruding from the trunk of the tree near the base, two of the spokes snapped and a few others bent out of the way, the hub structure totaled. At some point in her descent, the front brake and gear shifter had slammed into something; the shifter was gone, the brake bent upward, and both the cables detached. One of the pedals was missing. I would have to carry my bike several miles to where I'd left my car, and drive her into Moab for surgery, which would be expensive.

I couldn't bear looking at her anymore, so I turned away and looked further down the hill. Something metallic next to a nearby tree caught my eye, and I made my way toward it. When I realized it was another bike, my first instinct was to laugh; some other poor bastard had done the same thing I did! Then, as I got closer, I saw something move underneath the bike, and I smelled...blood? My heart skipped a beat in fear, then began pounding at twice its normal rate. Yes, I thought, that smell blended in with the smells of the forest could be nothing other than blood.

I stepped slowly closer to the bike, and the man beneath it coughed. He sat with his back against a tree trunk, his mangled bike pinning him to it. This was probably how he landed from his fall down the hill. He looked up at me as I approached, and he seemed relieved. The first thing he said to me, between shallow, difficult breaths, was, “Oh, thank God . . . I heard something crash . . . I thought someone else . . . fell down the hill . . . Are you okay?”

I couldn't believe my ears. This man was likely in more pain than I'd ever been in my life, and he was worried about my well-being? “I'm fine,” I said, kneeling beside him, my legs trembling. “How bad is it?”

“Bad,” he coughed. “Can you get . . . this bike off me?” His breath rattled inside him. I slowly lifted the bike away from his body, laying it aside. He was a mess. One of his arms was broken, snapped halfway down the forearm at an unreal angle. Both of his ankles were shattered, his feet dangling lifelessly to the sides. The thing I was worried about, though, was his chest. Even through his bloody t-shirt it was obvious he had several broken ribs. At least one had broken the skin, I guessed from the blood that soaked his shirt and a few inches of the forest floor around him. I figured from his breathing that one of his other ribs had punctured one of his lungs. “See?” he said, “Bad.” He coughed again, and blood dribbled out of the corner of his mouth.

“How long have you been here like this?” I asked, barely able to believe what I was seeing.

“Oh . . . a few hours.”

“Good lord, we have to get you to a hospital!”

“I can't walk . . . and no offense . . . I don't think . . . you're strong enough to carry me.” He took a deep, rattling breath and laughed. He was right, of course. He was probably a few inches above six feet tall, and weighed at least two hundred pounds.

“Then I have to go get help.” I stood up.

“No . . . don't leave . . . there's not enough time . . . I don't want to . . . die alone.”

I knelt beside him again. “You're not going to die,” I said, though I wasn't sure I believed that myself. The amount of time he'd been there, how much blood he'd lost, and the fact that he had internal bleeding were all very bad signs. He probably only had one working lung, the other was probably filling with blood, and who knows what other organs might have been damaged as well. Still, I had to be as optimistic as possible. I had to do something. “At least let me go make a sign on the trail or something, so if someone else comes through they can help me get you off this mountain.”

He smiled weakly. “If it'll make you feel better . . . go ahead.”

“I'll be right back,” I assured him, and began making my way uphill.

“I promise . . . I won't go anywhere,” he said.

When I reached the top of the hill, I gathered rocks and sticks from the sides of the trail and piled them in the middle of the path. The path was clear otherwise at this point, so no one coming through could miss it. I swung my backpack off, pulled out a tattered black spiral notebook I used as my journal, and tore a page out of the back. With the pen I kept tucked in the spiral of the notebook, I wrote in large letters on the top of the page “PLEASE HELP”. Below that, in smaller letters, I wrote, “A man is seriously injured down the hill ahead. I need help getting him off of the mountain.” My hand shook as I wrote, and I feared it might not be legible; so I drew a large arrow pointing up the page, and set the page atop my makeshift roadblock so the arrow pointed toward the spot. I anchored it in place with a rock, and rushed back down to where the man was lying.

“See . . .” he said as I sat down on the ground beside him, “I didn't . . . go anywhere . . . I promised you I wouldn't.” He laughed. “What's your name?”

“Wes,” I said, relieved that he was still alive, “yours?”

“John . . . Nice to meet you, Wes.”

“Do you have family?” I asked.

“A wife . . . and a daughter.” He coughed, and spit a chunk of clotted blood onto the ground beside him.

“Then we've got to get you back to them,” I said. “Stay strong, for them.”

His breath started getting faster, and I knew he wouldn't last much longer. He reached out and grabbed my arm, pulling me closer to him. “I have to tell someone . . . I didn't marry my wife . . . because I loved her . . . I married her . . . because I figured . . . she was the best I could do . . . and I had to marry sometime . . . I've . . . never been in love, actually.” His eyes filled with tears for the first time, and I could tell that this fact was more painful than all the bodily damage his fall had done to him. “Now . . . I never will be.”

I, of course, knew exactly what he meant by feeling the need 'to marry sometime'. It was easy for me to imagine myself in a few years, married without being in love. “You don't know that,” I said, trying to comfort him. “We're gonna get you out of here. You have the rest of your life ahead of you to find what you're looking for.”

He shook his head slowly. “Wes, are you married?”

“No. Why?”

His breaths were getting shallower, and the rattling was getting louder. “Don't make the . . . mistake I made . . . Don't . . . let the world . . . tell you what . . . you have to do . . . like I did.” He closed his eyes slowly, and they did not open again.

My job existed solely because people die, but I'd never seen it happen. It shook me to the core, and I couldn't help but cry.
* * * *

As I left the hotel, I picked up a 50-cent copy of the Moab Times-Independent from a newspaper dispenser, wondering if there was a story about what had happened. I searched the whole paper, and found nothing until I got to the bottom of the second to last page. His was the only one that day; but it was still labeled with the plural, Obituaries:

Jonathan Richard Thompson, 41, died Saturday in a mountain biking accident in the La Sal Mountains. Jonathan was a lifelong resident of Moab, and an avid outdoorsman. He is survived by two siblings, his wife, and his 8-year-old daughter.

Three sentences. That's all they gave him. The injustice made my stomach turn. Is that all a life is worth?
* * * *

The next Monday, I quit my job, and applied to go back to college. My boss begged me to stay, and offered a fifty cent raise. I told him to give it to someone else instead. My co-workers didn't understand my decision, either. Too much time in a place like that does that to people, I guess.

I could never bring myself to go back to that trail in the La Sals. Sure, it would be profound; and I could spend hours reminiscing on John, and how much he meant to me. But I was afraid of that place, and I didn't need to go there to remember. His last words were imprinted in my brain, and every time life got hard, I'd remember them. Then I'd shift down a few gears, and pedal faster.

Creative Writing poems

2009-05-09T12:33:00.003-06:00

Blogger is failing pretty miserably at rendering these, so I'll just direct you to my MySpace blog.

clicky clicky

Creative Writing Assignment #3: Short Story (Rough Draft)

2009-02-28T02:55:00.001-07:00

Obituaries

It was 5:38, 22 minutes to go on an early summer Friday, and there was nothing to do in CRM Life Insurance's Western Colorado office. My fellow cubicle workers and I had wheeled our identical black leather office chairs into an empty spot in the office, a Friday evening tradition, and they were all discussing their spouses. “My wife and I are thinking of going on vacation soon,” one of them said, to which another replied, “Where would you go?” “We haven't decided yet,” the first said, “somewhere nice.”

This all seemed like rather pointless conversation to me, but perhaps that was just because I couldn't relate to it. I was twenty-eight years old, and I was not married. I was one of the only people I knew over the age of twenty-five who hadn't yet eloped, and the others were all perpetual bachelors, a role I didn't fit well into. This fact had haunted me for the past few years. I felt a sense of urgency about it, like I was running out of time. It was the same feeling that made me drop out of college after a year and start working at CRM.

“Wes,” one of my coworkers said, looking at me, “how's your wife doing?” They all laughed. He was referring to my one true love, my mountain bike. About a year before, I had made the mistake of talking about my bike in the office, using the customary female pronouns, and they just couldn't get enough of it.

“She's holding up fine,” I said, playing along. “We're going on vacation, too. This weekend. I'm taking her to Utah.” The only time I ever felt truly happy was when I went mountain biking. None of them understood that, of course, so they just laughed.

* * * *

I shifted down a few gears, and pedaled faster. Every muscle and tendon in my legs burned as I pushed myself and my bike up the steepest incline on the trail. The mountain's summit stood several thousand feet above the desert floor, at the northern end of a small chain that seemed out of place in its surroundings. The trail I was riding circled it about halfway up. It was rocky in some places, dusty in others, and pine trees stood on both sides along the whole length of the trail. A few times, it crossed small mountain creeks, which were running low as the last of the snow melted from the very tip of the mountain, draining down to the Colorado River.

As I sped around a smooth curve to the right, there was a momentary break in the trees on my left, revealing a breathtaking sight. The mountain sloped downward steeply, plunging into the desert floor. A massive valley stretched out from the base of the mountain into the distance. Rock formations littered the floor of the valley, some clinging to the edges, others standing proud in the middle. They looked like sand castles. Just past the valley, I could barely make out the thin muddy sliver of the Colorado River. The clouds above were perfectly white and puffy, and looked so light that even the slightest wind would send them packing, but there was no wind.

Out of the corner of my eye I realized there was a sharp left turn less than ten yards ahead. I was going far too fast to take it. Out of instinct, I squeezed the brakes hard, but the front brake engaged a fraction of a second before the back. On a bike, when this happens at sufficient speed, it can be disastrous. The back wheel vaulted off the ground before its brake engaged to stop it, and the whole bike, along with myself, pivoted over the front wheel.

I had no time to curse my bad luck or my stupidity as the path came flying up to meet me. I landed on my chest first, the rest of my body flopping onto the ground a fraction of a second later. I slid about a foot through the dirt before coming to a stop. My mind went completely blank for a few seconds.

When I came to, my breath was knocked out of me, but I wasn't worried about myself. I'd crashed many times before, and I was bound to crash many times in the future. I knew that the only injuries I'd have would be cuts, scrapes, and bruises. What worried me was that, when I managed to lift my head off the ground and look around, my bike was nowhere to be seen. She must have gone off the edge ahead. Rolling onto my side and gasping for air, I imagined her catapulting over my body, tumbling off the edge, propelled by gravity haphazardly down the hill, and glancing off of several broad pine trunks before finally hitting one square on, stopping her dead and doing God knows how much damage. This thought hurt more than my own landing. She had cost me almost two thousand dollars, and I loved her.

I finally managed to catch my breath, and I forced myself to my feet, brushing the dirt off of myself and coughing from all the dust in the air. My whole body hurt from the impact, but I could move fine, so I knew I hadn't broken anything. My forearms, though, were covered in scrapes – the sort that sting like hell, but don't look too bad for a few minutes, before suddenly starting to bleed. I walked to where the trail veered off to the left, and my fears were confirmed. The hill before me was even steeper than I had imagined it would be, and the pines were thinner here than elsewhere on the mountain, so my bike had tumbled about fifty yards down the hill before one of the trees had stopped her.

I descended the incline sideways, slowly, careful not to lose my footing. As I neared my bike's resting place, it became quite clear that I would not be riding her again any time soon. The front wheel was impaled on a short, dead branch protruding from the trunk of the tree near the base, two of the spokes snapped and a few others bent out of the way, the hub structure totaled. At some point in her descent, the front brake and gear shifter had slammed into something; the shifter was gone, the brake was bent upward, and both the cables were detached. One of the pedals was missing. I would have to carry my bike several miles to where I'd left my car, and drive her into Moab for surgery, which would be expensive.

I couldn't bear looking at her anymore, so I turned away and looked further down the hill. Something metallic next to a nearby tree caught my eye, and I made my way toward it. When I realized it was another bike, my first instinct was to laugh; some other poor bastard had done the same thing I did! Then, as I got closer, I noticed something laying underneath the bike, and I smelled...blood. My heart skipped a beat in fear, then began pounding at twice its normal rate. Yes, I thought, that smell blended in with the smells of the forest could be nothing other than blood.

I stepped slowly closer to the bike, and the man beneath it coughed. He sat with his back against a tree trunk, his mangled bike pinning him to it. This was probably how he landed from his fall down the hill. He looked up at me as I approached, and he seemed relieved. The first thing he said to me, between shallow, difficult breaths, was, “Oh, thank God . . . I heard something crash . . . I thought someone else . . . fell down the hill . . . Are you okay?”

I couldn't believe my ears. This man was likely in more pain than I'd ever been in my life, and he was worried about my well-being? “I'm fine,” I said, kneeling beside him, my legs trembling. “How bad is it?”

“Bad,” he coughed. “Can you get . . . this bike off me?” His breath rattled inside him. I slowly lifted the bike away from his body, laying it aside. He was a mess. One of his arms was broken, snapped halfway down the forearm at an unreal angle. Both of his ankles were shattered, his feet dangling lifelessly to the sides. The thing I was worried about, though, was his chest. Even through his bloody t-shirt it was obvious he had several broken ribs. At least one had broken the skin, I guessed from the blood that soaked his shirt and a few inches of ground in every direction around him. I figured from his breathing that one of his other ribs had punctured one of his lungs. “See?” he said, “Bad.” He coughed again, and blood dribbled out of the corners of his mouth.

“How long have you been here like this?” I asked, barely able to believe what I was seeing.

“Oh . . . a few hours.”

“Good lord, we have to get you to a hospital!”

“I can't walk . . . and no offense . . . I don't think . . . you're strong enough to carry me.” He took a deep, rattling breath and laughed. He was right, of course. He was probably a few inches above six feet tall, and weighed at least two hundred pounds.

“Then I have to go get help.” I stood up.

“No . . . don't leave . . . there's not enough time . . . I don't want to . . . die alone.”

I knelt beside him again. “You're not going to die,” I said, though I wasn't sure I believed that myself. The amount of time he'd been there, how much blood he'd lost, and the fact that he had internal bleeding were all very bad signs. He probably only had one working lung, the other was probably filling with blood, and who knows what other organs might have been damaged as well. Still, I had to be as optimistic as possible, and I had to do something. “At least let me go make a sign on the trail or something, so if someone else comes through they can help me get you off this mountain.”

