Collection of Thoughts

A varied collection of thoughts on recent events.

Government Help for Homeowners

President Obama recently outlined a plan to help homeowners who are struggling to keep their homes, under the weight of over-priced mortgages and the fear of foreclosure.

In reaction, a lot of people start asking, why am I (taxpayers) paying to bail out someone who got in over their heads? It was their stupid decision, they claim.

When did Americans become so selfish?

A few observations: If all of us do not make sacrifices to help solve our collective problems, we will all fail and suffer. This is beyond one person's house going into foreclosure, this is about an entire system failing, bringing everyone down with it. A lot of these bad decisions were made because of deceptive salesmanship, with banks and mortgage lenders duping home-buyers into mortgages they could never afford. Most people are not financial experts and may not even understand the fine print. They had to place trust in those people who knew better, and that trust was taken advantage of to increase the bottom line. Was there some stupidity involved? No doubt. But I think people should be a lot more angry at mortgage lenders for what we all have to sacrifice for presenting the false opportunity to begin with. Thirdly, Obama's plan is to help people honestly struggling to keep their homes, in good faith. This plan is not to help the people who knew they couldn't afford a home and got in over their head anyway.

What happened to the idea of Americans all coming together in hard times, working and sacrificing together, in order to save a country we all love--at least as an ideal? Is it that the cause is not noble enough, as was World War II and 9/11? Or that the cause is so ignoble, a result of so many factors of our own foolishness? The fact remains that the U.S. needs saving, and it won't be saved if Americans start categorizing themselves into groups who do and do not bear responsibility, and groups who do and no not need to help. As Americans we are one group, and we all bear responsibility for this country's health.

Funding for Stem Cell Research

I am thrilled that President Obama is reversing George W.'s ban on government funding for stem-cell research. Another little way in which he is taking us back out of the dark ages imposed by the ignorance and radicalism of Bush.

As for ethics, in most cases, the stem cells that would be used would come from embryos that would otherwise be thrown away. Embryos are not children, while they have the potential to become so. At that point, it is a clump of cells no more valuable than unused ejaculate or unfertilized eggs that pass from women once a month. Weigh that against millions of adults and children, fully established in their lives, who are suffering. There is no comparison. Our duty to help people alive but in need supersedes our need to protect what only might be.

How can anyone reasonably justify why millions may have to die for something that doesn't even yet live? Alone, it is the potential for one life. But with science, it is the potential for millions.


Rush Limbaugh & the Republicans on the Economy

Why do I bother?

Anyone who says that the U.S. President ought to fail in a time of crisis is un-American, plain and simple. Rush may not agree with Obama's policies and his actions regarding the economy, but it seems clear no one truly knows what course of action, precisely, will save our economy. Therefore, I find it particularly stupid and arrogant for someone to take such a position. For the President to fail is for the United States to fail, and for some fat, wealthy wind-bag like Rush to wish for it is heartless to the millions of people who would suffer for it.

What would have happened if a Democrat wished Bush failure after 9/11 or the invasion of Iraq? Can you imagine the uproar? Never mind tared and feathered, they'd have been arrested as a member of Al Qaeda and sent to Guantanamo.

The Republicans are a useless joke at this point. They prefer to fight for the sake of fighting, argue to do nothing, and attack Obama's efforts to do something without even giving a viable alternative that represents a break from the corrupt, failed policies that got us here in the first place. Their mantra now seems to be, "Let it fail."

On "Meet the Press" this week, Newt Gingrich made a list of Republican Party leaders; included were Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal, Louisiana governor best known for his dopey-faced, ingenuous, do-nothing rebuttal to Obama's message to a joint session of Congress. They seem to think the answer is in putting their party behind a minority mascot, apparently thinking it's all a matter of image and not of substance. If that's true, I'm actually not scared, because it means they haven't learned a thing about November's ass whooping and will continue to see ass whooping in future. Really, it's just sad and pathetic.

