Somewhere over the Rainbough

Libertarian Bard

2008-02-03T04:43:00.000-06:00

So I finally made it back to Ruta Maya's this past tuesdays for the poetry night. I have been there a couple of times over the past year. I shared The NeverWar with them last spring when I first wrote it.

This time I decided to be real brave and share one I call "Fish for Sale." Keep in mind I do not claim to be that great of a poet but what I may lack in my wordsmithishness I make up for in passion. Which probably makes me a little shrill... oh well.

In any case I spent about an hour trying to decide whether to share my fish poem. I finally decided in favor of it. The reason it was a challenge was due to the fact that it is intentionally confrontational and critical of the left's take on sweat shops and human prosperity in general.

I'll give you an example. My favorite line from the poem is "We will think globally of your poor starving village, while we shop locally from our not-starving-american neighbors."

Ruta Maya's tends to be a hang out for very leftish persons. The "think globally, shop locally" bumper sticker is a pretty common sight in their parking lot. In any case my mind was contemplating the possibility of being booed off the stage and thus my reluctance.

What got me up was the fact that the host said that their was only one poet left. So we were about to stop like an hour early. I hate it when they do that. I am their to hear poetry and when they end at 8pm well it kinda sucks I think. So I ran up and put my name on the list.

My thought was this: maybe their will be one libertarian in the audience, and maybe that one guy will appreciate my poem and know that he ain't the only non-lefty in the house. So I went for it.

Afterwards I got quite a bit of cheering from the audience including some from a few persons I know to be left-leaning. I also had one libertarian guy come up and tell me that it took a lot of nerve to say "bring on the wal-mart" to that audience. That was really cool.

On top of that once I signed up another handful of people were inspired to sign up including one guy who had never been behind a mic before, and one guy who apparently felt the need to clear out my libertarian mojo with a anti-development "do we really need another stripmall" poem of his own.

So poetry night got filled up all the way to 9pm and there was a lot of good stuff that came later. So it was really cool.

Now I have in my brain plans for a "yes we really do need another stripmall poem." An "anti-global warming poem." A poem inspired by a certain famous document... and last but not least an Iran poem.

Yeah happy fun.

Me... On the Radio?

2008-01-29T05:42:00.000-06:00

Probably not. So I listen to the JB and Sandy show occasionally. It is a local morning talk show in austin. Its generally pretty fun, optimistic, upbeat etc. Well the sole female on the show decided to resign this past december.

I should mention first that this is an unfortunate loss as I think she really made the show. But aside from that one of my first thoughts when I heard this was "I wish I knew how to get a job in radio... That would be such a cool job."

I have thought about it for a while really. It has to do with my personality. Face to face I am often somewhat stultified when it comes to expressing myself, but put me behind a mic or on a speaker and this whole different person often comes out (not always but often).

It has occasionally been a part of me that I didn't realize was there. Frankly that was really cool. I've found myself able to be someone I didn't know I could be. Strong, passionate, happy, sad, elated, all for the listening and occaionally viewing pleasure of others (I was in a couple of plays at my non-x-tian church).

So a few weeks ago I caught the tail-end of that same radio show when the hosts were mentioning that they were accepting submissions from listeners. Basically we could send in a video audition to be on the show. So I imediately went to their site read the directions and created my own entry with the only camera available to me.

It happened to be my cell phone. I was really passionate, way over enthusiastic, I stuttered a bit which doesn't usually happen but then I don't generally speak extemporaneously on camera, oh yeah and the video was really low quality.

Anyhow I mainly got negative comments regarding the video when it was uploaded to their blog and it occurred to me that I probably should have put a little more thought and/or effort into the process.

Not that I didn't put plenty thought and effort into the process its just that I may have taken the directions too literally and it occurred to me too late that it probably would have been worthwhile to invest in a cheap web cam for the project.

See they said just to be creative, i.e. get their attention, and show your personality... so I did. I started with a stanza fron a longfellow poem that I happen to love. Of course this inspired people to comment that they do not read poetry on the air oh yeah and my personality/exuberance on camera comes off as being under the influence of illegal substances.

Anyhow the poem was to get their attention/be creative. And I suppose it got their attention but it seems not in the way I wanted. So since my first attempt seemed to have fallen flat. I decided I would try to demonstrate my wit by making a video doing a humorous take on the news. Unfortunately this didn't work out so great.

