Ponderings of a Scientist

“The Senate began work Wednesday on an election-year bill that would open a large area of the central Gulf of Mexico to oil and gas drilling, but would fall far short of a broader offshore energy development measure already approved by the House.” - Associated Press.  Link to full article

Don’t they get it, finding more oil is not the solution!  We are running out of oil; let’s not ruining our few remaining unpolluted (minimally polluted) natural environments searching for a few more drops.  G.W. and his cronies are rich enough, let us stop supporting them and start supporting inventors and business using creative, cost-efficient, energy-efficient, environmentally sound means to create power!

I’m reading a book entitled Edge of Battle by Dale Brown, which is a fictional novel about illegal immigration.  In the book, terriorists start using the Mexican border to cross into the U.S. and do harm. The fictional president enacts an offensive and upsets a lot of people who think he is militarizing the border and acting like a bigot, xenophobe, and racist.  I’m only on page 90 of 300 or 400, but it has already inspired me to rethinking my opinions on illegal immigration.

Last time I posted anything on the topic, my stance was rather wishy-washy, however no I’m swaying more  toward the idea that:  illegal immigrants are criminals.  I don’t really think it matters why you want to come into the country, doing so at an undesignated border crossing is still illegal and that makes you a trespasser, at the least, and a criminal, at the most.  Its not that I want to prevent Mexicans the opportunity to come to the U.S., they just need to do it legally and the U.S. administration has a duty to improve the legal immigration procedures such that legal migration is a viable option.

Also I’m so sick of the excuse that:  illegals will do jobs Americans won’t.  If you mean they will subject themselves to near slave labor and not complain because they are afraid of deportation, then yes Americans won’t do slave labor.  However, Americans would willing do the job tasks themselves, if they were treated humanely and paid a living wage to do so!  The employers of illegals need to be procesuted more so then the illegal immigrants themselves.  There would not be illegal immigration if there were no jobs.

I’m sure y’all have different opinions and I’d like to hear them!

“Checks and Balances”  I thought that statement was the cornerstone of our governmental system.  However, apparently, while the rest of us were learning all about the division of labor and power in our government structure, in US history classes, G.W was busy smoking dope in the alley behind his prep school.  I’ve always felt that the power wasn’t exactly balanced, but at least we had some sort of system of checks and balances.  Now instead of a democracy we are ruled by a barely cloaked wantabe dictatorship.  Since when does the president get to 1) make his own rules 2) disregard the rules made by Congress 3) disregard the interpretation of the rules by the Court and my favorite 4) claim that the rules don’t matter because they don’t apply to the Presidency - his position is some how above the rules!  This little rant stems from the BBC article I just read titled “Bush ‘blocked phone tap inquiry’”.

Did you know if you disagree with any of the administrations policies your are:

1. Unpatriotic,
2. Compromising National Security,
3. A Liberal!!

I bet The Dresden Dolls are all three and I recommend their newish CD, “Yes, Virginia” and if you disagree with me I’m going to tell everyone that you are unpatriotic and a threat to national security you damn mentally unstable liberal!!! (Zipy did you catch the sarcasm??)

ARGGGHHHHH!!! Will our legislative body ever take on a cause that matters to more than the lobbyists and rich of this country? I can not believe that the House is wasting my time and money discussing the Estate Tax, which the Republicans have slyly renamed the “Death Tax” (I’m so sick of political vernacular!!). Should we really be worried about how much in taxes the heir’s of the ultra-rich have to pay? Please, if you’re getting 5 million from Daddy I think you can afford a little tax, even a lot of tax. The republicans’ compromise bill, which the wussy democrats may agree to, would cause the Feds to loss 60 billion a year in tax revenue! Sixty billion; its not like we’re in a deficit of monumental proportions and need that money!!!! Stupid Stupid Stupid!

Also, if I hear that the “Death Tax” is immoral because it taxes the same money twice one more time I’m going to scream. You can’t tax dead people!! In reality it works like this: you taxed Dad’s money once when he earned it our through capital gains, then it became the kid’s money via inheritance and their new money gets taxed once! Sort of like all the other taxes out there! For example, my Dad’s income is taxed, then he is nice enough to give me money to help with a down payment on a house purchase (hint, hint), if that amount is larger than $10,000 or $15,000 (I’m not exactly sure and too irritated to look it up) it is considered a gift which I then pay taxes on. Mr and Mrs. House Representatives when are you going to repeal the gift tax law? Isn’t it immoral too?

Oh wait I have an idea, why don’t you worry about something useful like increasing the minimum wage or ending our invasion (not WAR) in Iraq!

This message brought to you because of a thoughtful conversation with my husband last night and a segment on NPR.

Three comments related only in the temporal sense in that all were
brought to my attention today. From most funny to least:

So apparently if Adidas sponsors the World Cup and you and 1000 of your
closest friends decide to go the stadium in Nike’s, your shoes will be
confiscated and you will have to trudge through the beer and popcorn
soaked floor in your stockinged feet. Or at least you should
following FIFA’s logic: a large group of Dutch soccer fans
arrived at the World Cup match between the Netherlands and the Ivory
Coast in orange lederhosen which they had purchased in a Dutch grocery
market. Problem was the lederhosen were created by Bavaria, a
Dutch beer brewery, and since Bavaria is not a sponsor of the Dutch
World Cup team or the World Cup Tournee itself (Budweiser is the brew
of choice - arghh how did cheap American beer get the sponsorship for
the largest tournament of a sport Americans don’t even call by its
appropriate name!) all of the fans were told to ditch the pants or
leave. So 1000 Dutch fans watched the game in their undies and
then walked back to their hotels in their undies as the lederhosen were
confiscated not just held for the game by the FIFA officials. On
a similar note I had a bag confiscated by the Fleet Center (Now the
Garden - again-) because the country went from yellow terror alert to orange
while I was on the way to the hockey game and apparently bags are
allowed during federal yellow terror alerts, but disallowed during any
higher level of alert. FIFA and the Fleet Center stole our stuff,
and I think I can speak for the Dutch when I say I want my orange
lederhosen back, er I mean my bag!!