He smiled weakly. “If it'll make you feel better . . . go ahead.”

“I'll be right back,” I assured him, and began making my way uphill.

“I promise . . . I won't go anywhere,” he said.

When I reached the top of the hill, I gathered rocks and sticks from the sides of the trail and piled them in the middle of the path. The path was clear otherwise at this point, so no one coming through could miss it. I swung my backpack off, pulled out a tattered black spiral notebook I used as my journal, and tore a page out of the back. With the pen I kept tucked in the spiral of the notebook, I wrote in large letters on the top of the page “PLEASE HELP”. Below that, in smaller letters, I wrote, “A man is seriously injured down the hill ahead. I need help getting him off of the mountain.” My hand shook as I wrote, and I feared it might not be legible; so I drew a large arrow pointing up the page, and set the page atop my makeshift roadblock so the arrow pointed toward the spot. I anchored it in place with a rock, and rushed back down to where the man was lying.

“See . . .” he said as I sat down on the ground beside him, “I didn't . . . go anywhere . . . I promised you I wouldn't.” He laughed. “What's your name?”

“Wes,” I said, relieved that he was still alive, “yours?”

“John . . . Nice to meet you, Wes.”

“Do you have family?” I asked.

“A wife . . . and a daughter.” He coughed, and spit a chunk of clotted blood onto the ground beside him. “I have to tell someone . . . I didn't marry my wife . . . because I loved her . . . I married her . . . because I figured . . . she was the best I could do . . . and I had to marry sometime . . . I've . . . never been in love, actually.” His eyes filled with tears for the first time, and I could tell that this fact was more painful than all the bodily damage his fall had done to him. “Now . . . I never will be.”

I, of course, knew exactly what he meant by feeling the need “to marry sometime”. It was easy for me to imagine myself in a few years, married without being in love. “You don't know that,” I said, trying to comfort him. “We're gonna get you out of here. You have the rest of your life ahead of you to find what you're looking for.”

He shook his head slowly. “Wes, are you married?”

“No. Why?”

His breaths were getting shallower, and the rattling was getting louder. “I don't want this to . . . sound cliché . . . but it's important . . . Don't get married . . . unless you're in love . . . Don't . . . let the world . . . tell you what . . . you have to do . . . like I did.” He closed his eyes slowly, and they did not open again.

My job existed solely because people die, but I'd never seen it happen. It shook me to the core, and I couldn't help but cry.

* * * *

As I left the hotel, I picked up a 50-cent copy of the Moab Times-Independent from a newspaper dispenser, wondering if there was a story about what had happened. I searched the whole paper, and found nothing until I got to the bottom of the second to last page. His was the only one that day, but it was still labeled with the plural, Obituaries:

Jonathan Richard Thompson, 41, died Saturday in a mountain biking accident in the La Sal Mountains. Jonathan was a lifelong resident of Moab, and an avid outdoorsman. He is survived by two siblings, his wife, and his 8-year-old daughter.

Three sentences. That's all they gave him. The injustice made my stomach turn. But I knew that, even if he didn't mean much to the world, he meant the world to me, and his real obituary would be the effect he had on me. My whole outlook on life had changed literally overnight. I knew I couldn't rush into marriage, or forget any of my dreams. I would quit my job, and go back to college. My life, from now on, would be my own, not society's. I would not give up.

Creative Writing Assignment #2: Dialogue

2009-01-29T20:03:00.003-07:00

Runaway Train

Justin sits at his desk, staring distastefully at his Calculus homework. Jason is on a couch on the other side of the room, strumming absent-mindedly on an acoustic guitar. He stops playing for a moment and looks at Justin.

Jason: Why do you even bother with that bullshit class?

Justin, looking up, startled: How long have you been there?

Jason, playing a simple chord progression: A few minutes. Didn't you hear the guitar?

Justin: No, I'm too busy with my homework.

Jason: I asked you a question. Why do you bother with that bullshit class?

Justin: Calculus isn't a bullshit class.

Jason, messing up a chord and cursing under his breath: It isn't?

Justin: I have to take it. For my major.

Jason, starting into “Runaway Train” on his guitar: Ah, yes. Your major. Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology. By the way, I've always wanted to ask, did you pick that 'cause it has a cool name, or do you actually like it?

Justin: I...I'm not sure. I've always been good at science, and MCDB is a good pre-med major, and...

Jason, interrupting him: Serial killers are good at killing people. Does that mean they should do it? On second thought, bad example. They usually enjoy it. But you get the idea, I'm sure.

Justin: Yeah, I get it.

Jason: So, do you really wanna be a doctor, or does it just sound like a good idea 'cause you think you'd be good at it?

Justin: I dunno, I don't think about things like this a whole lot. I'm sort of just going wherever life leads me, you know?

Jason, playing a bit louder and raising his voice over the sound of the guitar: Bullshit. You chose this path with no good reason, and you're sticking to it for no good reason. That's not following the whims of fate and chance, my friend.

Justin: Oh, you're probably right, like usual, but would you get off my back about this?

Jason, sighing: You do whatever you want, buddy. I guess it's not my place to complain.

Justin: So why do you always complain?

Jason: I just hate to see you ruining your life, is all.

Justin, closing his eyes and shaking his head: I'm not ruining my life!

Justin opens his eyes, and Jason is nowhere to be seen.

Justin, looking around the empty room and shaking his head: I have got to get a nicer hallucination.

Creative Writing Assignment #1: Point of View

2009-01-26T14:01:00.002-07:00

For my first Creative Writing assignment, I was to write a one-page story, and then re-write it from two other points of view. This is the result.

Point of View #1 – The girlfriend

I can't believe he broke up with me. There we were, at our favorite restaurant, and in the middle of a conversation about the food he just casually slips in, "I think we should break up.” I thought he was kidding at first, but then he said I was too clingy, and he couldn't take it anymore.

"Clingy?” I said, feeling tears forming. "What...I love you!”

"Exactly,” he told me. So he really didn't love me. I was afraid of that; every time I told him I loved him he would look away and say nothing. I was just hoping he was afraid of being in love, something he would get over, something I would help him get over. I guess not.

"What an asshole,” Amber says from the other side of her couch. It's the next day, and I'm telling my best friend all about what happened. We've been friends since elementary school, and she's always there for me, no matter what.

"I... love... him,” I manage to say between sobs, as Amber hands me another tissue.

"I know you do,” she says, "but you just have to remember that there are always other fish in the sea.”

There are other fish in the sea for him, sure. He doesn't love me, so he'll have no trouble moving on. But I love him. With everything in me. I'm not the sort of person who can just forget about that, and leave this relationship behind like it never even happened. At least I have such a good best friend, though. I lean against her on the couch and drift off to sleep.

Point of View #2 – The boyfriend

I'm so glad I finally got rid of that bitch. I never really liked her. Don't get me wrong; there are always benefits to having a girlfriend, even if you hate her. We had plenty of fun, if you know what I mean. It's just that the girl was too damn clingy. She would get this stupid adoring look in her eyes, whisper "I love you”, and look at me like she expected a response. How on earth was I supposed to respond to something like that? I never knew what to say, so there would always be these awkward silences for a few moments that felt like ages. Now I'll never have to deal with that again.

I'm not much a fan of being single, though. All my friends have girlfriends they've been with for months. Hanging out with the guys just isn't the same when they all feel sorry for you, or when they think you're a loser; it's even worse if you can't tell which.

So now it's the day after I broke up with my girlfriend, and I'm calling Amber. She's my ex-girlfriend's best friend, which will probably make things weird for a while if we get together; but she's hot, and available, so I'll find a way to make it work. "Hello?” she says.

"Hi, Amber,” I reply. "Look, I'm sure you know by now what happened last night. I just want to let you know that I don't think this has to keep the two of us from being friends. Or more than friends, if you want.”

She doesn't say anything, but I can hear her breathing get deeper, and I know I have her, so I go in for the kill. "Can I take you out for dinner tonight?”

"Yes” is all she can say. I've always had this sort of effect on girls. I don't think I'll ever have much trouble getting laid.

"Great. I'll pick you up at six.”

I call all my friends and tell them I have a new girl. My ex-girlfriend's best friend, no less. And it only took 16 hours. A few hours less and this would have been a new record.

Point of View #3 – Amber

I don't know what I'm going to do.

Yesterday, my best friend called me and told me she needed to talk to me, so I told her to come over. She sat down on the couch next to me and told me her boyfriend broke up with her the night before. They were together for five months, and apparently it never meant much to him. "What an asshole,” I said. I didn't really think he was wrong to break up with her. She loved him, and he didn't love her back, so it would have been more cruel to keep it going. But sometimes you have to say bad things about someone to your best friend even if you don't believe it, to try to make her feel better. It's an unwritten rule, but that doesn't make it any less universal.

Later, when she was fast asleep on my couch, exhausted from all the crying, he called me. Now, I know what you're thinking – time to tell the bastard off. The problem is that I like him. A lot. And he was asking me out. For a moment, I forgot all about my friend, and all I could think was that this guy was asking if I'd like to go on a date with him. I said yes. He said he'd pick me up at six.

Now it's 5:59, my best friend is still asleep, and the guy who broke her heart last night is knocking on my door, ready to take me to dinner. If I go with him, it'll hurt my friend even more, but I'm sure he and I can be happy together. I feel like I'm in a soap opera, and this is one of those moments when a character faces a moral dilemma at just the right time for a commercial break. The audience is glued to the screen through the advertisements, not wanting to miss a single second of the show, and everyone knows this is what makes for good television. But that poor character is stuck on pause in the middle of an excruciating thought process. And this time, it's not a soap opera, it's real life, it's me, and there's no audience getting pleasure out of it to make it worthwhile.

Oh God damn it, I know what I have to do. I have to open that door, tell him that I can't go out with him because of what he did to my friend, and come back inside. I walk to the door, and swing it open just as he's about to knock again. He's so cute, standing there, frozen for a second, his fist up in the middle of the motion. Then his arm drops, and he says, "Hi. Are you ready?”

"Yes,” I say, helpless in his gaze. "I'm ready.” Ready to betray my friend, for the chance to be with this guy. I didn't remember my friend was there until she was chasing after us on foot, screaming, as we drove away.

Well, at least he got that much right

2009-01-24T10:34:00.002-07:00

From yesterday's Boston Globe:

WASHINGTON - With a few strokes of his pen, President Obama charted a new path yesterday in the fight against terrorism, signing executive orders to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center within a year and to ban harsh interrogation tactics, such as waterboarding, that the Bush administration endorsed but that critics consider torture.

Now, let's not get too excited about this. Sure, it's great that he's done this, and it was absolutely necessary. But he still has a lot of work to do to prove himself worthy of the love that America has already poured all over him.

I hope I'm wrong about him. I really do. I just doubt it.

Inauguration

2009-01-20T18:07:00.003-07:00

I don't know how well Barack Obama will do as President of the United States. Frankly, I'm not very optimistic about it. There's one thing, though, that I'm happy about today:

George W. Bush is no longer the President.

'Nuff said.

College update: One semester down, no less than seven to go

2009-01-08T23:30:00.002-07:00

I love CU-Boulder.

This whole college experience has, so far, been incredible for me. I'm out on my own, independent. I've met a lot of great people. I will never again have to deal with all the crap that comes with high school. I party enough to keep myself sane, but not so much that it ruins my life. And my first semester classes went remarkably well; I got straight A's, and I didn't have to stress myself to death to do it!

I'm living in a two bedroom apartment with four other guys. I know how awful that must sound; but believe me, it's been fantastic. We all, somehow, get along just fine; I can't think of even one single major argument between any of us so far. And no communal showers!

The city of Boulder is beautiful. It sits in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains - let's just say I don't mind the view every day when I look west! There are pedestrian/bike trails all throughout the city, and mountain biking trails not far up into the canyons that stick out from Boulder into the mountains. I love the people here, too - except the ones who have let living in such a great place get to their heads and turn them into total snobs.

This semester may not be as easy as the last one. My classes will likely be a bit more difficult, and I intend to spend more time working (I have a job at the library). Still, I'm looking forward to it.

Also, I have some good news: One of my classes this semester is Creative Writing. I'm taking it to force myself to write. I intend to post everything I write for the class (and on my own spare time) to the Internet, but I haven't yet decided if I should open a second blog for the creative writing or just post it all here. Regardless, you should expect to see a lot more writing from me in the coming weeks and months.

Well, I'm going to just let this end here, however awkward it is. Peace!

So far, so good

2008-10-05T13:03:00.002-06:00

I now have all my scores from my first exam in each class. Here are the results:

Introduction to Engineering Computing: 88%

Physics I: 97%

Calculus II: 95%

Principles of Macroeconomics: 93%

I'm feeling very good about this.

Huh?

2008-09-30T19:35:00.002-06:00

"This is a moment of national crisis, and today's inaction in Congress as well as the angry and hyper-partisan statement released by the McCain campaign are exactly why the American people are disgusted with Washington."

Obama-Biden campaign statement following the House of Representatives' rejection of the $700 billion financial bailout plan.

So that's why people have been calling and e-mailing members of Congress in record numbers voicing their opposition to the bailout plan. They're just angry that Congress won't pass it quickly!

Endorsement

2008-09-11T10:16:00.010-06:00

Last Friday, I made my first monetary contribution to a political cause. I sent more money than I can probably afford, being a poor college student, to the candidate who I plan on voting for in November. I sent my money to the campaign to elect Ralph Nader.

This is now the sixth presidential candidate who I have supported over the course of this election cycle (for the record, the others, in order, are: Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul (briefly, before returning to Kucinich), John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama). It's not that I'm indecisive; if Kucinich had managed to gain any steam whatsoever in the Democratic primary season, I would have supported him for as long as he chose to stay in it. It's just that, each time my candidate has dropped out or been defeated, I have simply settled for the next best out of all the terrible options. When Kucinich dropped out, I settled for Edwards; then he dropped out, and I settled for Clinton; then she was defeated, and I settled for Obama.