Oscar Predictions 2009

Seeing as I've seen a total of eight of the films nominated for Academy Awards this year, I figure people may want to know what I think about who is going to win. I debated about whether or not to reveal my predictions, knowing that the sheer brilliance of my predictive capacity is so highly influential. It is my hope that I do not spoil the Oscars for you with these picks.

Addendum: Correct answers are in blue, incorrect in red with the actual in green. In the end, I predicted 17 correct out of 24, or 71%. One of my mistakes was going with Nate Silver's predictions, which I shall not do again.

Actor, Leading
Mickey Rourke, "The Wrestler"

(Sean Penn, "Milk")

Actor, Supporting
Heath Ledger, "The Dark Night"

Actress, Leading
Kate Winslet, "The Reader"

Actress, Supporting
Taraji P. Henson, "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"
(Penélope Cruz, "Vicky Cristina Barcelona")

Animated Feature
"WALL-E"

Art Direction
"The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"

Cinematography
"Slumdog Millionaire"

Costume Design
"The Duchess"

Documentary Feature
"Man on Wire"

Documentary Short
"The Conscience of Nhem En"
("Smile Pinki")

Film Editing
"Slumdog Millionaire"

Foreign Language Film
"Waltz with Bashir"
("Departures")

Makeup
"The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"

Original Score
"Slumdog Millionaire"

Original Song
"Jai Ho," from "Slumdog Millionaire"

Short Film, Animated
"Presto"
("La Maison en Petits Cubes")

Short Film, Live Action
"Spielzeugland (Toyland)"

Sound Editing
"The Dark Knight"

Sound Mixing
"The Dark Knight"
("Slumdog Millionaire")

Visual Effects
"The Dark Knight"
("The Curious Case of Benjamin Button")

Screenplay, Adapted
"Slumdog Millionaire"

Screenplay, Original
"Milk"

DIRECTING
"Slumdog Millionaire"

BEST PICTURE
"Slumdog Millionaire"

I Want My HDTV

Tomorrow was supposed to be the deadline for networks to begin broadcasting exclusively in High Definition. Stupidity once again thwarts the best-laid plans.

Quite honestly I am dumbfounded that after a year of constant reminders that broadcasting was switching to HD on February 17, 2009 the government thinks the people are unprepared. I suppose since the government takes no less than five-ten years to get anything started, one year was just too damn quick!

Even more ridiculous is the fact that people are unprepared. I am dumbfounded that after a year of constant reminders, people still haven't gotten the clue that they ought to get a nice little converter box or an HD-ready TV already. I suppose some people are just too damn dumb and lazy.

I don't care if you aren't prepared. You've had an entire year. And if you weren't aware, then obviously you don't have a TV anyway. This is an example of government enabling: Allowing the laziness instead of saying to all of those unprepared people, "Too damn bad we gave you a year and if you don't get things squared your TV will go blank until you do, so la-de-da, go find sympathy in the dic-tion-ary."

Because you know what's going to happen? People still won't be prepared in June or whenever because they're sitting around saying to each other, "Well whadaya know, we've got ourselves another three whole months to sit on our asses."

Just for comparison, in that amount of time I've upgraded to an HD-ready LCD TV, and since upgraded the LCD TV.

On the Origin of Specious Theories

Yesterday, Charles Darwin turned 200. Congratulations, you don't look a day over 73. His most famous work, On the Origin of Species, is 150, and there are still some numbnuts who doubt evolution.

Forgive me my ensuing rant; this is aimed at any of the less scientifically evolved in this audience. Think of it as a "what I would say at a creationist rally were I not afraid to be shot."

Truth is, evolution is all around us, despite the claims of some that evidence is hard to find. I like to point to a few examples in every day life that I find obvious. Genetic diseases for instance. Most of these are caused by mutations in our DNA--something missing, something extra, something blocked off--and mutation is a central idea of evolution. Here is proof that not all mutations are successful and lend themselves to be passed along. That's natural selection at work.