Yeah it turns out the few people I showed it to thought it was funny but most of the commenters stopped the moment I said the word "news." I should mention that before I made this one I actually made a couple of videos that I had not finished editing and was intending on submitting as my second video. It was a fake radio show I created by filming my car radio and driving around in my car while basically conversing with myself.

Anyhow I had put both of them up and was still messing around with them, trying out various editting software when another co-applicant submitted a second video of herself talking while filming her car radio. Of course my thoughts were what are the odds of her coming up with the same thing but that took the spark out of my idea because I really didn't want to look like a copy cat.

So I did fake news instead and mainly got more negative comments. Honestly I can handle negative stuff its the quanity that bugged me. I found myself thinking "did nobody make it to the funny..." and "can I not deliver a punchline?"

Anyhow one commenter just thought most of the jokes would have been lost on the average listener. Meanwhile the show's hosts have been putting up posts about how great a job it will be, how hard you have to work, how much radio will mean to you if you get into it, and most recently that they want someone who will really "upgrade" the show. Every time they put up something like that I think.... "hey yes... I want to do that..."

But alas, the truth is even I doubt that I would fit in with those guys. They spend a portion of every show dicussing the latest celebrity news and gossip... ::yawn::.

Meanwhile if you look at my blog posts you'll see my thoughts and interest revolve around politics, science, sci-fi, writing, economics etc... and this is where the audience ie. listeners get to go :::yawn::: "Who is this weirdo yapping in my ear about the ethical implications and limitations of atheism..."

So it really is a pipe dream, and not an especially realistic one at that. Yet it still pulls at me like there is this part of my brain saying... "hell yeah... you could do this... you should do this."

But then I know I am not ready to give up massage therapy regardless so I have been kind of hoping that in the incredibly unlikely event of being offered such a job that I wouldn't have to. But if I did have too.. I don't know what I would do. Massage is a part of me now. I can't unlearn what I know. I just know there is a limit to how long I can do it.

It is physically taking its toll already, but I got a lot of years left in me and I am no where near quits. Still radio is this whole other universe and maybe just maybe they would like a weirdo like me to occasionally comment on the deep philosophical implications of slaying vampires, and traveling at warp 9.9. Or on why dark matter is the modern day equivalent of ether... maybe... what my favorite prime number is... lol or not?!

Updates about me

2008-01-28T05:32:00.000-06:00

I am now a married woman. Woo Hoo! if you search my name "rainbough" at photobucket.com you will find my wedding albums, and can see pics of me getting married in a cave in my red dress.

Also I am back at massage heights although a different location, and I am shocked to discover I actually enjoy working there. Given how vehmently I hated the last massage heights this has come as a pleasant surprise. Of course the money isn't great but the tips are good.

BilLee has left home depot and as a result is currently in the process of fielding calls from many prospective employers. He really wants something that will be a great fit for him. That he will enjoy, will be good pay, and that he can stick with for a long time.

The down side of this is that our house hunt is on hold once again and there are an awful lot of prospective employers knocking at the door (i.e. phone). Its been frustrating when we finally find one we think will be great, go through the interview process, and then discover that he didn't get the job. This has happened twice now.

In other news we recently got a DBA in williamson county for our massage/yoga business. BilLee is continuing his training to become a yoga instructor and soon we hope to combine our talents in our own yoga and massage studio.

I am nervous about starting out on my own. It can be rough to put yourself out there and actually ask people for business. I am not sure how well I will fare at it, but I think it is very worthwhile to gain the experience of doing so even if it turns out I am not especially good at it.

I am going to break up my updates into multiple posts. Part 2 coming soon.

The Great Moronic RIAA

2008-01-03T02:54:00.000-06:00

Recording industry goes after personal use:

The Howell case was not the first time the industry has argued that making a personal copy from a legally purchased CD is illegal. At the Thomas trial in Minnesota, Sony BMG's chief of litigation, Jennifer Pariser, testified that "when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Copying a song you bought is "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy,' " she said.

My opinion of the RIAA: HA HA HA HA....

New Hampshire Civil Unions

2008-01-02T02:44:00.000-06:00

New Hampshire Legalizes same sex marriages.

New Hampshire is the fourth state to permit civil unions, but the first to do it without a court decision or the threat of one. New Hampshire Governor John Lynch signed the law on May, which grants same-sex couples the same rights, responsibilities and obligations as married male-female couples, but it does not call the union a marriage.

Yea New Hampshire! But on a more serious note why does it matter so much what we do and do not call a gay marriage?