But it has finally become clear to me that that's no way to choose who to support in a presidential race. What is this nation coming to, if everyone is willing to exercise their most vital right, the right to vote, to put a crappy candidate in office just because they are less crappy than the other guy? It's not our fault, really, that that mindset has so thoroughly saturated our political thinking. The media tells us who has a shot at winning, then acts like they're the only people running; so it makes sense that we often feel like we have to vote for one of them. But if we want to save American democracy from total de facto nonexistence, we have to break free of that. We have to vote for candidates, not for media caricatures or partisan labels.

I do not like John McCain. I do not like Barack Obama. I have been fooling myself into believing that, despite my differences in ideology from each of them, either would make a decent president. That is nonsense. If either of those two becomes president, it means essentially complete continuation of the status quo, just under a different name. They're both guilty of lack of principles and partisan hackery. They're both typical politicians, who care more about their personal advancement than the well-being of the people. They both belong to the deeply entrenched, deeply flawed two-party system, which bickers about almost nothing of substance, but occasionally mentions a few small issues that for some reason set people against each other and churn out votes. I don't understand how anyone could seriously think that either of them will change that reality. John McCain abandoned every one of his principled disagreements with his party in order to get its nomination, and even Barack Obama has now revealed his true colors by doing the same now that he no longer needs to distinguish himself to get his party's nomination (just as I always figured he would). But the media has convinced us all that John McCain is a maverick, Barack Obama is a change agent, and the Theme of the Election is Change; so supporters of both sides continue believing that their candidate is different than the crappy politicians that have dominated Washington for so long. Nonsense, I say!

Ralph Nader happens to be the most viable third-party or independent candidate in the race. But if that alone were the reason I plan on voting for him, I would be a hypocrite. No, there are other, more important reasons.

On Ralph Nader's website, under "Issues", there is a list of 14 stances that Ralph Nader holds that neither Obama nor McCain do, and I agree with him (for the most part) on every one:

1. Adopt single payer national health insurance. Barack Obama, as well as the entire Democratic party establishment, refuses to be truly bold on the health care issue. Their ideas are nearly identical to the Republicans'; they just use different words to describe them. "Universal health care" is not a true description of any system that is not single payer.

2. Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget. The 2008 federal budget includes over $583 billion in military spending (according to Wikipedia). That's almost twice the spending of the entire European Union, and almost half of the military spending of the entire world. Neither Obama nor McCain really want to change this significantly. 'Nuff said.

3. No to nuclear power, solar energy first. Nuclear power is great, in terms of efficiency and how much power it can produce. But what do you do with the waste? Why is it OK to bury it under some mountain? Especially if there are other, 100% clean, alternatives?

4. Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare. According to the FBI, robbery and burglary cost Americans $3.8 billion a year. Corporate fraud costs somewhere in the hundreds of billions of dollars annually. More people die on the job or due to corporate malpractice than are murdered each year, too. Obama and McCain, being major-party puppets, aren't going to crack down on corporations whatsoever.

5. Open up the Presidential debates. The presidential debates are one of the ways the media keeps people in line voting for major party candidates. Changing this is a vital step in the preservation of American democracy.

6. Adopt a carbon pollution tax. Something needs to be done about global warming, and this option seems far superior to a cap-and-trade policy, which is the only option that's been taken seriously in Washington. Nader seems to understand how this could be implemented well, including the fact that it would require international cooperation.

7. Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East. Nader supports a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian mess, and would almost certainly make it one of his administration's top priorities. He wants a quick withdrawal from Iraq, too; this is one of the few areas I disagree with him on, because I think the situation in Iraq is going well enough to justify our continued presence there, at least for a while longer.

8. Impeach Bush/Cheney. Um, do I have to say anything here?

9. Repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law. I don't personally know much about this, but from what I've read into it, it doesn't seem like a law that ought to be on the books. It's this sort of legislation that lets corporations like Wal-Mart do things like force their employees to sign anti-union pledges. Repealing it sounds like a good idea to me.

10. Adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax. A lot of problems have come out of stock market speculation over the years. A tax on this behavior would make people think twice about it, as well as generate revenue (and it would affect rich folks the most, making it a nice addition to our progressive tax system).

11. Put an end to ballot access obstructionism. Obviously, this is a pet issue for Nader, who has been put through hell by various states and political parties every time he has tried to get on ballots. But that doesn't make it any less important. How can we say that, in America, "anybody can be president," when many states require tens of thousands of signatures in order to get your name on the ballot?

12. Work to end corporate personhood. It's funny that this is listed here, because I happen to know a lot about it. One of my high school debate resolutions concerned corporate personhood. Basically, it's the practice of viewing corporations as people in the eyes of the law (i.e., any place the law says "person"/"individual"/etc., it applies to corporations as well). This stemmed mostly from Supreme Court decisions in the late 1800s that extended the protections of the 14th Amendment to corporations. This has been a major contributing factor in making corporations as powerful as they are today, particularly in the political sense. The fact of the matter is, corporations are not people, so there's no reason to treat them as such under the law.

13. Defend, restore, and strengthen the civil justice system. What Nader is referring to here is the weakening of tort law over the past few decades. At first glance, of course, it seems like weakening tort law is a good thing; when someone can sue McDonald's for their coffee being hot, there's obviously a problem. But Nader insists that there has been a large effort on the part of corporations to "[chip] away at state and federal laws designed to protect individuals from the rapacious wrongdoing of large multinational corporations." And if that continues, it's not hard to imagine a lot of harm being done, as corporations become more and more immune to punishment for their bad actions.

14. Adopt the National Initiative [for Democracy]. This plan involves setting up a system of legislation by petition and national vote, much like most state governments have in place. The benefits of this plan can be read on Ralph Nader's website, and the details can be read on the official website of the movement.

This list tells me a couple of very positive things about Ralph Nader. First, he has some damn good ideas. Second, and much more importantly, he wants to address some of the issues that no one ever talks about, yet which are of vital importance to everyone in this nation - the issues that have been missing from American government for so long. That alone is a powerful argument for Ralph Nader's candidacy, even if you disagree with the guy.

This is my final answer to the question of who I support in the 2008 presidential campaign. I intend to actively promote Nader/Gonzalez to everyone I know, from now until election day. Maybe it's a lost cause...but at least I feel like it's a principled lost cause. And that is infinitely more important to me than picking a winner.

What is this nation coming to?

2008-08-14T18:38:00.002-06:00

"Not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime."

-Attorney General Michael Mukasey, August 12, 2008, explaining why the Justice Department will not pursue charges in the department's political hiring scandal.

Even crazier '08 speculation

2008-06-29T19:32:00.002-06:00

At the end of my most recent blog posting (about Barack Obama's potential paths to an electoral college victory), I said the following: "If McCain moves Michigan to his column, and Obama nets Ohio, Colorado, and New Mexico, and the rest of the states stay as they went in 2004, then each candidate gets 269 electoral votes. That's right, folks - a tie is possible. Then the vote would go to the House of Representatives, and each state would have one vote. I'm not even going to try to speculate on what would happen then."

Well, I changed my mind; I'm going to speculate. And no, none of the polls have moved since I posted that blog, so this is still a real possibility at this point.

If the electoral college fails to give any one presidential candidate a majority (270) of the votes, the selection of the president goes to the House of Representatives. The delegation from each state gets one vote to cast for any of the top 3 from the electoral college process. Since no third party is likely to get any electoral votes this November, the House would most likely be forced to choose between Barack Obama and John McCain.

This vote, it seems, would heavily favor the Democratic candidate. I believe this vote occurs before the next congressional session begins, since the electoral college vote occurs almost a month before that time. So we'll assume the current congressional make-up would still be in place at the time of this vote. There are 27 states with more Democrats in the House than Republicans, and just 21 that are the other way around (2 are tied - Kansas and Arizona). So Barack Obama would probably be elected president.

But who would be his vice president? Here's where it gets interesting. What most people don't know is that, technically, the vice president is chosen completely separately from the president. When you vote in November, you're really voting for an elector who you trust to vote for the presidential and vice presidential candidates you want to win. Fortunately, electors very rarely vote for a different candidate than the voters from their state want in either office, so if a tie happened in the presidential vote, it would almost certainly be the same in the vice presidential vote.

When there is a tie in the vice presidential electoral college vote, the vote goes to the Senate, with each senator given one vote to cast for either of the top two electoral college vote-getters. So the Senate would have to choose between Barack Obama's running mate and John McCain's.

Right now, there are 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 2 Independents in the Senate. Obviously, this vote would be open to a lot of smoke-filled-room politics. But I personally think the Republican would probably win. All 49 Republicans would almost certainly vote for their candidate, hoping they can get someone in the White House, even if not the president. I also think the Independents, and perhaps even a few Democrats, would go Republican, trying to force Obama to make good on his promises of bipartisanship. After all, what could be more bipartisan than a split White House?

So there you have it, folks. In the unlikely event that the electoral college vote this fall results in a tie, we will probably have a Democratic president and a Republican vice president. Let's all pay extra close attention to who John McCain picks as his running mate. I'm pulling for Obama-Rice '08.

Obama's path to victory

2008-06-25T12:04:00.002-06:00

It's important that I start this post with a solid disclaimer: It's really quite impossible to know which candidate will win in any state - especially in an election as strange as this one is shaping up to be. All I want to do with this post is have some fun speculating about the various paths to an Obama electoral college victory in November. So let's speculate!

First, some background for anyone who is unfamiliar with electoral college math: There will be 538 electoral votes in the general election. These are allocated on a state-by-state winner-take-all basis. For example, all of Colorado's 9 electoral votes will go to whichever candidate wins the popular vote in Colorado. In order to win the presidency, a candidate must get a majority (50% plus 1) of the electoral votes; so the magic number is 270.

Counting current state-by-state polling averages as though they are election day voting numbers, according to Real Clear Politics, gives Senator Obama 317 electoral votes, and John McCain 221. At this point, this seems like an attainable goal for Obama; and he doesn't even have to rely on Florida to get there! Indeed, this 317 vote number consists of all the states that John Kerry won in 2004 (which Obama should be able to keep this year, and add up to 252 electoral votes), plus six states which Obama seems poised to either capture or come very close to capturing: Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, and Virginia. In short, it is entirely within the realm of possibility that Obama will sweep the election with 47 votes more than he needs to win.

But what if he can't pull all six of those states into his column? Well, luckily for him, he only needs a few of them. In fact, if he can only manage to get Ohio out of those six states, that gives him 272 electoral votes, a close but very real victory. Alternatively, if he gets Virginia and Colorado (two states that are trending Democratic and seem perfect for a Democratic candidate like Barack Obama), that gives him 274 electoral votes - again, a victory.

It's worth noting that there are a couple states which Kerry won that might go to McCain, making things more difficult for Obama. Polls in Michigan show Obama ahead by just 1%. In New Hampshire, his lead is .7%. If McCain manages to win both of those states, Obama loses 21 electoral votes. This would force him to get Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado (or an equivalent number of electoral votes) to win with 273.

There's one last possibility that's worth mentioning, just for the sake of absurdity: If McCain moves Michigan to his column, and Obama nets Ohio, Colorado, and New Mexico, and the rest of the states stay as they went in 2004, then each candidate gets 269 electoral votes. That's right, folks - a tie is possible. Then the vote would go to the House of Representatives, and each state would have one vote. I'm not even going to try to speculate on what would happen then.

But the conclusion of all of this speculation is that Obama has several entirely plausible paths to getting 270 electoral votes, and thus winning the presidency. The election, it seems, is his to lose.

Double-speak at its finest

2008-06-12T15:16:00.003-06:00

"Whoever the [next] American president is will realise that co-operating and working with others on a common agenda is more likely to yield the results that we want."
-President George W. Bush, in an interview for London-based Times newspaper, June 11, 2008. In the interview, Bush also expressed regret that his rhetoric in the run-up to the Iraq war made it seem like he was "not a man of peace".

"All options are on the table. The message to the Iranian government is very clear."
-President George W. Bush, at a joint press conference with Germany's chancellor, June 11, 2008. Bush has previously used the phrase "all options are on the table" to express his willingness to attack Iran if it continues its nuclear program.

Extinct: Caribbean monk seal

2008-06-08T22:18:00.004-06:00

There has not been a confirmed sighting of the Caribbean monk seal (Monachus tropicalis) since 1952. Two days ago, after several years of trying to find or confirm any sightings of the seal, the U.S. National Marines Fisheries Service declared it to be officially extinct. This makes the Caribbean monk seal the first species of seal to be brought to extinction by human actions.

Why this seal, and not another? Because Monachus tropicalis was subjected to the worst of European colonialism. Christopher Columbus himself had his crew kill and eat 8 of them on his second voyage. Before long, the entire region was swarming with Spanish and other European colonists, who exploited the seals commercially for oil and meat. As human civilization in the Caribbean advanced and expanded, the seals' habitat was restricted bit by bit, to the point that the species simply couldn't sustain itself. And so, like so many plant and animal species before it, the Caribbean monk seal was driven to extinction.

According to the World Conservation Union, there are nearly 800 recorded instances of "modern extinction" - human-caused extinction of species after the year 1500. And this doesn't even account for all of the undocumented extinctions, like the extinction of plant and animal species in the disappearing Amazon and other endangered ecosystems, or cases like that of Monachus tropicalis prior to this announcement (it may have been extinct as long as 50 years ago). In fact, the time period since humans began settling and growing in population and habitat is described by biologists as the sixth period of mass extinction in the history of life on Earth. The current rate of extinction is estimated to be between 100 and 1000 times as great as the average rate of extinction suggested by fossil records. Some predict that as many as 20% of species that existed in 1998 could be extinct by 2028. In 2002, one biologist predicted that half of all living species will be extinct within 100 years.

Great strides have been taken in species conservation in recent decades. Endangered species lists, special legal protection, and other measures taken by governments around the world have surely saved many species from the fate suffered by the Caribbean monk seal. But these efforts have been confronted with one of history's greatest ironies: Just as we started to get most of the other factors right, we learned that a product of human civilization we've never taken seriously - pollution - is now bound to put the greatest strain on ecosystems the world has seen in roughly 65 million years. Human expansion and colonial exploitation of animal species, it seems, will soon pale in comparison to the damage that will be caused by global warming.

I have a terrible feeling that within a few decades, species as adorable and innocent looking as the Caribbean monk seal will be succumbing to extinction every day. And it's our fault. How on earth are we going to live with that?