So I’ve been thinking lately and I’ve come up with this. I hate
empty talk. I find it terribly annoying when people claim to have
one value (ethic/moral) system, but then don’t act on it. I mean
please, enough with the righteous indignation! Part of this
realization has been a personal evaluation and while I think I’m better
than average when it comes to practicing what I preach, I’m going to
work on it. I think my worst offense is complaining about
politics and not doing anything to change the social landscape around
me (besides voting - and I should really do that more, engage in local
politics, not just state and federal elections). I guess this is
because I don’t know where to start or what I can do. Any
thoughts?

I think society’s worst offense is complaining about gasoline prices,
yet not doing anything about our oil dependency. Really if your
driving an SUV 20 miles to work each day you have no right to whine
about gas prices. In fact you should be paying me for driving a
hybrid and walking as much as possible (besides the commute) While I
would love for everyone to value the
environment and be concerned about global warming and urban sprawl and
super powerful multinational oil firms and reduce their oil use for
those reasons, I understand this is a pipe dream. So stop driving
gas guzzlers because your selfish and don’t want to pay the fuel costs
or want to buy into the hybrid trend; I don’t care what your moral
grounds, as long as you stop driving the trucks, caravans, SUVs,
oversized sedans and overpowered sports cars

I have an idea for a campaign. I’m going to write
bumpsticker-esque comments and stick them in the window of my car while
I make my stupid commute each day (that reminds me for those of you
that care, looks like I got the new job, I going to revisit the place
next week and get the low-down on salary, benefits, hours etc. before
making a decision, but I’m their #1 choice.)

Some Ideas:

For Yuppy Mommies: If you really cared about your kids’ future you wouldn’t be driving that beast
For Ford F-150 Drivers: I don’t see anything in your bed, do you
really use that truck to haul things? You know you can rent a
truck from U-haul for less then you pay in gas for those times you really need it.
For the people that need the “family car”: Stop buying your kids
so much shit and stop forcing them into so many activities and you
won’t need all that space in your car
For the Motorcyclists: Good fuel economy, now put on a helmet and a muffler and your good to go!

Any other ideas?

More Presidental Rhetoric:

G.W. says, “Military forces…delivered justice to (Zarqawi)”
G.W. means ” Our soliders killed Zarqawi”

A bit of lunch time food for thought:

1) The companies Timberland, Bank of America and Google now
give their employees cash incentives to purchase hybrids. If you work for Bank of America, within 90
miles of Boston ,you get $3000
extra in your paycheck when you buy a hybrid.

While I think this is GREAT, I do want to point out that the
term “hybrid” has morphed from “environmentally sound vehicle utilizing batteries
to minimize gasoline use, reduce emissions and increase mileage” to “anything
with an electronic engine component, possibly used for the above purpose, but
more likely used to 1) make SUVS more powerful while only slightly improving mileage
(say from 15 to 19 mpg) and 2) satisfy the desires of the public to be trendy
(read: have a hybrid) while still maintaining the yuppie, soccer mom appeal.

The short of it is: tax breaks, cash incentives, use of special
traffic lanes, all benefits given to hybrids, should instead be given based on
fuel efficiency/emissions not on hardware. It makes no sense for a Ford SUV hybrid to get
these benefits, while a standard Honda Civic or Accord or any other small,
ultra low emissions vehicle or a biodiesel vehicle is excluded.

2) I was listening to the radio show “Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy: Quandry
Phase” yesterday and I found this funny and TRUE (think cell phones with cameras/tvs/video
recorders/email devices/mp3 players):

“… Ford
uses these overly complex yet useless electronic devices, because of the joy he
fills when he actual gets it to work. He’s
so happy he neglects to realize the uselessness of the product. Essential the superficial defects of the
product mask the major defects…” (or something like that)

Silly me I always thought marriage was a union between two
people who loved each other and wanted to spend their lives together.
Apparently so does Answers.com:

1. The legal union of a
   man and woman as husband and wife.
2. The state of being married;
   wedlock.
3. A common-law
   marriage.
4. A union between two
   persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage:
   a same-sex marriage

But apparently, according to the republicans, marriage is all
about a man and a woman coming together to make babies and raise their family. According to her, the judges in Mass.
who allowed gay marriage, didn’t just open marriage to another group of
(deserving) people, but instead called her values of marriage as a baby making
act into question and thus are calling her a bigot! Does that make any sense? If so I guess my
marriage is completely unsuccessful!!

Interesting Quotes for
G.W.’s speech yesterday:

“In recent months, however, some
activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine
marriage.”

“America
is a free society, which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens.
This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one
of our most basic social institutions. Our government should respect every
person, and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction
between these responsibilities. We should also conduct this difficult debate in
a manner worthy of our country, without bitterness or
anger.”

Contradictory?