Happy '08

2008-01-01T11:00:00.000-06:00

In celebration of the new year I had to be the geek that called my siblings on the east coast to ask them what year it was at 11:45pm central time. When I told my twin that I was calling from last year he says, "you can't call from last year... you can only call from now." Or something to that effect I don't remember the exact wording.

Expensive Unfinished Roads

2007-07-27T10:30:00.000-05:00

Austin now has toll roads, and they are horrible. I hate them.

I do not have a problem with the idea of paying a toll to use a road. It actually makes pretty good financial sense if it is taking you to a job and can get you there significantly quicker, well why not?

Oh yeah one other problem -I do not think the government has any business making people pay tolls who paid for the roads to begin with. In Austin the big complaint was the idea of people getting "double taxed."

Basically we are paying for the construction and maintenance of these roads with gasoline taxes, but then to use the road you have to give them additional money. What this does in effect is, it keeps most of the people off the toll roads who actually paid for them to be built.

Meanwhile we are not really being "double taxed" actually we are at the very least being "triple taxed," and very likely quadruple taxed or more. That is because the toll road builders are getting their money from multiple sources including state level funds (this is presumably from the gasoline taxes), and county level funds (these would come from sales tax's funding bonds on the county level).

Now its also possible they are getting funds county level from ad valorem and property taxes. I doubt at least the property taxes part given how highly contested school money is these days, but I know at least the money is coming from multiple places in the county budgets which likely means multiple sources of funding.

What that means for us is that we pay for these roads every time we pay that extra 3 percent of sales tax. So if you buy gas anywhere in Texas you are paying for roads that the state will not let you drive on without you forking out additional funds, meanwhile if you buy any product in travis or williamson county Texas you are helping to pay for roads that the state will not let you drive on without demanding additional funds from you.

All of this would be actually tolerable if the roads were well designed and/or well priced. They are not. You might be thinking well if I need to get somewhere I will just stay on the frontage road, that way I won't have to pay the toll I will just have to put up with all the stop lights.

To combat this problem the frontage roads of the toll roads were designed to end at fairly random places, and then immediately start again. In application that means you are driving along and you have the option of either getting on the toll road or turning down a nearby road that will take you in different direction from where you were traveling.

Last night I found myself accidentally on the frontage of a toll road -it shunted me down a neighborhood road that was in the opposite direction of the direction I had been trying to travel to begin with. Meanwhile the roads have already opened in spite of the fact that they are unfinished. So if you actually get on them you find yourself forking out a 1.50 to stay on a road that ends a mile down the road.

Austin's toll roads have intentionally confusing signs, and intentionally confusing frontage roads. One day I was driving home from my fiance's sister's house. She lives off of the same road that we do. But a section of that road has been turned into a toll road, then the toll road splits from it and goes off in a different direction.

So I am trying to get home which used to be just a straight drive down 620 from her road to mine. Not today, I attempt to go home down 620 and I get to these signs that say toll45 with a right arrow. Well I do not want to get on the toll road so I try to turn the other way thinking I will find some part of the frontage road to get on that will skirt the toll section.

That isn't what happened, turning the other way put me on the same toll road going the opposite direction of my home with no option of getting back off. The frontage actually forced you onto the toll road. Well luckily this part of the toll road wasn't charging this particular night so I didn't have to pay anything but I am trying to find an exit so I can turn around.

The next exit I come across is the mopac exit. Once again all I want to do is exit so I can loop around and come back the other direction. So I get off on the next exit. What happens? The next exit is another toll road or rather a section of a road that was extended and then tolled. The rest of mopac is not a toll road.

So does getting on mopac give me any option of exiting the toll system? No. It immediately puts me on the toll part of mopac and then brings me to a toll plaza where they demand money from me. The whole mile or so I am on this road I am looking for a way to exit or turn around but there is none.

All you can do is go to the toll plaza where an actual person is waiting this time wanting 75 cents. Immediately afterward there is an exit (surprise!). So I get off on that exit. Then I notice a sign saying parmer lane next exit. Well I live near parmer lane so I figured I should drive down the frontage to parmer and then head back to my neck of the woods.

Does this happen? Sort of. It turns out completely unbeknownst to me that the left two lanes of the frontage shunted you back onto toll road. Well I didn't know this probably on account of the fact that it was dark and there were no signs to be seen indicating such. At least not in the little stretch of frontage I was on.

So by the time I realize I am headed back to a toll station wanting my money there is once again no way to turn around. There goes another 75 cents. So finally I get to parmer and start my 20 minute drive home. Oh and by the way my fiance's sister lives all of about 10 minutes away from us. In fact it used to be about a 5 minute drive before they stuck in the toll road. Now we have to get on a narrow one-lane frontage road, and sit at a long stop light we did not used to have to sit at. Why?