No Triple Crown for Big Brown

2008-06-07T21:31:00.002-06:00

Today, Big Brown, the horse that became a mob darling and the center of great media speculation after winning the first two races of the Triple Crown, finished last in the Belmont Stakes, the third and final race of the series. The winning horse, Da' Tara, as well as the other 7 horses who beat Big Brown, crushed the dreams of millions of horse racing fans and commentators who hoped the horse would be the first Triple Crown winner in 30 years.

Now, if you've ever read any of my blogs, you'd better be wondering right now, what on earth is he doing talking about horse racing?

Good question. The answer is that Big Brown's story teaches a very valuable lesson: Nothing is certain. Big Brown's odds on the race were 1 to 4; Da' Tara's were 38 to 1 (in other words, it was generally accepted that Big Brown was 152 times as likely to win as Da' Tara). And yet, somehow, Da' Tara won, and the favorite came in a distant last place.

So the next time you think something is certain - like, I don't know, a Democrat winning the presidency this year - remember Big Brown. Even if the odds are 152 to 1.

Oil price rises by $10.75 in one day

2008-06-06T13:06:00.005-06:00

CNN reports that the price of light sweet crude oil closed today at $138.54 per barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, up from yesterday's closing price of $127.79. This marks new records in both the closing price of oil, and one-day growth in oil prices.

The highest price oil reached today was $139.12 per barrel, shattering the old intra-day record of $135.09, which, according to CNBC, was set on May 22.

So the question is, why? And, as it turns out, most of the blame can be placed on two factors:

1: Heightened tensions in the Middle East

Reuters reports that earlier today, Israeli Transport Minister Shaul Mofaz told a newspaper, "If Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it." In fact, says the minister, conflict will be "unavoidable" if Iran does not stop its program. When questioned on this, even prime minister Ehud Olmert's spokesman said "all options must remain on the table" with respect to Iran (sound familiar?).

Any tensions in the Middle East tend to cause an increase in oil prices, and tensions involving Iran are certainly no exception. According to the Energy Information Association of the Federal government, Iran is second only to Saudi Arabia in both production and reserves of oil among Persian Gulf nations. In addition, the EIA says that nearly all of the oil exported from the Persian Gulf region, and about a fifth of the world's total oil supply, goes through the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran controls. In the event of an Israeli strike on Iran, which the United States would probably support, it's not hard to imagine a disaster in America's oil market.

2: Dire predictions

CNN Money reports that Morgan Stanley analyst Ole Slorer predicted today that oil would cost as much as $150 per barrel by July 4. Slorer said that this increase would mostly be due to the market readjusting to increased demand for oil from Asian countries.

Of course, leave it to oil traders to see a prediction suggesting amazing profit on their part as authorization to exploit the market. Do they really expect us to believe speculation and manipulation have nothing to do with the recent rise in oil prices?

Does anyone else still remember the good old days when $70 seemed high?

DNC subverts democracy

2008-05-31T17:13:00.004-06:00

The Democratic party's rules and bylaws committee has just finished voting on what to do with Florida and Michigan. The result:

Florida's pledged delegates will be seated as they were chosen by the people, but each will only be given one half of a vote.

Michigan's pledged delegates will be seated as they were arbitrarily chosen by the state's Democratic party, with each given one half of a vote.

Both state's superdelegates have also been reinstated, with each given one half of a vote - despite the fact that many of them were the ones responsible for breaking the rules and jeopardizing the impact of their voters. But there is a bigger issue in the decision.

The result for Florida's pledged delegates makes perfect sense, as a compromise between the rules and the will of the people.

But the result for Michigan is a tremendous affront on democracy itself. Barack Obama did not have to take his name off of the ballot in Michigan, and once he chose to do so he completely forfeited any vote he could otherwise have gotten. 600,000 voters went to the polls, and they, by the very most fundamental rules of the Democratic party, are the only people with the power to allocate pledged delegates. This arbitrary decision of who gets how many, therefore, violates not only democracy in concept, but also the very rules supporters of the motion were supposedly seeking to uphold.

I don't think I have ever been this disappointed in the Democratic party. If, in this party, 30 people are allowed to impose an arbitrary allocation of pledged delegates and subvert the official will of 600 thousand voters, then I'm not sure I want to be involved with it. I think I'll register Independent.

The Race That Never Ends

2008-05-08T13:11:00.004-06:00

The race for the 2008 Democratic nomination for president has been going on for nearly a year and a half. When it began, I was 16. I'm turning 18 next month.

For most of that time, up until he exited the race, I was a Dennis Kucinich supporter (with the exception of a week or so when Ron Paul seemed to me to be the best - what was I thinking?). Since Kucinich dropped out, along with Edwards, I've been a Hillary Clinton supporter. I've always thought - and continue to think - that Clinton is a better candidate than Barack Obama. And I have serious issues with the concept of Obama being the Democratic nominee. He's a hypocrite - calling for a "new kind of politics" with one breath and attacking Clinton and McCain with the next, calling for an end to partisan bickering one day and casting another party-conformant vote in the Senate the next. He's too inexperienced to deal with the Republican election machine. He's too susceptible to attacks against which no defense is really adequate. If he makes it to office, he has promised to completely transform the political system in Washington, something that has never been done and probably can never be done, potentially crippling his hopes for a second term.

But I'm really only clinging to Clinton as the lesser of two evils. Indeed, since Kucinich dropped out, I haven't had very high hopes for things to truly change when the next president takes office. I simply think more things that need to change would change under Clinton than Obama, because at least she has the political skill and experience necessary to push through the things that she does intend to change.

The point here, though, is that since I'm only supporting Clinton as a sort of plan B for what I really wanted, I am prepared to support Obama as a plan C if things become truly hopeless for Clinton.

And while it did become quite a bit more hopeless for Clinton two nights ago in North Carolina and Indiana, I still don't think the race is over. Clinton will probably win West Virginia and Kentucky, but what I'm really waiting for is the Democratic Rules Committee meeting later this month to discuss Michigan and Florida. I think there's a very good case for simply counting the votes as they were cast on the days of those primaries; and if that happens, Clinton has good reason to fight out the rest of the race. If, however, the Rules Committee decides otherwise, the race will, in my eyes, be over; and at that point Clinton ought to drop out for the sake of unifying the party.

After all, even if I can't get the candidate I wanted (Kucinich), it would be nice to at least get a Democrat. That's what's most important to me now - even if it means voting for the ridiculously flawed Barack Obama in November.

I'm done!!!!

2008-05-07T19:31:00.003-06:00

Earlier today, I checked out of high school, and got my cap and gown for graduation next week.

As of several hours ago, I am no longer a high school student.

This means I'll be able to write more. Tomorrow, for instance: I've finally found something worth writing a review for, and I will do so; and I will post my thoughts on the state of the Democratic primary race I've been following so closely.

Announcement: I'm going to nationals!

2008-04-07T19:33:00.004-06:00

That's right: On Saturday, I qualified to go to the National Forensic League's national tournament this June in Las Vegas. I'll be competing in National Extemporaneous Speaking, which you can read about here if you're interested.

Hillary Clinton: The Electoral College Choice

2008-04-07T19:28:00.002-06:00

There's an article over on Salon.com that I cannot possibly improve upon in any way, regarding the fact that if the Democrats used a winner-take-all system (which is most in line with the electoral-college reality), Clinton would be winning the nomination contest. It also makes a few other claims about Barack Obama's failure to represent true democracy. It's definitely worth a read or two to anyone who's even mildly interested in this nomination.

4,000

2008-03-24T19:22:00.009-06:00

Yesterday, the number of American soldiers killed in Iraq reached 4,000.

That's 4,000 lives cut short. 4,000 hearts that will never beat again. 4,000 families and groups of friends that will never be the same again. And for what? For a war that was sold based on lies that those who told them knew were lies. For preemptive war, the idea that you can get rid of a threat before it becomes a threat, the most dangerous theory of modern times. For vengeance, against people who had nothing to do with what we seek vengeance for.

But that's not what the president wants you to think about. He wants you to think of Iraq as the next great proving ground of Democracy; the next step in our nation's legacy, in the yet-unfinished Grand Experiment begun by our founding fathers in a hot, cramped room in early July, 1776. He wants you to think of the Iraqi people suffering under the rule of a ruthless dictator, who does not think twice about slaughtering them by the thousands; and he wants you to demand that we stay in Iraq, to ensure Democracy prevails there, fulfilling the responsibility we brought upon ourselves by toppling that dictator.

Everything else that the president says about the War in Iraq - that if we leave, the terrorists will follow us home; that Al Qaeda in Iraq is the physical manifestation of the greatest threat America has ever faced; that we should not be opposed to giving up certain liberties to purchase the safety supposedly bought by the war - is, quite frankly, thinly veiled bullshit. And the reason why he brings up the support of Democracy in reference to the Iraq War - because every other justification for the war he tried simply failed - leads me to the conclusion that the president doesn't personally believe his own words, and is only really promoting the war for his own personal benefit, which makes me sick to my stomach.

But that one single idea - that Iraq can become a part of America's legacy of Democracy, the place where the West faces off once and for all with this newest form of extremism - makes more and more sense to me every day.

If it is indeed true that Iraq is "our country's destiny" - as the president put it in his Memorial Day speech last year (which I vehemently attacked in this very blog) - then there is no doubt in my mind that we are going about it with the wrong mentality. We need to step back, and look past the immediate danger of Islamic terrorism, and into the soul of America. We need an Abraham Lincoln to tell us that the conflict we are in right now is just one part of a broader narrative - a narrative which we can, in some small way, shape. We need to resolve ourselves - not to "kill all the damn terrorists" and perpetuate the irrational ideas that brought us to Iraq in the first place - but to continue our pursuit of Liberty and Democracy, at home and throughout the world.

If we cannot bring ourselves to see that deeper conflict, and declare our intent to see that through, the war must end now. But if we can turn this tragedy into the next step of the Grand Experiment, perhaps the deaths of these 4,000 brave men and women can be worth something.

More College News

2008-03-24T19:16:00.002-06:00

I have been accepted to the engineering school of the University of Colorado at Boulder (a little blue jewel in red Colorado, often called "The People's Republic of Boulder").

The Colorado School of Mines sent me financial aid confirmation this past weekend. I will receive $7,881 in grants, $1,500 in work-study, and $7,500 in subsidized federal loans. This leaves $5,000 outstanding on the estimated costs, should I choose to attend there.

College Announcement

2008-02-19T19:29:00.002-07:00

From the Colorado School of Mines Admissions Office, dated February 12, 2008:

"Dear Zachary:

As part of our Golden Scholars Program, it's a pleasure to offer you admission for fall 2008. You're among the select students who will attend Mines, and we congratulate you on your achievements."

I just opened this letter. I'm sure it's been here at my dad's house for a few days, but I've been at my mom's house. The Colorado School of Mines is an engineering school - in fact, it's pretty much THE engineering school of Colorado. The University of Colorado at Boulder has an engineering program, and not a bad one at all, but Mines is probably better. :P

This is exciting. You should be excited.

Why Iowa?

2008-01-03T15:21:00.000-07:00

This will be a short post, because my opinion on the matter can be summed up rather quickly, and I see no need to really go into extreme detail about such an obvious stance.

In this year's presidential primaries, a few states, primarily Iowa and New Hampshire, have received most of the attention of the candidates from each party. And this is a practice that has been going on for some time, and shows no signs of changing. Political pundits and analists speak openly about how the candidates can best strategize around their performance in these early primary and caucus states, as though that's the way it ought to be. The entire nation simply sits by on our couches and watches the pundits speculate on which way the vote in these two states of no particular significance is going to go, and we eagerly await the final results in Iowa today, hoping these voters of no particular significance go for the candidates we want. And if these voters of no particular significance happen to throw us a curveball, the pundits say it will probably change the course of our votes, openly admitting that the additional media coverage of the winners in Iowa and New Hampshire will sway more people to vote for them on Super Tuesday.

I do not even begin to understand the justification for this system. It is a direct affront on democracy, working to subvert the will of the people nationwide and replace our decision-making processes with the decisions made by a few voters of no particular significance.

In a perfect world, all the states in the nation would hold their primaries on the same day. The only way any other system could possibly be justified is if there were something wrong with that ideal system. And I have not heard a single solid argument against the idea of all the states holding primaries on the same day.

Primary Season and My Favorite Candidate

2007-12-31T19:12:00.001-07:00

Note to reader(s): I intend to get seriously writing for the remainder of my Christmas break (which ends on the 7th). Primary season is coming up, and now's the time for all of us to be looking into the candidates and issues most seriously. I will be filling this blog, and the identical one over on MySpace, with posts dealing with the race for the presidency. For the first of these posts, I want to discuss my general views on the '08 presidential race, and profile the candidate who comes closest of all to getting my all-out support.

I know most people my age, and the majority of people in general, don't care about politics much, if at all. The 2008 presidential election, however, presents us with a choice that will shape American politics and foreign and domestic policy for years to come. A presidential election is never a good thing to get wrong. But with America having problems in everything from healthcare, to our civil liberties, to immigration, to the war in Iraq, the stakes are raised so high that we simply cannot afford to get it wrong this time around. For this reason, if not for any other reason whatsoever, we all ought to be very seriously considering our options.

The most significant piece of my opinion on the 2008 presidential field is a general disappointment in the choice of "top-tier" candidates; frankly, they all suck, spewing the same dressed-up rhetorical stump speeches their respective parties have been giving for years, trying to distinguish themselves from each other through the slightest of differences in opinion. This is not the political system as I imagined it when I was just starting to learn about it in the 2000 election. This is not the America I thought I was growing up in, where people have a diversity of opinions that are all (or mostly) given a proper place in the national debates and elections.

And to make matters worse, it's all too heavily influenced by rich special interests and corporate lobbyists. Mike Gravel, as I recall, was fond of suggesting in the Democratic debates earlier this year that just about everyone else on the stage was a puppet of special interests ("Follow the money!" he would say, shaking his fist, though the fist-shaking may just be my imagination). Unfortunately, though Gravel tends to seem rather nutty in just about anything he does, he's not wrong. There is something ingenuine, something plastic about them all, and I can't help but feel like they don't really have the best interests of the people at heart, and are instead obsessed with getting the support of the special interests, at any cost.