That's not to mention the profound amount of evidence amassed from scientific exploration and the fossil record. While evolution is not a natural law, the preponderance of evidence places it well above a reasonable doubt.

Then there's creationism, the steadfast adherence to the literal word of the Bible which shouldn't even mingle with the words "scientific veracity," never mind be judged on such merits.

On behalf of God, I am insulted that creationists think him too inferior to have been the one to come up with the whole idea of evolution and set it in motion in the first place. If God created all, then he must have created all the rules this universe follows, so it seems rather silly that instead of accepting science and attributing it to the greatness and glory of God, creationists deny science and God's power to create it altogether. Doesn't show much faith in the almighty.

So creationism got shot down over time and up comes this new, specious theory of Intelligent Design. One might also call it Sneaky Creationism because it's basically creationism in sheep's clothing. Not only does it continue to insult God's power, it goes on to insult everyone's intelligence. Intelligent Design is the "theory" that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause." An intelligent cause could be but is not necessarily and maybe not and yet probably, most likely, God. Please ignore the man behind the curtain.

It's interesting to note that one of the primary goals of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement is simply to undermine evolution (through deception, willful misinterpretation, and outright lies, mind you). Indeed, the movement's broader aim is to overthrow materialistic science altogether. Scientists themselves agree that ID is junk science--not testable by the methods of science. Purposefully aiming to destroy other theory is patently unscientific. You can't put things forward as theory which are not based on evidence and untested in every way, shape, and form, and which have at their core a biased pre-determined conclusion specifically aimed at the veracity of another theory. That's not science. Really, it's just stupidity.

Let's look at some arguments:

Irreducible complexity: This theory states that biological systems are too complex to have evolved on their own from simpler things. Basically, because things in nature are so very complex, they could not have come to be through nature. Must be some intelligent agent. Systems (like certain organs for instance) that are composed of many different parts that rely on each other for the system to function must have been created in their final design, because otherwise they would never function at all. Quite the unimaginative all-or-nothing argument.

Point number one: Evolution has had an unfathomable amount of time in which to work. Quite simply, no one can imagine just how long four billion years is, and it is that fact that leads some to think it was not long enough.

Point number two: Who says everything functions well now? The eye for example--one of the most complex organs in our body. It's riddled with problems and imperfections. Ever notice how many people wear glasses? There's blindness and all sorts of wonderful ailments of the eye. The design itself leaves much to be desired; there's a blindspot, we only see well in bright light, the lens can fog up, they grow increasingly less effective with age--heck, they're limited to the "visible" light spectrum. Now look at a body as a whole and contemplate just how many things go wrong with it. This, to me, is proof that evolution is a crude and happenstance procession. Think about it and you'll realize how poor and unintelligent our design really is.

If we were designed, why weren't we designed better? Is God really such a shoddy workman?

I like the way Richard Dawkins explains it in The Extended Phenotype. He asks the reader to contemplate a jet engine, but one not meticulously designed with the end purpose in mind. This jet engine is randomly put together piece by piece with no particular aim or purpose; nonetheless, additions that make it more jet-engine-like increase its chances of survival. There's no thought process. Quite simply, changes that detract from its jetness blow it up when turned on and changes that add to its jetness don't, allowing it to live to the next round of changes. The end result, after much time, is going to be a very ugly, illogically constructed, barely workable jet engine prone to malfunction and not even aerodynamic. Just like our human body (beauty is in the eye of the beholder after all).