Oh thats because otherwise we would have to get on the toll road and pay 75 cents to get off on the very next exit which is maybe a mile from the entrance of the toll road. In other words they converted a section of 620 into toll road. In order to use that very short section of road that would bypass the one-lane high traffic frontage (that also did not used to be that narrow) we have to pay 75 cents. Oh and by the way before it was voted to turn this into a toll road, and before the rest of the toll road was built this section of 620 had already been improved to bypass that stop light and there was no additional fee for using it.

So now instead of decreasing the time of our trip it has effectively doubled it.

As it turns out the sign that had said "toll road this way" that had originally caused the confusion failed to mention that you also had to turn that way to keep going down 620 in that direction.

So $1.50 and about 45 minutes of my life were wasted because of the intentional shittiness of the toll road signs and frontage roads. But of course they have every reason to make the roads confusing and force people to get on them who innocently turned the wrong way or missed the exit they were supposed to get off on, or perhaps who are just confused about how the frontage roads were designed and what lane they were supposed to be in.

That way they can make money off of people who get lost or confused by their signage. Meanwhile this particular toll system is designed to charge you according to how many miles you use. What does that mean in application? Well unlike traditional toll roads that charge you at your entrance to the road this one charges you at multiple points.

They have "toll plazas" placed every few miles down the road. Then they have tolls at some entrances and some exits. What this means in application is that to drive down the toll road without their little textag you have to stop and pay the toll to get on, stop and dig out change to pay the toll when you come across a toll plaza, and then stop and pay a toll when you get off. Of course approaching toll plazas, frontage roads and exits tend to disappear so that you cannot avoid having to stop at the plaza.

Part of why this is so ridiculous is because most of these toll roads aren't but about 4 to 5 miles long. In theory you are supposed to get charged something like 18 cents per mile, but the toll plaza's charge people the same amount regardless of where they got on.

I have personally been charged $1.50 to drive approximately two miles of toll road. Why? Because I got on where the frontage road ended, and the frontage road ended about a half mile before the toll plaza. Meanwhile the toll road ended about a mile beyond the plaza. So including the ramp I might have gone two miles on that road. 75 cents per mile.

Also there are little segments of the toll road that only allow people to use them who have a textag. The txtag though free right now is going to start carrying a charge. A 9.95 activation fee or some nonsense. So to use the exclusive txtag sections of road its going to cost you ten bucks plus the toll.

With a txtag they set up an account and then charge you every time you pass through one of their toll stations. The toll stations are all designed to be incredibly inconvenient unless you have a txtag. In fact that is the point of having the exclusive areas. The exclusive areas force all the other motorists off the road, or risk getting ticketed and fined.

They take a picture of your license plate when you pass through one of the toll stations that way they can send you your fine in the mail.

So there is this pristine section of mopac expressway now that is brand new and tolled. Because of this hardly anyone uses it. At least not when compared with the rest of mopac. The rest of mopac has heavy traffic most of the time.

The rest of mopac is falling apart. Not only that, it very badly needs more lanes given how many people use it all the time. This is basically a major north/south expressway in austin. Its most congested area is not in the northeast where it has been extended and improved but the northwest segment, central and south.

There are areas of mopac, areas where it has its highest congestion that drop down to only one lane. Meanwhile most of the congested section is riddled with pot holes, filled-in cracks, and precariously narrow ramps and exits.

Unfortunately its hard to get adequate money to fix these kinds of problems because the state explicitly favors improvement projects that use tolls.

The NeverWar

2007-07-23T15:55:00.000-05:00

So once there was this war.
It wasn't our war,
It was never a war
but we had a treaty
So when the invasion started
it became our war.

But not a war, NeverWar

It became our friends,
our neighbors, our blood.
It ended they said.
But not really.
Wars don't end that neverWere.

In reality it stopped being
our blood and became our bombs
bombs dropped from the sky-
on farmers, on children,
on targets of strategic importance.

It became an embargo
a little myth we called "containment"
where we tried to starve out the people,
deny their basic needs,
to poke at their leader

Obviously this was violent
but it was neverWar
Wars don't end that neverWere.

Then one day someone poked back
someone from the same hemisphere
so we escalated our NeverWar.
We sent our blood back.

Thus the Antiwar folk got to protest
the new NotaWar. but to protest
they had to pretend the
NeverWar never happened
Wars don't happen that neverWere.