Out of this disdain for the process and its front-runners came my love of Democratic candidate Dennis Kucinich. For the greater part of this year, I was in love with his campaign. He was the first politician I'd ever seen who is truly honest, intelligent, and reasonable. (generally, it seems, politicians are only one or two of those, if any at all). His ideas are all so fresh, so populist, so Democratic. Universalize healthcare. Reform trade negotiations with other nations, to reflect a pursuit of human rights and environmental protection. End the use of war as an instrument of foreign policy.

Recently, however, two things have happened that have persuaded me that he is not the best candidate in the race. Firstly, it has become quite obvious that his campaign is hopeless. He has not been treated fairly by the media, and his campaign simply hasn't come up with enough money or support to force anyone to pay attention. Secondly, I have found a candidate whose ideas make more sense than Kucinich's ever have, despite being on the opposite side of the political spectrum.

That candidate is Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is a Republican, currently serving as a U.S. Representative from Texas, a position he has held 18 of the 31 years since 1976. He is 72 years old, married (for 50 years) with 5 children. Before joining into the political arena, and during the lapses in his Congressional service, he has been an ob/gyn physician, delivering over 4,000 babies. He was also a flight surgeon in the Air Force from 1963 to 1965.

But it is his politics, not his personal life, that make this man extraordinary. In a day and age when politicians shape their views around the shifting of special interests and political parties, Ron Paul has not only stuck to his beliefs for his whole political life, but has based those beliefs on the most simple, powerful foundation imaginable: The United States Constitution.

And it is that foundation that makes his message so powerful. He's not treading new, radical ground, but urging us to go back to the old way of looking at the federal government: In the words of Thomas Paine, revolutionary and author of "Common Sense" (and who I'm possibly related to), "That government is best which governs least."

Profiling Dr. Paul's viewpoint on every issue facing America would make this blog far longer than I want it to be. But I'd like to look at a few highlights:

He is a strong believer in states' rights, prefering to leave issues like education, stem-cell research, abortion, and marriage rights completely out of the hands of the federal government.

He is a proponent of a non-interventionist foreign policy, in which the U.S. does not police the world with its military, but instead pursues, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none." He says the war in Iraq is patently unconstitutional; in the days leading up to the war, he repeatedly put forth a resolution to declare war on Iraq, and it was repeatedly struck down.

He believes the civil liberties of the people are vital to the interests of the nation, and that they have been seriously undermined by the war effort. In the words of James Madison, another of our founding fathers, "The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home." He believes that the best way to be a strong nation is to be a nation of free people. Liberty from government control and regulation is central to his message, and his belief system.

He wants to abolish the IRS and all federal income taxes and repeal the 16th Amendment that allows for it, citing the fact that income taxes account for only a third of federal government revenue, and that cutting federal spending by a third would put it at 2000 levels, which obviously wouldn't be very hard to do. In addition to this, he wants to phase out government entitlement systems like social security and welfare, prefering instead to allow everyone to keep the fruits of his or her labor and use them as he or she sees fit; again, a view straight from Jefferson, who believed we ought to "prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them". Ron Paul has great confidence in the free market, and in each person's ability, right, and responsibility to take care of themselves.

Through all of this, there is a clear theme of going back to the America that the founders intended to create, the America they set forth in the Constitution. In fact, Dr. Paul has a nickname on Capitol Hill, "Dr. No", which emphasizes his extreme unwillingness to vote for any bills or resolutions that are not expressely permitted by the Constitution. He is, in short, a true conservative, holding to the beliefs that made that political mindset actually make sense before it was hijacked by social conservatives in the past few decades.

Typical "Ron Paul Revolution" banner.
Taken from http://www.rescue-us.org/

And unlike the other "long-shot" candidates in the race, Ron Paul's views have actually caught on, putting him in a position from which it is not entirely impossible for him to win the Republican nomination. His current fourth quarter fundraising total is $19.4 million, more than any other candidate in the race, including over $6 million on one day, December 16, the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. And this fundraising is entirely grass-roots, spontaneously organized by people who have no official connection to the campaign. His message has found a large niche in the Internet community, a community that has, through these donations as well as all the straw polls and post-debate polls that Paul has won, proven that it has the power to make a candidate viable.

I do have my misgivings about Ron Paul. I don't have the same unquestioning faith in the free market as he has. I think the federal government needs to be involved in some things like healthcare, in order to make sure the vital needs of the people are handled properly. I have said before that universal, socialized healthcare is the way to go, and I don't think there's anything Ron Paul could say to me to change my mind on that. I also disagree with him on some of his personal social views, but he says those things should be left up to the states, so it doesn't matter anyway. All things considered, though, he is the best candidate that I see in the race right now.

Any thoughts on this are greatly appreciated.

'Yes' to Socialized Healthcare, Part 2

2007-10-02T06:24:00.000-06:00

Note to my faithful reader(s): I wrote part 1 of this 2-part series as a response to a debate prompt on helium.com, an online writers' community. Imagine my shock when, the very next morning, I saw a new prompt on that same site asking whether further privatization and deregulation of the healthcare system would solve the problem. I was forced to chime in on this, and the following was the result:

Many Americans believe that the solution to our healthcare dilemma is to further privatize and deregulate the system. If we free up the healthcare market, there is some reason to believe that it will behave like other free markets - costs will go down, allowing more people to get insurance, and quality will go up. This is the basis behind most Democrats' plans for what they call universal healthcare. However, this notion fails to take into consideration a few basic aspects of the healthcare system that make further privatization and deregulation a bad idea.

Firstly, the limited market. Let's say you're in the business of selling cars. It can reasonably be assumed that cars will never go out of style, and that, as more and more people around the world reap the benefits of industrialization, one of the things they will buy with their newfound money will be cars. Therefore, in this day and age, the automotive industry has a virtually unlimited market. This causes car companies to compete with each other for the constant stream of new customers. This is one of the prerequisites to a truly successful and beneficial free market: If there is not a growing market, a good deal of the helpful competition simply does not happen. If you've been buying Ford cars your whole life, you're less likely to go out and buy a Chevy, almost entirely regardless of the corporate competition going on. On the other hand, someone who is a first time car buyer reaps the full benefits of capitalism - Ford and Chevy both want them, so they'll both lower their prices and increase the quality of their products to win them over.

Healthcare doesn't work this way. There are a limited number of people in the United States (with a yearly population growth of less than .9%), and an even smaller number of people who are not already insured. Once all of those 40 million or so people got coverage, the burst of corporate competition that brought that about would immediately come to a halt. And after that point, there would be virtually NO market growth, and very limited competition, and corporations would be free to hike up their prices as much as they see fit. If the only two car companies in America were Ford and Chevy, and neither company had any new customers to entice, what's to stop them from both, little by little, increasing their prices?

This leads me nicely toward the second reason further deregulation of healthcare is unfeasible: the obvious greed of the conglomerates which currently have control over the system. If, as in the aforementioned scenario, they became able to raise their prices, they absolutely would. These corporations clearly do not hold themselves to very high moral standards - just watch "Sicko", or ask any of the millions of people who have struggled with their health insurance providers. Corporations that make money based on not giving people healthcare would have no qualms about raising prices, if it was a feasible business practice, which it is now and still would be under a further deregulated system. Even though the initial burst in competition would probably allow many of the currently uninsured people to become insured, eventually corporations would raise their prices again, once again excluding more and more people from the system while keeping corporate profits intact, and even growing.

Even if further deregulation and privatization of healthcare worked, and managed to permanently extend insurance coverage to all Americans, there still exist fundamental flaws in ANY privatized healthcare system. HMOs profit, and the system survives, based on how much healthcare they can deny their customers. This proposed plan would only give that same crappy coverage to everyone. That's like having an automotive industry in which Ford increases its sales and profits by building cars that break down beyond repair at 5,000 miles. And it's even worse, because we're not talking about a luxury, but a basic human right.

Clearly, this proposal is not the right way to handle the healthcare crisis. The best answer to our healthcare woes is not further "freeing up the market", but changing the entire system to a universal, single-payer, and yes, socialized plan.

'Yes' to Socialized Healthcare

2007-10-01T18:03:00.000-06:00

When a nation's institutions are insufficient to meet the needs of the people, it is the government's responsibility to change national policy and fix those institutions. When every other industrialized nation in the world has adopted a different system, and it is clear that that system works far better than the one that we have, this makes the government's job in reforming the broken institution simple.

Such is the case with healthcare in America. The system is clearly broken - that's not even really up for debate. Insurance companies make money by not giving care. 31 cents on every dollar of healthcare spending goes to maintaining the conglomerates that have a stranglehold on it. Over 40 million Americans are uninsured, and even those who are insured must pay high premiums, co-pays, and deductibles, just to get insurance coverage that is clearly sub-par.

These same problems, or versions thereof, plagued every other industrialized nation as well. But while the American government has refused to address the issue, all these other nations have faced the problems, and fixed them. Socialized medicine has worked incredibly well for these nations - and it would work for us too.
One of the major arguments against socialized healthcare is that under such a system, it is necessary to ration care. A socialist system, in other words, would not be able to pay for everything for everyone. This is a sad truth. But it is a sad truth shared by ANY healthcare system. In the current healthcare system of the United States, over 40 MILLION people do not have insurance - that's one out of every seven Americans being "rationed" out of EVERY type of healthcare. Doesn't it make more sense to base the necessary rationing on the importance of different medicines and procedures, rather than on the patient's ability to pay?

Some people are still resistant to the concept of socialized medicine because of communism anxiety leftover from the Cold War. We cannot socialize our vital national institutions, they say, because that puts us on the path toward communism! While I agree that communism is the last thing this nation needs, the fact of the matter is that having a few socialized institutions does not make a country communist. For example: Since the beginning of the public education system in America, it has been a socialist institution - it is run and paid for by the government. Then there's our police, our firefighters, our infrastructure, and our military - all socialist. Yet no one would argue that America is a communist nation. Why, then, are we afraid of making one more of our vital institutions socialist, for the good of the people?

It's time to break free of the hold that unbridled capitalism has on the basic human right to healthcare. We consider ourselves to be the wealthiest, most advanced nation in the world, so we should work on having the best healthcare. Let's get on board the system that has worked for every other industrialized nation in the world.

Damn, now I have to uninstall iTunes

2007-09-13T20:55:00.000-06:00

Actual quote from Apple's iTunes EULA (End User License Agreement), as found on this site:

"10. Export Control. You may not use or otherwise export or reexport the Apple Software except as authorized by United States law and the laws of the jurisdiction in which the Apple Software was obtained. In particular, but without limitation, the Apple Software may not be exported or re-exported (a) into any U.S. embargoed countries or (b) to anyone on the U.S. Treasury Department’s list of Specially Designated Nationals or the U.S. Department of Commerce Denied Person�s List or Entity List. By using the Apple Software, you represent and warrant that you are not located in any such country or on any such list. You also agree that you will not use these products for any purposes prohibited by United States law, including, without limitation, the development, design, manufacture or production of missiles, or nuclear, chemical or biological weapons." (emphasis mine)

Reading this, a few different thought processes come to mind, some satirical, others very serious:

-Damn, now I have to uninstall iTunes. My hopes of one day building an iNuke are dashed.

-I wonder if the Open-Source movement will get into an arms race with Microsoft.

-Someone was either incredibly stupid or incredibly egotistical about their product when writing this.

-Actually, we live in a day and age in which putting something like this into a user agreement is probably a sound business decision. If someone were to, say, send e-books on how to make bombs over iTunes, Apple is in no way responsible - solely because of this clause.

-Where is our society going when the concept of Apple being sued over the content distributed with its software is actually plausible?

-How long will it be before individuals have to have readily-available usage agreements? (Stapled to the back of my shirt: "By engaging in conversation with Zachary Freier ("Me"), you agree to the following terms and conditions. Any and all conversation content transmitted from any labial organ ("Mouth") owned by the second party ("You") to any auditory systems ("Ears") belonging to me is automatically devoid of any claim to copyright. No repetition on my part of vocal sounds originating from your mouth can be claimed by you or any other person or party to be a violation of copyright. You also agree that you will not use anything I say for any purposes prohibited by United States law, including, without limitation, the development, design, manufacture or production of missiles, or nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.")

Just some food for thought. Now excuse me, I have some "projects" I have to finish on my new music library software.

Roy Zimmerman

2007-09-04T18:26:00.000-06:00

I just wanted to share a few musical YouTube videos from an artist I have come to like very much - Roy Zimmerman. I think he's a genius. Check these out:

Like what you see? Check out his YouTube page for more.

A Fitting Title

2007-07-28T13:35:00.000-06:00

Sicko, Michael Moore's latest documentary film, is funny, sad, and maddening all at the same time. But above all, it's simply sickening.

If you don't know already, it's a documentary about the healthcare industry. It starts off by examining a few stories about America's not-so-secret dirty little secret: The nearly 50 million of us who are uninsured. There's certainly enough there to make as much sickening film as Michael Moore could possibly dream of. But that wouldn't be ambitious. That wouldn't be Michael Moore. No, Moore's style lies in biting off what seems to be more than he can chew about the topic he's covering, and then proceeding to rip it to shreds.

So he dismisses the 50 million uninsured American's by nonchalantly saying, "But this story isn't about them." And that's when he dives head-first into the real dirty little secret: That even if you are fully insured, the healthcare industry is still a nightmare. And Moore makes that fact seem even more sickening than the fact that a sixth of us are uninsured.

Insurance companies, it turns out, have a system of denying care that one former HMO employee rightly described as "labyrinthine." There's a list of pre-existing conditions a mile long that automatically make you ineligible. If your body mass index is too low or too high (in other words, if you're too fat or too skinny) you're denied. There are mountains of paperwork for even the simplest of claims. And if they fail to weed you out with all of that and end up paying for your care, they can continue looking for ways to retroactively deny you and reverse the payment. They have teams of people that scour medical records for anything that can be used to retroactively deny care (this was done to one woman, for example, because she had once had a yeast infection and hadn't reported it as a past "serious ailment" on her application). This system is held in place because the industry has four lobbyists for every member of Congress, and they have consistently been able to pay off every politician that goes to Capitol Hill, including their old rival, Hillary Clinton, who was a crusader for universal healthcare during her husband's presidency, but who is now #2 on the Senate payroll from healthcare groups. Sickening, yes?

