Gee, That's Swell

Hurricane Katrina: predicted to be the most damage inducing hurricane for the gulf coast since a hurricane in 1965.

The Weather Channel broadcasts had said since at least last Friday that it was going to inflict terrible devastation in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama. The hurricane hit land on Monday morning. It is Wednesday; now 3 states have major damage and 3 others have minor damage and the domestic oil industry has suffered damage. So what do I read in the New York Times this morning:

"President Bush announced Tuesday that he would cut short his extended summer vacation and fly to Washington to begin work on Wednesday with a task force that will coordinate the work of 14 federal agencies involved in the relief effort. "

That's really generous. Way to support your people!

Beach Diapers

So I don't know how a person could possibly leave something so gross behind, but there was a dirty diaper on the ground next to the shower at the beach . Yes, I know dirty diapers have been found in terrible places from the time disposables were invented. It's just been a long time since I've been surprised by one. It's just such a disgusting and unnecessary thing to do!!
I mean I hate littering in general. What if I just left some yucky underwear sitting on the ground? Would that be acceptable? No. Leaving diapers anywhere but the garbage is totally wrong, no matter what the situation.

PETA Pam

So I'm flipping around the other night and I see Pamela Anderson on Larry King. I didn't watch for more than 10 seconds but seeing how fake she looks led to another thought. She's all into PETA and being vegetarian and no cruelty to animals. I can't help but think... how can she be all "I love animals" and have had plastic surgery. Now, I haven't researched this, but I can speculate that somehow animals were used in some sort of way to test or advance the medical techniques/procedures and materials involved in plastic surgery over its history. PETA is so obtuse for having her be one of their poster children.

Happy Rant

Hey, I got my first non-spam comment from someone I don't know!!!!!!!! It's in response to the Discovery Channel post. I'm so excited! I read a couple of his posts. I don't who he is or anything about him, but he's very feisty, check him out:


http://curiouoso.diaryland.com

Los Angeles Traffic SUCKS!

That's it. Every once and a while I just have to acknowledge that fact.

Discovery Channel Gone Wild

I just finished watching the first episode of the show Going Tribal on the Discovery Channel. As far as the concept of the show and "immersion" of the host in tribal culture goes, I'm still contemplating my views. What does make my mind tingle is all the nudity and mutilation. I myself didn't mind the nudity; I do hate blood though, so I needed to avert my eyes during the scarification process. I wonder how the Discovery Channel was allowed to show total frontal male nudity, topless women and a nude breast being scarred with a razor blade. They did put up a warning about indigenous nudity on the commercial breaks. But I have a feeling that if these people were actors and this was released in a movie theater it would be rated NC-17. How is it that non-compensated people being naked and bloody is more acceptable than compensated people being naked and bloody? I only ask this to the easily offended that send letters to the FCC and such.

I also ask this question with respect to the rest of non-movie channel cable being so sanitized save the Cartoon Network and animated Fox shows (they happily get away with murder). I want to see more warnings on my commercial breaks. I want to see more uncensored TV without having to pay the big bucks!

When Good Books Go Bad

So I just finished reading Deception Point by Dan Brown. It was one of those books that I just couldn't put down after getting into a couple of chapters. The book is about a political race and uses NASA as the key campaign debate. The author appears to have done some good research. I felt as I was reading it that most of the scientific and technological information was true, so few questions caused me pause during my reading. The action seemed lively, but mostly plausible (except for this far-fetched escape off an iceberg, but the book is fiction so I let it slide). But then, in the last 3 or 4 chapters as I raced to the end of the book, the scenarios of action and death-defying became more and more unrealistic.

And then, BAM! At the end of the book, a classic Hollywood ending: bad guys crushed, good guys win, a little corny humor and little romance - all in the White House to boot!

When an author brings me into contemporary social settings and real places with realistic characters, I expect a realistic ending. Nope, didn't happen this time.

More of that old Intelligent Design

Damn, I fell kept falling asleep during this episode of Nightlight last night: ABC News: Despite Criticism, 'Intelligent Design' Finds Powerful Backers.

The episode focused on the Discovery Institute in Seattle, whose website is one of those that I looked at before I wrote my last post. The intelligent design movement is being pushed out into the country from a progressive city. I call that intelligent design!

Anyway, here's a good article featuring the "debate" that the proponents of intelligent design say is going on in the scientific community. I call it more of a debunking. Maybe the Discovery Institute should feature it on their website.

Maybe Evolution, Maybe Not

Bush Remarks Roil Debate on Teaching of Evolution

Pres Bush is his usual vague way has apparently endorsed intelligent design; but not really, according to his advisors what he said was just common sense. I generally don't pay attention to what politicians say because they're usually saying it to make some supporter group happy. The only reason I'm paying attention to these statements is that the supporter groups that he is making happy can actually use his statements to affect change on the local level. His latest quote that is being championed by intelligent design supporters is " 'I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught.' Asked again by a reporter whether he believed that both sides in the debate between evolution and intelligent design should be taught in the schools, Mr. Bush replied that he did, 'so people can understand what the debate is about.' " Also, other articles about this statement reference a comment from him in Science magazine: "Bush said the federal government should not tell states or school boards what to teach but that 'scientific critiques of any theory should be a normal part of the science curriculum.' " They're all such little soundbites. He's so reckless with his positions to not fully explain them. Besides that, if local schools are receiving federal funds, then the big basics of education should be set at a federal level. What if some local school decided to teach that the South was right and it's terrible that they lost the war and Lincoln was a terrible president (actually they probably do in Alabama)? That would be an alternative historical perspective.

I don't agree with the theory of intelligent design being a theory, especially after checking out a couple of websites about it. It is a perspective. The "evidence" they claim to have is that there is no clear explanation of how certain microorganism came into being. So that's it. If I can't find a good explanation then it must be intelligent design. Whatever!

I have two big problems with saying that both sides of the debate should be taught. First of all, yes it's a debate... since when do schools teach about current political debate as scientific theory? This is a political and social debate; when you look at the scientific evidence for intelligent design you'll find none. Second problem is the question of who is the designer. Aliens? God? Mother Earth? Many gods/goddesses? Hell, let's bring back Zeus, he was cool.