Point number three: This theory lacks any imagination of intermediate states if they believe a system could only work in its complete stage or not at all. However, with thought, one can easily see that not only could primordial and intermediate changes work, but would systematically lead to improvement through natural selection. Take a fish without eyes. Tends to get eaten a lot, tends to starve a lot 'cause it can't find its food. One mutation makes a skin cell light-sensitive and now fish can learn that food is found in lighter areas, predators in darker areas. Tends to live longer now, have more babies to which it passes the light-sensitive cell. One cell becomes many and fish can detect more changes in light and its environment, now it knows when a large light-blocking predator has roamed into the light areas. Tends to live longer. Another mutation leads to a hard, clear film over the light cells, focusing the light and now fish sees shapes. Now it can distinguish between different foods and different predators, and maybe now it knows that some big fish won't eat it, but will dig up food it couldn't get before. Fish tends to live longer, and so on. Each intermediate mutation that helps it survive leads naturally towards improvement. Each mutation that detracts from survival get it killed, thus tending to prevent those mutations from getting popular. Each step is very small, completely random, and rigorously tested in the field, yet millions of small changes through a sort of process of elimination can lead to something quite complex.

Fine-tuned universe: This theory states that if even a slight change to the many constants of the universe were made, humans would not be able to exist in the universe. Ergo, these constants must have been set precisely by some intelligent creator with humans in mind. This is closely related to the anthropic principle, which states any valid theory of the universe must be consistent with our ability to exist in the universe in the here and now.

The thinking on this one is all backwards and particularly arrogant. It assumes all of creation from the perspective of human kind despite the fact we all live on one microscopic speck of that vastness. That's far more arrogant than an ant in Missouri thinking the entire United States was set up just to make his anthill possible.

Let me rephrase the fine-tuned universe from a more objective perspective: Human existence developed within the pre-existing constraints of natural law and could not have developed any other way given the laws at work. We know a theory is invalid if it would have made our existence impossible, because if it were true we wouldn't be here to notice.

It's not that the universe is set up to be perfect for our existence, but that we developed in the only way possible given the laws of the universe in which we exist.

Naturally, if a law were changed now, we would all die. But if the law were different to begin with, it is reasonable to imagine we would have developed differently to suit the law or not developed at all. So no matter how random the set-points of natural law might be, no matter which alternate reality you look at, life (if it develops) has no choice but to follow the rules already laid down.

The fine-tuned universe theory presupposes an intelligent being standing at the beginning of creation, imagining an end result where humans are so-and-so, and then setting up the universe such-and-such to match. Science presupposes that the natural laws came to be such-and-such and through natural processes, humans developed so-and-so as a direct result of the such-and-such laws of the universe--humans developed to match the universe; the universe didn't develop to match humans.

Alright, enough variations on that theme--it's just they all sound so nice and I couldn't bear to choose.

Here's what I love about Intelligent Design though: While its creators ultimately believe God is the designer, they nonetheless leave this intelligent designer a rather ambiguous fellow. Here's my suggestion:

The designers were aliens.

Who's to say intergalactic aliens didn't visit our pretty little marble in space and inseminate it with the bioengineered seeds of life? That might also explain why everything developed in such an apparently well-designed way. IT certainly doesn't rule it out. In fact, it doesn't rule out any flight of fancy fantasy. Because that's all it is. Fantasy.

The universe is a coincidence--it's written into the laws of physics. Every particle is part of the cause-and-effect machine, something far more complex than the human mind can comprehend. That's why it's hard to believe in them. Everything actually is all connected.

To prove it, yesterday was also Abraham Lincoln's 200th birthday. Another man whose writing made a lot of arrogant and ignorant people quite angry.

Stimulus Plan

Question: Do any of our leaders in the U.S. government know how to pay their taxes?

I have a new stimulus plan idea: Have every politician actually pay all their taxes. That ought to bring in a billion dollars or so.

Obama Bless America

It is hard to put to words the elation I feel as it becomes reality: George W. Bush is gone, and Barack Obama is our President. I feel as though the nightmare has ended and I have waken to the euphoric reassurance of reality. The only difference being the nightmare truly happened, the damage truly done.

On day one, Obama begins the long process of wiping the dark and greasy smudge upon our country that was the Bush presidency into the past. I smile to myself knowing that the true principles of this country are being released from their prison and reinstated upon their lofty thrones. Our Constitution, in exile for eight years, may now return; I want to parade it through our streets, a hero returned.