But still, Moore's ambition is not sated. In order to really drive the point home to Americans, he knows he must not only show them that their system is broken, but that there are others that are better. And so, throughout the film, he profiles the universal healthcare systems of Canada, England, and France, which turn out to be so much better than ours that you absolutely have to see it to believe it.

And even then, he's still not done. The last portion of the film uproots whatever is left of your conviction that America's healthcare system works. If I were to say anything about it at all, it would spoil it for you. I wouldn't do that.

Suffice it to say that every minute of the film Sicko makes you more and more deeply convinced that America's healthcare system simply sucks. But all hope, Moore says, is not lost. It's a problem that we can fix. After all, we're America. If other nations have nailed down this concept, surely the birthplace of modern democracy, the wealthiest nation on Earth, can do it. The first step, as AA might say, is admitting we have a problem - which this film doesn't simply speculate on, but proves. That's why I implore anyone who reads this to watch Sicko.

(As an aside, don't believe the mainstream Democratic candidates when they say they have a plan for "universal healthcare" because, sadly, their plans are just to make sure everyone has insurance, and don't address the real problem revealed by Sicko - that that insurance system is crap. Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate who seems to actually have a universal healthcare plan, and that's one of many reasons why I think he's the best.)

CNN/YouTube Debate Question

2007-06-19T21:03:00.000-06:00

I have submitted this video question for the CNN/YouTube Democratic presidential debate scheduled for July 23 in Charleston, South Carolina. (For more info, check out www.youtube.com/debates).

Reconciling with MySpace

2007-06-13T20:38:00.000-06:00

Someone I talked to last night made me question my decision to completely give up on my MySpace blog. He assumed it must be because the new place I've been putting my blogs receives more views. However, that has not been the case. In just over a year, my MySpace blog has just short of 1800 views, something my newer Blogspot blog could probably never hope to achieve, barring the possibility of divine intervention or me actually writing something decently profound.

Long story short, from now on everything I post will appear both on my MySpace blog and on my Blogspot blog.

I'll start today by copying a few of my better entries from Blogspot onto MySpace. I may even write another blog for both sites today (and if not today, then certainly tomorrow).

Writer's Block

2007-06-12T17:20:00.000-06:00

I haven't written a blog in 15 days. Nor have I done any creative writing of any sort. I've tried to start a few things, but I consistently fail to get very far into anything. The only things I've written in the past two weeks are e-mails (long ones, yes, but I'm always writing long e-mails so it doesn't really mean much).

At about two weeks without writing, my eyes turn red, and I start foaming at the mouth and chewing on my leg. I've been told that it's not a pretty sight. The problem is, the longer I suffer from one of my debilitating spurts of writer's block, the harder it is to get out of it. I tried very hard this last weekend to work on a story idea that sprung upon me, and I also put quite a lot of thought into an editorial-style piece for this blog about Dennis Kucinich, my personal favorite of the Democratic presidential candidates. Both of those things failed, however, and the leg I've been chewing on is almost stripped to the bone.

You see, I need writing. It's not just a hobby, or something I enjoy doing. It's also something that's necessary to my health and well-being. My mind is constantly cluttered with so many thoughts that if I don't get at least some of them on paper, I go insane...that is, more insane than I am usually. Writing is my therapy. So it really sucks when my creative juices stop flowing.

President Bush and Memorial Day Stupidity

2007-05-28T12:48:00.000-06:00

In an earlier post on my blog, I detailed my belief that the real way to support American soldiers would be to bring them home. I denounced the idea that we must "finish the job" in order to make their sacrifices worthwhile.

Unfortunately, this kind of thinking still saturates the country, as evidenced by president Bush's speech today at the Arlington National Cemetery.

In the midst of all the proper honoring of the men and women who have served our country now and in the past, Bush couldn't help but insert a political message. "Those who serve are not fatalists or cynics," he said. "They know that one day this war will end, as all wars do. Our duty is to make sure this war was worth the sacrifice."

No, Mr. Bush. Your duty, and the duty of the government that you are a part of, is to refrain from using war as an instrument of foreign policy except where it is absolutely necessary. Your duty is to make it so that the only causes that you will send the young men and women of this country to die for are ones that are inherently "worth the sacrifice."

And, Mr. Bush, your duty most certainly is not to start an invasion of a sovereign nation on false pretenses, only later changing your justification to this pursuit of freedom and democracy that so many of the people blindly rally behind you on. Your duty is to tell the full, unabridged truth when the lives of this nation's young people are on the line.

"This is our country's calling," Bush said. "It's our country's destiny."

Mr. Bush, never reduce the destiny of America, as defined by the founding fathers as well as every man, woman, and child who has ever lived here, to being a massive industrial-military machine that invades sovereign nations without international support, and pushes entire regions of the world into total chaos. Never reduce the 'great experiment' of freedom and democracy to being a monster that feeds on the spirit of the world - the very spirit that made it possible. Never reduce the land of the free and the home of the brave to being the land of the aggressor and the home of the fearful. That is not our destiny. That is not America.

Bush said that this nation's freedoms "came at a great cost and they will surive only so long as there are those who are willing to protect them." At last, Mr. Bush, you speak some truth. But you are not one who has been known to protect our freedoms, Mr. Bush. Your PATRIOT Act makes it possible for entire sections of the Bill of Rights to be tossed aside if investigators think it will help them. Of 814,073 people charged in immigration courts under your Department of Homeland Security in the past three years, only 12 faced terrorism charges, and only 114 were charged with national security violations. That means that only one and a half hundredths of a percent of those 'dangerous' people being processed through the sketchy methods of the DHS are actually a concern at all.

I am ashamed of our country if we accept and embrace Bush's mantra. America has always been dedicated to freedom and democracy, and everyone agrees that the men and women who have died serving our nation throughout its history are noble. But now Bush, quite possibly the biggest internal threat to freedom, democracy, and our men and women in uniform in the history of America, is able to use his 'support' of those things to make himself and his war look good. What has America come to, if he can do that?

Perhaps there is still a small glimmer of hope for our country in this debacle: As Bush's motorcade passed over the Potomac River, it went by a lone man holding a sign that said "Bring our troops home." Amen. Amen.

The Trouble With Politics

2007-05-24T22:04:00.002-06:00

The trouble with politics is that it’s full of politicians.

You see, the official job description of a member of the United States Congress is to represent the voters of their district. In a perfect world, every person in the country would be able to vote for all the things that come before Congress, and Congress would be unnecessary. This is, however, unfortunately not a perfect world. So instead, we elect representatives to go represent us and do our voting for us in Washington.

And yet they don’t represent us. Partisan politics has become so rigid and severe, and politicians have grown such a sense of entitlement that the opinions of their constituents really only matter to the extent that they desire to be re-elected. If a U.S. Representative believes that we need to stay in Iraq, by God, it doesn’t matter if every person in his district disagrees. He has to stick to his beliefs, man!

Bullshit. No matter how dead set against something any representative personally is, in all honesty it shouldn’t matter. If you are an elected representative of the people, your job is to vote the way the people would if they were present. Thomas Paine said so in Common Sense, which was the single most important rallying point in the events leading to the Revolution. That’s what the people wanted. That’s what the founding fathers wanted. That’s what this country is. It’s a representational democracy, and the job of those representatives is to represent their constituents.

Not only do our representatives fail to represent us, but partisan politics has hijacked the system to the extent that getting any real change done is next to impossible. How is it, pray tell, that partisan ‘whips,’ whose job is to make sure their colleagues vote along party lines, are an official United States federal government office? If that doesn’t convince you that the system is fundamentally flawed, I don’t know what would. George Washington, in his farewell address, warned the fledgling nation not to slip any farther into the bog of partisan politics that was already taking hold. The party system is silly, especially when it’s entirely dominated by just two parties. Washington knew that; he saw what was happening, and he warned against it. Did we listen? Obviously not.

If we want to come closer to the dream that is America, the dream set forth in the Constitution, one of the most important steps we can take is to put Congress in line. Reform the party system, either by abolishing political parties or by splitting the two dominant parties into several smaller ones. This way, ideas from all across the spectrum will be fully entertained, and maybe some change can occur. Also, the people need to start demanding that their representatives take the opinions of their constituents much deeper into consideration.

It’s supposed to be a government by the people, of the people, for the people, after all.

I officially love the ACT

2007-05-15T18:29:00.000-06:00

I just got my ACT scores in the mail. The maximum score in any area is 36. Here are my scores:

Composite Score: 35 (99%ile)
English: 35 (99%ile)
Mathematics: 34 (99%ile)
Reading: 35 (99%ile)
Science: 35 (99%ile)

That just made my day. No, my week. No, my effing month!

Plato on Love

2007-05-12T16:47:00.001-06:00

"Every heart sings a song, incomplete, until another heart whispers back. Those who wish to sing always find a song. At the touch of a lover, everyone becomes a poet."

-Plato

Plato, the great ancient Greek philosopher, in his Symposium, offered an explanation for love and the desire to be with another person.

He described the original race of men as having four legs, four arms, two faces - double of everything that we have today. He said there were three sexes: "the man was originally the child of the sun, the woman of the earth, and the man-woman of the moon, which is made up of sun and earth."

Mankind was powerful - so powerful that we rebelled against the gods. The gods knew a punishment was due. But they did not want to destroy us, for that would mean they would lose all the nice sacrifices and piety we had to offer. Zeus decided that the best punishment would be to split each and every one of us into two, so that we'd be "diminished in strength and increased in numbers" and thus more profitable to the gods.

Since then, we have all been searching for our other half. The original male "children of the sun" each became two homosexual men. The original female "children of the earth" each became two homosexual women. The original adrogynous "children of the moon" each became one man and one woman.

In embracing (and, more specifically, in making love) we are attempting to bring two halves together and thus be more complete and happy. If we find that one person who is our "other half," this is an especially amazing experience, and we find ourselves constantly desiring to be in each other's presence.

A couple (love) poems

2007-05-12T16:47:00.000-06:00

Sometimes I wonder why I write poetry. It tends to be mediocre, at best, and there are other things I can write with far more skill. Still, I have my poetic side, and every now and then it asserts itself.

musings from afar

where are you, my love?
at this moment
are you awakening
from a restful nap,
or are you strolling down
a suburban street,
rejoicing in the soft breeze
and the sounds of the birds?
are your thoughts bent on me,
or does another
demand your attention?
do you wish,
as I do,
that I was beside you?

Melt

Like a candle,
the flame of our love
melts me into liquid wax.
My head goes first,
and all my rational thought
is stripped away,
replaced only by a desire
to be one with you.
Inch by inch,
the melting progresses;
my arms go,
and I become helpless
in your embrace;
my torso joins
the liquid progression,
and my heart is released
and flows down my body
to add to the pool
growing in your arms.
The rest of my body
follows suit,
and at last the flame is spent.
My outside cools
and hardens, now,
protecting the part
closest to you,
kept warm enough
by the contact with your skin
to remain liquefied.

Affirmation

2007-05-09T05:20:00.000-06:00

There's a song by Savage Garden called "Affirmation" that I really like. It's one of those songs that actually says something. It goes something like this:

I believe the sun should never set upon an argument
I believe we place our happiness in other people's hands
I believe that junk food tastes so good because it's bad for you
I believe your parents did the best job they knew how to do
I believe that beauty magazines promote low self-esteem
I believe I'm loved when I'm completely by myself alone

(Chorus)
I believe in Karma what you give is what you get returned
I believe you can't appreciate real love until you've been burned
I believe the grass is no more greener on the other side
I believe you don't know what you've got until you say goodbye

I believe you can't control or choose your sexuality
I believe that trust is more important than monogamy
I believe your most attractive features are your heart and soul
I believe that family is worth more than money or gold
I believe the struggle for financial freedom is unfair
I believe the only ones who disagree are millionaires

(Chorus)

I believe forgiveness is the key to your unhappiness
I believe that wedded bliss negates the need to be undressed
I believe that God does not endorse TV evangelists
I believe in love surviving death into eternity

(Chorus X2)

I agree with just about everything they say in that song. Just about. I have a problem with two lines there, though.

Firstly, "I believe forgiveness is the key to your unhappiness." Honestly, I'd say quite the opposite. Being able to forgive people is key to being happy. If you can't forgive people for the mistakes that they've made, then you'll constantly be bitter about them. That's no way to live your life.

Secondly, "I believe that trust is more important then monogamy." I certainly agree, taking the statement at face value. But it seems obvious, to me at least, that they're referring to the concept of "open relationships" (i.e. you're with someone and you have sex with them, but you're also allowed to have sex with other people "as long as no emotions are involved"). I guess for the most part all I can really say about "open relationships" is "to each his own," because I really don't understand how that's a workable relationship model at all. I guess I just believe that sex without emotional involvement is pointless, and something of a disgrace to your body.

But overall, it's a great song!

notice me - a poem

2007-04-30T21:22:00.002-06:00

Well, blogspot doesn't understand concrete structure. A few dozen spaces automatically renders as one, no matter what I do. So I've been forced to put my newest stab at poetry on my MySpace blog here. Check it out! If you access it from here and want to comment on it, just comment here.

Morality, As Told By...Me

2007-04-28T16:51:00.000-06:00

If I were to collect all my thoughts on morality and the meaning of life into one piece of writing – which I may, someday, actually do (more for my own betterment than as a pulpit) – the introduction would go something like this.

I do not consider myself to be morally superior to others. Or at least I try not to, for that would be immoral.

I do, however, think it is acceptable – compulsory, even – for people to judge the world around them, and the people that make up that world. The word "judge", and all words related to it, have taken on such a negative connotation – most people will consciously and subconsciously react negatively to the word "judgmental". But judging does not have to start with huge, mind-altering preconceived notions, or lead to ideas of superiority or overbearing feelings of resentment toward others.

Judgment, in and of itself, without all of the things that have attached themselves to the process as civilization has advanced, is simply another term for reason. It is the process of making a decision based upon information one's senses acquire from the surroundings. If I say, "The road is closed ahead," and you decide to take another route – or even if you decide to continue the way you are going – you have just exercised your judgment, or reason. It is a necessary process by which we make it through each day, and by which society continues to advance, for better or for worse.