They had to suppose
dropping bombs on civilians
was not a state like the NotaWar
but a state of "containment"

a state more desirable
than the new NotaWar.
either option involved
the secret of collateral
damage

Of untold thousands,
civilians, dying,
dying to be liberated
eaten up in the dust

Of our NeverWar.
Wars don't end that neverWere.

We pay for it still.
Confusion is all we have left.
Do we owe them?

The people we bombed for so long
Do we owe them protection?
Should we rebuild what we destroyed?

Are we still an occupying army?
are we at war, were we ever?
The NeverWar never ended.

We escalate, we invade,
we step back, we bomb
we starve, we kill
We escalate, we stabilize

We'll never end the NeverWar
Wars don't end that neverWere.

(Poem) Among Friends

2007-07-22T17:01:00.000-05:00

If I cannot stand among friends.
If I cannot stand up for what I feel is right
who am I?
If I cannot challenge my family
for a wrong for fear of division
and distress,
How can I stand among anyone to do the same.

Shall I speak among strangers
who know not me
who have no means of
truly hurting me
to whom I have no alliance
no bonds, nothing to lose.

Shall I speak among them
in whom I have staked nothing
to whom I owe nothing.

Shall I stand up for truth
among those who care not that I exist,
but not among those who matter to me most.
Then am I not a coward.

Do I not sell these strangers
false pretenses, false passion.
Am I not a hypocrite.

If I cannot among my friends,
risk every relationship I have
every friend, every solace,
every social bond and value,

If I cannot stand among them
to advocate a new world.
How dare I stand among strangers,
in hopes of changing their's?

More Sci-Fi Meta-Posting

2007-07-13T16:21:00.000-05:00

I know I said narrative and point of view were next, but I find myself randomly inspired to discuss some other issues instead. I came across an old issue of Reason from last year the other day and got to reading about Octavia Butler. She died about a year ago after falling and hitting her head.

She was a very talented science fiction writer or so I am told. I was familiar with her due to many references I had seen to her books, and because I had seen her interviews at least once on TV. I never read her stuff because the themes struck me as pessimistic.

It seemed as though she often created worst-possible-scenarios that arose out of the present state of things. However after reading more about her I sort of wished i had. This is because I realized after reading the article that she wrote on many similar themes to what I have written about. I found myself relating her in a sort of obscure way.

Her work reminded you that you can be very sci-fi without having a focus on either science or technology. Sometimes explorations of future societies are more about social ideas, and how social structures can conflict, and evolve.

As I am a fan of character-driven fiction the social themes strike me as being an important realm of science fiction that I certainly do not intend to neglect.

The Trouble with Atheism

2007-07-12T19:14:00.000-05:00

So I am investigating this college the other day, due to the fact that it is relocating near me. It turns out to be a very explicitly and intentionally christian university and thus one I would likely be uncomfortable attending due to my own atheistic beliefs.

But it got me to thinking. The school has services every weekday morning. Services where students can join their friends and colleagues in prayer and "worship" (that generally means highly affected singing).

Then I remember this documentary I saw a few years back which basically argued that religion was a way of binding communities together. It created not only common beliefs, but a common identity, and a common experience of the spiritual. Which arguably was a mass hallucination but if you can have a deeply moving experience as a community wouldn't that bind you closer together even if it was a completely invented experience.

So I got to thinking imagine how closely knit a college community would likely become if most of the students regularly attended some of these services rather than just going their own way as they might at a standard secular school.

Atheism while it can bring people together to a degree has no real means of offering that sort of experience and community bonding. This may or may not be a good thing, however I find myself wondering if popular religions did sink into obscurity would we find ourselves needing some sort of cultural replacement?

Secular mass, group chanting, yoga (lol)? The other question that bugs me is would it be better to create a secular religion that incorporated atheism as a core belief or given the problems so inherent with religions would it be better to discover a means to disconnect our social bonding and social rituals from religion entirely, and let it fall by the wayside as a relic of our past?

Why I Hate The Global Warming Debate

2007-07-12T10:34:00.000-05:00

I am not a republican, I am not in favor of pollution, I am not a christian, I do not believe in any supernatural phenomenon, I am not on the payroll of any international corporation, I am not especially fond of the activities of many large businesses, and I am vehemently opposed to mixing government and business matters.