For near a decade now I've had to qualify myself when I say I'm proud to be American. Not of the country's present state or current leaders, but of the underlying vision that gives it the strength to always repair its wounds and heal its woes. Now I can say it freely, "I am proud to be American," and people need only look to the past few days to know why.

Change is the beauty of the United States. The Constitution grants us regular and periodic change and the right to help decide how that change should manifest. We therefore have the power to ever balance history, the bad for the good, the low for the high, the base and petty for the noble and great.

May whatever god bless Obama as Obama blesses this country with the change it so much needs.

Heroes & Miracles

Two words I think are over used. Forgive me, the following may sound cynical.

There was this plane crash on the Hudson River in NYC. A bird flew into the engine, the pilot tried to get back to the airport but couldn't, so put the plane down on the Hudson.

Let me start by saying I think it is excellent that no one was hurt and the pilot did a damn good job of getting the plane down relatively safely. Everyone came together and the passengers were quickly brought ashore.

Then they immediately start throwing around the word "miracle" and "heroes."

Let's look at the definition of "miracle":

mir-a-cle
-Noun
1. an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.
(Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1))

A few observations: A bird is a flying animal that sometimes has the ill-fate or poor-foresight of being sucked into plane engines, which can cause damage to said plane. Gravity is the natural force that makes things like broken airplanes fall from the sky. A pilot is a human being with (all things being equal) complete control of all of the plane's controls, and it is his actions that guide the plane to the best of his and the plane's ability. So, I'm pretty sure we can explain this event in terms of existing physical and human powers.

I would call it perfect execution on the pilot's behalf and a number of favorable conditions. I would call it a text-book example of what can happen and what should be done when those things happen.

This is only one example, but hardly a miracle. They want to call this pilot a hero, but then they go and take all his credit away by calling it a miracle--something outside the control of nature or the pilot. Can't have it both ways. The guy's a hero for overcoming the forces of nature, or it's a miracle and screw the pilot; this was God at work. Of course, we all know a halo of light and a choir of angels didn't suddenly surround this plane. In fact, it had apparently fallen from God's regard, leaving it to the pilot to save their skins.

Now let's look at "hero":

he-ro
-Noun
1. a person of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his/her brave deeds and noble qualities.

Admittedly hard to take issue with because this pilot did have the good sense to put his skill into a water-landing instead of plowing into some houses, killing everyone.

Brave deeds? I'm pretty sure the plane was coming down no matter what and he happened to be the person entrusted not to kill everyone if he could manage it. No choice but to put training, hope, and prayer into making the contact of airplane on water as gentle as possible. Noble qualities? Ok, he had the intelligence, training, and focus to execute the above with aplomb. Beyond that, we don't know, though I'm sure he's a nice guy. Distinguished courage? I hope all pilots have the same training and gumption--afterall, they're maneuvering something many tons very quickly through mid-air with a number of people who value their lives dependent upon it--and if I should be in such an emergency I'd hate to have one that screams, covers his eyes, and yells, "We're all gonna die!"

But let me make it clear: I have only praise for the training, intelligence, and focus for this pilot, who, despite gravity, did a wonderful job of using the plane's controls to make a survivable impact between plane and water.

A hero to me, though, is someone who goes above and beyond, someone with the courage to decide to enter danger for some truly altruistic or super-human act. I question whether someone (and this pilot is just an example) can be a hero simply for doing their job--for doing what is expected of them.

And if a deed is not one's job, then I question whether someone can be a hero simply for doing what every human being ought do for another. Is someone a hero for returning a lost wallet? For stopping to help an old woman with a flat tire? For carrying a disabled person down a flight of stairs in a fire? I should hope any good human would do such a thing.

That being said, would that every plane, if natural forces demand it crash, do so with so little consequence, and that every pilot in such a situation has the skill to match that of former fighter-pilot and crisis-management student Chesley B. "Sully" Sullenberger III.