The same holds true for judgments of morality. Whether a person is reasoning through choices and trying to judge which one is morally right, or that person is making judgments regarding their own character or the character of another person, the process is absolutely necessary. It provides a better understanding of the world and an individual's immediate surroundings, and it gives that individual the proper tools with which to make informed, rational, and sovereign decisions.

Reason, or judgment, is half of what makes us human. The other half is emotion. Science simply cannot and will never account for human emotion to an extent that pleases me. There are some emotions – fear and lust, for example – that are instinctual and can be explained in a Darwinian model. But then there are emotions that don't fit in any scientific explanation. Therefore, I firmly believe that most of human emotion takes place on a somewhat higher plane of existence than the physical.

If we allow our emotions to take part in the reasoning process, we open ourselves to a deeper connection to this higher plane. This connection – this emotion – binds the entire human race in a way that none of the superficial subdivisions we have created can ever possibly divide us. It's what allows us, if we open ourselves to it, to feel sympathy for someone we've never met when we hear about their dire circumstances. It allows us to wallow in sorrow or bask in happiness that no scientific theory could ever possibly justify. It allows us to love one another in all the various ways and degrees love is possible. It gives us gut feelings about some areas of morality that are more profound and moving than even the most eloquent writer and thinker could reason through them. It gave the founding fathers of the United States the "self-evident" rights that they founded the nation to promote: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. These things can be rationally justified, but even without doing so our emotions make them self-evident.

It is this combination of reason and emotion that both drives us to wonder what's right and wrong, and gives us the tools to figure that out. Whether our hearts and minds agree on a judgment or disagree, the fact that they are working together to form a sound judgment is what really matters. And since this judgment is key to survival as well as to understanding the world, it is therefore necessary, in order to live a full, rich life, for a person to reason and feel through the formulation of their own personal set of moral standards. These standards can then be applied to the process of judgment, as a sort of shortcut to the process. For example, one can reason through one single time why it's wrong to kill, and then apply that standard to all of one's judgments.

I admit that at this early stage of my life, my experience level is rather low. Nevertheless, I have spent a great deal of time in reflection about morality. Through this reflection I have formed the moral standards that guide my judgments and actions. I don’t consider them to be perfect, or somehow superior to all other ways of viewing morality. But they’re the best I’ve come up with yet.

D Is for Disappointment

2007-04-26T05:09:00.001-06:00

There was a time when I thought that a Democratic majority in Congress meant that real change was coming our way. During the election cycle, Democrats promised change in several areas, should they be elected. Social Security would be reformed; healthcare would be reformed; the Iraq war would be openly and seriously discussed and re-evaluated. The American people wanted this change, so when Election Day came, they voted Democrats into the majority seat in the Legislature for the first time in twelve years. America held its breath for the last two months that it would have to endure the Republican majority. And then, on January 4, 2007, Democrats took the reigns.

And then...nothing. Well, not nothing, but certainly not much. Some excitement over the first female Speaker of the House, a little campaign finance reform, and a bit of discussion involving the areas in which Democrats promised change. This discussion, though, has been rather disgraceful and disappointing. The Democratic majority has not pushed as strongly as they should for the things that got them elected.

Consider the Iraq debate. For the first few months of their newfound power, all the Democrats did was push for non-binding resolutions denouncing the war. These resolutions didn't really mean anything, and even if they did they were weakly worded. Overall, fewer words were used in these resolutions to denounce the war than to pledge support for the troops - a cause that, as I spoke of in an earlier blog, would best be served by bringing them home. Democrats allowed themselves to be pushed around, adding pointless sections to pointless resolutions, fearing that if their Iraq war denunciation did not include "but we support the troops," the American people would turn on them.

Even as they have attempted to take the debate more seriously, they've allowed themselves to be pushed around. Their new Iraq war budget plan includes timetables for American withdrawal - an excellent step in the right direction. But they've allowed the president and his Republican cronies to hold the moral high ground: Bush has promised to veto the bill, and every day he denounces Congress for not passing an acceptable budget. Congressional Democrats don't realize that if they shot back, saying that Bush was the one refusing to pass an acceptable budget, the American people would agree with them. So they just take the tongue lashing, and continue to push for a bill that promises an automatic veto, without applying pressure on Bush to support it.

Change in other areas has been even slower in coming. The disgrace of an Iraq war debate has occupied most of the Democrats' attention, so the other things they promised simply aren't on the docket. Where's the Social Security or healthcare reform? Where's the revocation of Bush's ignorant 2001 and 2003 tax cuts? Where are the Democrats we were promised?

It would appear that Congressional Democrats grew so used to their minority role from 1994 to 2006 that they don't realize just how powerful they can be. A stronger group of lawmakers in place of the disorderly mob we see today could really fulfill Democratic promises to the people. A stronger group of lawmakers could stand up to the president and his followers.

Congress, not the president, was set forth in the Constitution as the most powerful branch of the American government. But in recent decades, and especially with the Bush administration, presidential power has become paramount in Washington. If Democrats turned their attention to the Constitution, they could easily find support to call for a reversal of this trend. At the same time, Congressional power would be expanded. America would stop sliding farther and farther into becoming a dictatorship, and move instead closer to true Democracy. Congressional Democrats could lead this fight against expanding presidential power, and in doing so would probably gain even more support from the people.

But I no longer have very high hopes for the weaklings who hold this responsibility, as well as the other pressing demands of Congress. I am overall quite disappointed in them. The position they're in is perfect for pulling America in the right direction, but they simply don't seem capable of this.

My last hope for them lies in the attorney scandal. If they can stand up to the challenges of the Congressional vs. Presidential power struggle that this has caused and will continue to fuel, then perhaps they're not doomed. And perhaps, after all, their legacy will not be one of disappointment.

Nappy Headed Hos: The Media Scandal of the Month

2007-04-12T05:40:00.001-06:00

There has been an issue in the news over the past couple of days that has really bothered me.

Consider, for a moment, the following quote:

"There has been much discussion of the effect language like this has on our young people, particularly young women of color trying to make their way in this society. That consideration has weighed most heavily on our minds as we made our decision."

Now, what does it sound like this person is talking about? To me, it sounds like some media outlet has repeatedly and purposefully stepped outside the boundaries of decency and political correctness when it comes to race, and perhaps to gender. If this was the case, that quote would make complete sense. However, that is unfortunately not the case. It is actually something CBS President and CEO Leslie Moonves said regarding the following comments aired on Don Imus's morning television show and radio simulcast, Imus in the Morning:

"That's some rough girls from Rutgers, man, they got tattoos, and, some hardcore hos. That's some nappy headed hos right there, I'mma tell you that right now."

No, seriously. I kid you not. That is the media scandal of the week, and, potentially, the month.

He was talking about the Rutgers women's basketball team, in a segment about their championship loss last week to Tennessee. Now, this team happens to be mostly African American women, so right away Imus's offhand remark that the team looked like "nappy headed hos" got tossed into the mosh pit of racial relations in America.

Over a week's time after being aired, these comments slowly stirred increasing amounts of anger from civil rights groups. Civil rights leaders and proponents from Al Sharpton, to Jesse Jackson, to Barack Obama, to Oprah Winfrey, began to call for Don Imus to be fired. They got their wish. First, MSNBC and CBS, the two companies which aired his program, gave him a one-week suspension. Now they've completely removed him from the air, indefinitely.

Now, there are a few incredibly ironic things about this whole situation.

Firstly, in growing publicly angry about these offhand remarks, these people have gained the comments nationwide noteriety. While a week ago, the only people who knew about these comments were the faithful viewers of Imus in the Morning, now everyone in the country knows about them. Everyone in the country has been exposed to this supposedly horrible racial slur, "nappy headed hos." They have taken something they violently disagree with, and they have given it exposure. They're worried about "the effect language like this has on our young people," but in combatting it they have exposed "our young people" to it.

Secondly, the comment itself. It's not even stereotyping. He didn't say "All African American women are nappy headed hos." In fact, he went on to say that the Tennessee team - which has just as high a percentage of African American women as the Rutgers team - "all look cute." In using the phrase "nappy headed hos," Imus was referring to the Rutgers team, and only to the Rutgers team. He wasn't sending a cruel, hateful message to African Americans or African American women. He didn't use any blatantly racist terminology. All he did was call one small group of people "nappy headed hos." While this may be somewhat tasteless and mildly offensive, it is not grounds for firing.

Thirdly, let's take a look at Don Imus himself. Sure, he has a reputation as a "shock jock" of sorts, and he's said some pretty risky things in the past. But there's another side to him. Since 1990, his Radiothons have raised over $40 million for children with diseases like cancer. And he's quite profitable, as well. He makes CBS $15 million a year, for example. Does he sound like a horrible guy? I think not. The news of his firing came down in the middle of his most recent Radiothon, at the beginning of which he quipped, "This may be our last Radiothon, so we need to raise about $100 million." He really cares about the charitable causes he raises money for. Taking him off the air will not only cost the companies which chose to do so, but it could also potentially cost these foundations millions of dollars. Is the pride of one basketball team really worth that?

The greatest lesson we as a people can learn from this media scandal of the month is that we've grown too sensitive to political correctness. When the media can be brought to a screeching halt by one morning host calling a basketball team "nappy headed hos," there are some clear priority issues in America. Why should we force our broadcasters, who spend nearly insane amounts of time gathering and presenting the news to us, to constantly watch their mouths in fear of even a minorly offensive remark? Sure, there are things that should not be said on news programs, but I'd hardly say "nappy headed hos" qualifies there.

The final message I'll leave you with is this: That cracker Imus may have said something somewhat indecent, but I highly doubt those nappy heads have lost sleep over it.

Support the Troops by Bringing Them Home

2007-04-10T17:07:00.000-06:00

Earlier today, while visiting a military base, President Bush said of the War on Terror, "We've lost some fantastic young men and women. And we honor their service and their sacrifice by completing the mission, by helping a generation of Americans grow up in a peaceful world." This echoes the same message war supporters shout at anyone who believes we should withdraw our soldiers from Iraq. Supposedly, the highest honor we can give a soldier who has died in Iraq is to get the job done; and any talk of pulling American soldiers out of Iraq shows a lack of support for those soldiers. Democrats, nervous as they have been with their newfound power in Congress during the first few months of this year, blindly accepted this mantra. Every piece of legislation Democrats have proposed that sends a message of being against the surge in Iraq has spent more time making sure to note support of the troops than to denounce the war.

But just imagine, for a moment, that you were a soldier in Iraq. You've seen more death in the last month than most people see in a lifetime. Every day, you go about your duties, without any guarantee that you'll survive the day. You might have sub-par body armor and weapons, and the vehicles you ride in are easily turned into scrap metal by IEDs. This might be the sort of life you're willing to lead, if you're fighting for a good cause, but in Iraq what noble intentions may exist are weak, at best. Now ask yourself: Would you rather people show their support by keeping you in this impossible and pointless demonstration of American folly, or by realizing that's all it is and bringing you home to your loved ones?

Oh, but we're fighting for a good cause! We've brought the fight to them so we don't have to fight them here! We're making the world a safer place! We're fighting terrorism, you un-American swine!

A good cause? Are you kidding me? Since when is invading a sovereign nation under false pretenses of a connection to a terrorist attack, killing tens of thousands of civilians, creating a political vacuum in the middle of a volatile region, and throwing the whole place into a state of chaos a good cause? World War II? Good cause. Afghanistan? Good cause. Iraq? Not so much.

But you supported the war in the beginning! You flip-flopper!

Based upon the information the American people were fed by the Bush Administration early on, yes, I thought it was a noble cause. Four years of watching the death toll rise, and the Arab world stumble toward complete chaos, and, most importantly, learning that we were deceived as to the original intent of the war have taught me otherwise. I cannot support a war that was initiated under false pretenses, and only later was tied to the advancement of freedom and democracy around the world.

Well, what about the soldiers who have died? We must honor their sacrifice by finishing what they started!

There was no reason to put them in a position to die in the first place. Attempting to finish an unfinishable job in no way honors their deaths. Honor their deaths by making sure no more of their brothers have do die for the lost cause they died for.

Come to your senses, people! Calling for a troop withdrawal is in no way contrary to supporting the soldiers. We're not talking about a mad scramble out of the country, allowing the insurgents to fire at our soldiers' backs. We're talking about a steady decrease in troop levels until all of our soldiers are out of that ridiculous hell hole and back home where they belong. Support our soldiers. Bring them home.

Teaching the Bible in School

2007-03-28T16:27:00.000-06:00

I just read a profoundly insightful editorial-article in Time promoting the teaching of the Bible in public schools. The basic premise of this article is that:

"Simply put, the Bible is the most influential book ever written. Not only is the Bible the best-selling book of all time, it is the best-selling book of the year every year. In a 1992 survey of English teachers to determine the top-10 required "book-length works" in high school English classes, plays by Shakespeare occupied three spots and the Bible none. And yet, let's compare the two: Beauty of language: Shakespeare, by a nose. Depth of subject matter: toss-up. Breadth of subject matter: the Bible. Numbers published, translated etc: Bible. Number of people martyred for: Bible. Number of wars attributed to: Bible. Solace and hope provided to billions: you guessed it. And Shakespeare would almost surely have agreed. According to one estimate, he alludes to Scripture some 1,300 times. As for the rest of literature, when your seventh-grader reads The Old Man and the Sea, a teacher could tick off the references to Christ's Passion--the bleeding of the old man's palms, his stumbles while carrying his mast over his shoulder, his hat cutting his head--but wouldn't the thrill of recognition have been more satisfying on their/own?"

In other words, the Bible is one of the foundations of Western culture. And even taken from a purely literary and non-religious viewpoint, its impact on the growth of the culture that we all know and (mostly) love supercedes any other single piece of literature in the world. Sure, one could attribute plenty of wars and suffering directly to the Bible or interpretations of the Bible, but its impact on society has been a mostly positive one. Shakespeare essentially started modern literature, and has remained of utmost importance for hundreds of years; but the Bible has remained at the root of most of Western culture for thousands of years. Yet it would be hard to be processed through the public education system without reading one or two Shakespearean plays, and even harder to find an educationally sound teaching of the Bible.

The lessons it teaches are mostly good ones, too. After all, what completely sane secular philosopher would disagree with “Thou shalt not kill” or “Thou shalt not steal”? John Locke’s Social Contract, arguably the philosophical basis of the American government, said that the rights to life, liberty, and property – two of which (life and property) are central to the Bible – are self-evident and inalienable. Even Ayn Rand, Mrs. Objectivism and Selfishness, said people were not means to ends (in other words, although it’s important to be selfish, you shouldn’t take it to the extent that it harms other people). The Bible is the single greatest philosophy and morality handbook ever written, and, whether you like it or not, has at least an indirect influence on the vast majority of laws in the Western world. If Locke and Rand are crucial to a good education in philosophy, then why aren’t Matthew and Paul?

The Bible is also quite historically accurate. In many cases, it’s the most reliable historical source that exists about an event. It documents the entire history of a people – the Israelites – who rank up with the Greeks and Romans in terms of influence on our culture. If some form of ancient world history is a curriculum requirement, then shouldn’t the Bible be part of that? I know for a fact from my own experience that ancient history is the 6th grade Social Studies class in my school district, and is therefore required. As I recall, there was one section (a few pages) on Christianity, while there were whole chapters on cultures so distant to us as ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. There is clearly a problem here.

This Time article suggests that Biblical literacy classes ought to be offered in every school district’s high schools. It says that this can be done without trampling on the separation of church and state. After all, as the article says, in the Supreme Court decision that removed prayer and explicit religious teaching from schools (the 1963 Abington Township School District v. Shempp decision):

“[T]he exemption for secular study of Scripture was explicit and in the majority opinion: "Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment," wrote Justice Tom C. Clark. Justice Arthur Goldberg contributed a helpful distinction between "the teaching of religion" (bad) and "teaching about religion" (good).”

It is, therefore, possible to teach the Bible in school without going against the establishment clause. This same conclusion has always been accepted for other religions – schools teach about ancient Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Eastern religions in Mythology courses.

But I see a lot of potential danger in creating a class that teaches about the Bible. Even if the class’s course outline dictates that it must be taught neutrally and without any preaching, I can imagine some difficulty in finding a teacher at every high school in the nation willing to do so. There would undoubtedly be cases in which a teacher would go too far in the “teaching about religion” and lapse into the “teaching of religion.” That is simply unacceptable – every student has the right to be in any class without being preached to.

The Bible also would also be out of place in a Mythology class. To be sure, the Bible, for the most part, would fit. It is a historical account with religious overtones, just like the vast majority of mythology. But there are two crucial distinctions: Firstly, the Bible is more historically accurate than most mythology. Secondly, the Bible is still believed in by a lot of people. While there aren’t many people in the world who would object to something like the Iliad being called a myth, there are billions of people in the world who would object to Genesis being called a myth. So the Bible can’t be taught as mythology.

The answer, I think, is to incorporate elements of the Bible where they fit into the established curriculum. Literature teachers should teach about the Bible’s literary significance. History teachers should teach about its historical significance. Philosophy teachers can teach about its moral and philosophical teachings. Mythology teachers, even, can incorporate it into their classes – as long as they’re careful not to explicitly call it a myth – and show students how similar the myths that they’re learning are to the Bible. This would all put the Bible into a proper educational context, whereas teaching it as a standalone class would not. It would also make it less likely for a teacher to turn their classroom into a Sunday school, as they would only be teaching the Bible in the context of their chosen area of expertise.

I am not a Christian. I do not consider the Bible to be a holy book, and it is not my moral compass. I would, therefore, be one of the first people to denounce something that goes against the First Amendment’s establishment clause. Secular teaching of the most important piece of literature in Western culture, however, does not do so. There is a thin line between teaching and preaching, to be sure, but I have faith in a teacher’s ability to secularly present the Bible as part of a course they’re teaching. Students would benefit form a greater understanding of the religious and social debates of the day, and if it led indirectly to more conversions to Christianity, then so what? The First Amendment, after all, says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” So let’s shape up, and get the Bible on that list of the top ten required readings in high school.

The Time article can be found here.

Announcement: I'm running for president!

2007-03-26T06:34:00.000-06:00

My fellow Americans:

I come before you today to announce that I have formed a Presidential Exploratory Committee, and that I am looking into the possibility of running for the office of president of the United States. Many of you may not know who I am, but I promise, in the coming weeks and months, to make myself known to all of you.

If elected president, I promise to lead the American people with strength and determination. I will not stand down from what I believe. I promise that I will make my judgments without any consideration for such things as "reason" and "public opinion," but rather that I will stick to my beliefs no matter what. Washington is full of people who change their minds for reasons so trivial as evidence to the contrary and experience and being convinced by the other side's arguments. These flip-floppers have no place in American politics.

I promise to take the reins in the War on Terror. That is not a promise to go after Osama bin Laden and other top members of Al Qaeda, but rather to lead America deeper into the Middle Eastern quagmire, and closer to causing the entire region to burst into flames. To solve the Iraq dilemma, I propose we send at least 100,000 more American soldiers to the war zone. With these troops, as well as those already stationed there, we will annex the country, and claim it as a territory of the United States. It will be run under martial law by generals answering directly to me, until such time as we can quell the insurgency and convert all Iraqis to Christianity, the only true faith. It can then be a shining beacon of Democracy and Christianity in the midst of the evil Arab world. To this end, I will immediately more than double the annual budget of the Department of Defense to just under $1 trillion.

To ensure that our struggle against terrorism is a united front, and therefore easier, I promise to further reduce civil liberties in favor of security. I will push for legislation making it illegal to speak out against the war effort, or anyone with direct ties to the military, including the president. We will bolster our espionage and sedition laws. This noble fight may also require revocation of the First Amendment, so I will propose an amendment which overturns it. We must all remember that our lives, as well as the safety of our nation, are at stake.

I promise to follow in the footsteps of President Bush in strengthening the power of the Executive Branch. I will seek to amend the Constitution so that presidential vetoes cannot be overturned. Another amendment I will push for will allow the president to directly remove Supreme Court justices and appoint new ones, without any Congressional oversight. In appointing cabinet members and other positions in the government that are chosen by the president, I will not consider aptitude or experience, but rather how closely each person agrees with my opinions and my way of thinking. With these changes, I will create a unified and strong Executive Branch, impervious to the shifting winds of Congress and the Supreme Court, and immune to Constitutional considerations.

On social issues such as gay marriage, abortion, and stem-cell research, I will stand strongly Conservative. We cannot allow these sinners to get their way. I will propose yet another amendment to the Constitution, establishing Christianity as the state religion. In this way, all we shall have to do to make something illegal will be to prove that it goes against the Bible - an easy task. We can outlaw gay marriage, abortion, and stem-cell research now and for all time. Special care will have to be taken so that our rivals do not mockingly propose a law such as one that makes it illegal to wear two types of cloth at the same time; but since I will be able to veto anything without any chance of my veto being overturned, this shouldn't be a problem.

I promise to reform the economy. America must adjust to an increasingly global market, and the key to this is a strong stock market. The American stock market must grow steadily, and to this end my first economic proposal is a plan to increase investment. We should do away with all taxes to the top 10%, by income, of Americans. These people will surely invest this extra money into the economy. In order to offset the loss in tax revenue, we will increase taxes to all other Americans. If tax revenues gained from these increases are more than revenues lost from the first part of this plan, the leftover money will be split in two. Half will go to the Defense Department, and the other half will go to reimburse the wealthy for their contributions to the economy. In this way, our stock market can be strengthened.

Outsourcing is also a danger to the American economy, and must be solved. My second proposal for the economy is, therefore, a reinstitution of slavery. This will be possible once Christianity is the state religion, as slavery is sanctioned in the Bible. We will go to overpopulated Third World countries, and take custody of a few thousand people, every few months or so. Then, every American citizen who loses their job to outsourcing will be freely given two of these people as slaves. We will then subsidize plantation farming and manufacturing, and encourage people to either sell their slaves to plantations, or join group plantations with other victims of outsourcing. Those who lose their jobs to outsourcing, therefore, will be reimbursed for their troubles. Any leftover slaves will be sold to the highest bidder, invigorating the American economy. Third World countries will also benefit from the decrease in population.

We can strengthen America. We can make it a beacon of justice and morality. We can solidify our place as the richest nation on Earth. We can win the War on Terror. Stand with me, and I promise you all of these things. Thank you.

Some thoughts on life

2007-03-16T20:38:00.000-06:00

Whenever I really get to thinking about it, one person's life isn't really all that significant in the grand scheme of things. The city/town I live in has around 100,000 people altogether. That's 100,000 individuals, each with their own personalities, aspirations, and actions. 100,000 people each at the center of their own universe. And even the whole city is only a tiny speck on a map of the world. The world itself, even, revolves around the sun, which itself is a tiny speck of light in our galaxy, which itself borders on insignificance in the vastness of the space around it. All of the actions and interactions and personality traits and thoughts and emotions of any single person could be brought together and added up, and in the context of all that is, it would be so infintesimally small that it may as well not exist at all.

You could easily consider this in a very grim and opportunistic light. If my life doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, then what's the use in living it well? Why shouldn't I just work to serve my own interests, my own desires, my own entertainment? After all, no matter how horrible a deed I commit, when weighed in the context of the universe, it basically didn't happen. Chaos theory would say that that action can have consequences that have their own consequences, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, until the end product is something much more significant. But if every action starts a similar chain of events, then there are so many actions going on all the time and starting such chains that a single one of them is still insignificant. You could justify just about anything you do in this way.

The problem is that it's irrational in the first place to consider your life in the context of all that is. The human mind cannot truly imagine the vastness of even something so simple as the number of people on earth: 6.5 billion. That's 6,500, a thousand times over, a thousand times over, people. In the broader picture of the universe, scientists can only explain distances in light years, which are just under 6 trillion miles. The human brain is simply not capable of comprehending these numbers; that's why we have to break them down into units we can easily calculate and talk about: thousands, millions, billions, trillions. The simple fact that the units in all that is are so vastly different from the units involved in day-to-day life shows that you cannot consider the two together. You can either consider the whole universe, and not even think about each individual person (including yourself) at all because they're so insignificant; or you can consider each individual person, and not think about the universe as a whole because it so hugely dwarfs the individuals that you cannot clearly look at them. An individual cannot be thought of in the context of the universe any more than the universe can be thought of in context of individuals.

So we can only really think of ourselves in a context we can more clearly comprehend: Our immediate environment, and all the people we come into contact with. In such a context, I think it's worth it to try to live a good life. Who cares that all the good I could possibly do in my life isn't significant in the grand scheme of things? It's significant to my world, and it's significant to the world of each person who is affected by it.

If I impact a single person in a positive way, no matter how small it is, it's significant. The same holds true for negative impacts. And you really can't avoid having negative impacts on some people. I know I've hurt people in the past, and I know I'll hurt people in the future. That's just the way life is. But I'd really like, when I'm old and see death approaching, to be able to look back and see that I've left an overall positive impact on this world. I'd like to know I've helped people far more than I've hurt them.

My life will be significant, even if not in the context of the universe. I'd like it to be significant in a good way.

Some Poetry

2007-03-15T19:57:00.000-06:00

Yeah, I'm really not all that terribly good at poetry, but from time to time I try. Here's some of my better attempts.

Just Ask

Just ask,
And I'll open my door.
My home is yours, if you want it,
And you can always sleep warm, next to me.
Just ask, and you can stay.

Just ask,
And I'll open my arms,
And give you a place you can go,
Whenever your life seems too much to bear.
Just ask, and I'll be there for you.

Just ask,
And I'll open my mind
To the thought of us together;
A future with you always by my side.
Just ask, and I'll think about it.

Just ask,
And I'll open my heart,
And let you into that deep place,
Where all my joys and sorrows congregate.
Just ask, and I'll fall in love with you.

Just ask,
And I'll open my soul,
And help you knit it to your own,
So no matter where you are, I'm with you.
Just ask, and I'm yours.

All you have to do is ask.

Will you forgive me?

Will you forgive me for loving you?
For thinking that you're beautiful?
Will you forgive me for wanting to be with you,
Or thinking you'd be worth the wait?
Will you forgive me for giving you my heart?
For pouring my soul out,
And praying for your approval?
Will you forgive me for knowing how impossible it was
For us to ever be together--
And still believing?
Will you forgive me for all my prayers,
Or every night I sat up thinking of you?
Will you forgive me for the warmth I felt
Everytime I thought of you,
And everytime you said you loved me?
Will you forgive me for feeling weak,
Yet stronger than I've ever felt,
Everytime you said something sweet to me?
Will you forgive me for wanting you to be happy
And wanting to be the reason?
Will you forgive me for wanting to fall asleep in your arms,
Knowing you'd still be there when I woke up?
Will you forgive me for my weakness?
For clinging onto you so desperately,
When any fool could tell you didn't want me anymore?
Will you forgive me for loving you,
And wishing you felt the same?

Just Like That

and just like that
my world is turned upside down
again
over and over
until i cant tell
which way is up
or down
or right
because it all seems so wrong
theres no lack of things
to worry about
will my life turn out
how i want it to
do i even know
how i want it to
no lack of things
to pick myself apart for
saying one thing
and doing another
thinking im better
than i really am
no lack of things
to despise the world for
the intollerance
the insensitivity
the "independence"
no lack of reasons to feel
hopeless
helpless
alone

My new blog

2007-03-15T19:15:00.000-06:00

Well, if you're on here at this point, you obviously know I have a blog. You may not know, however, that it's a brand new blog as of today. You may also have no idea who I am.

So now you know it's a new blog. As for the knowing who I am... that's not something I feel up to writing about right now. If you really must know for some reason, go to my MySpace profile to find out.

This blog will eventually replace my MySpace blog that has hosted my writing for almost a year now. I feel like my writing needs a more professional and permanent home. I'll start by posting some of my writing that's currently on my MySpace blog...perhaps later tonight. Then I'll start writing more often like I've been meaning to do for months, and it'll all (or mostly) go up here.

Some of my writing will be about my life. Some will be creative writing (some poetry, and a novel I need to get back to...). The majority, though, will probably be editorial-type stuff: observations, opinions, commentary. I'll try not to be preachy, but it may sneak into it every now and then.