Furthermore I have always been interested and a student of various sciences at least since I was about 8 years old. While I do not claim to be an expert on any of them I very strongly believe in the scientific method, in the importance of science to further our knowledge and understanding of the universe, and I try to keep up to date on what is going on in the science world. I love reading science magazines (SEED is my current favorite). I have also always been a math geek so I also occasionally find myself exploring issues in theoretical math, and following the stories of newly solved problems/conjectures with interest.

I say all this because those who are now termed "global warming skeptics," people such as myself are almost always characterized as ignorant, conservative, part of some industry lobby, paid off by some large company, Christian, mysticist, and or irrational.

I consider myself to be a very scientifically-minded person. I am that guy (okay girl in my case) who likes to point out to people that string theory is not really a "theory" in the scientific sense, and explains to my co-workers and friends the newest developments in gene therapy. I was the one in high school fervently defending evolution, and on occasion the big bang theory. I even spent some time in college debunking some of the more spurious internet sites claiming firm proof against evolution.

I say all this because at one time I believed in anthropogenic global warming. I took at face value the idea that what we were being told was being supported by scientists, and was clearly the truth. This was when I was approximately in middle school. When I got to high school I started noticing a bit of inconsistency in the whole issue. That is when I began to question. I did not doubt it as of yet I just began to point out to people certain obvious flaws in the argumentation we were being presented.

Now I am not talking about flaws in the straight scientific reasoning. What we encounter at school was many steps removed from scientific reasoning. We were subjected to long assemblies, videos, slide shows, articles, reading material etc. that were usually dooms day scenarios promoting some activity that sounded fairly benign like recycling.

What I noticed was that some of the material was trying to scare us on the basis that if nothing was done we would end up with a world-wide desert planet, a very hot desert planet. Some of the presentations told us we would end up with hot jungle planet, some said the global warming would initiate the return of the ice age giving us ice planet, and finally of course there was water world. While water world was the least likely scenario this is the one we encountered most often, because back in the early 90's for some mysterious reason people actually believed that the likely result of global warming would be water covering everything but the highest mountain ranges.

So this is what I began pointing out to people: Have you noticed that if the climate gets warmer in the future it will be attributed to global warming (in this context I do mean anthropogenic global warming). If it gets cooler it will be attributed to global warming. If it gets rainier it will be attributed to global warming. If it gets drier it will be attributed to global warming. Or to put it simply if our climate changes in the slightest in the next century that change will be considered proof of human-caused global warming regardless of what that change is.

When I got to college my I started framing my concerns in a much more scientific way: If our planet is considered to have a dynamic climate, that is it is not considered static or it is normal for changes to occur over time, and any change in the future will be considered to be a result of human-caused global warming how could this "theory" possibly be considered falsifiable.

This is important in science. If a hypothesis is not falsifiable it cannot be proven wrong (nor right) and is considered to be a non-scientific concept. For example all psychic and supernatural phenomenon is considered to be non-falsifiable.

Now I am not arguing that the actual scientific evidence out there supporting global warming is non-falsifiable. I am still at the point of relaying what was mainly laymen argumentation and debates. Basically the kind of thing you encounter in mainstream media and around college campuses.

This issue made me start investigating the issue more, and focusing on actual scientific magazines. I was told by a British graduate student who was convinced that the U.S. was going to cause the UK to be under an ice sheet by 2050 due to our carbon emissions that scientific American had definitively proved global warming in a recent article.

I found this article at the library, I found other SA articles about global warming online, and I could not find one at that time that definitively "proved" global warming. I was only looking back within the span of about 5 years so its likely I did not go back far enough, however even the article he referenced was actually about potential effects of global warming.

All the ones I could find were about the effects of global warming. All of these articles presumed that anthropogenic global warming was not only true, but went so far as to state that there was a well established consensus on the matter. Usually they did so by starting the article with "In this day and age few scientists would disagree that anthropogenic global warming is a big problem..."

My initial investigation spread out to other magazines, and other media sources. I searched for articles on the internet, I checked out many articles in Discover, I watched many documentaries, both of the scientific and not-so-scientific variety on the topic, and I even perused a few scientific journals I was able to get access to at school.

What did I discover? First of all the documentaries and articles that were skeptical never had trouble finding and presenting respectable scientists who were experts in the field they were commenting on, who disputed the current "evidence" and interpretation of said evidence on global warming. Now I have no doubt that these scientists are likely a minority given the current atmosphere surrounding the issue (no pun intended), but they are not quacks, nor industry hacks, nor republican lackeys. Credible dissent exists, and those credible dissenters all believed that there were many more dissenters out there who were afraid to speak up because of how badly dissenters got defamed (as hack, quacks, and lackeys)(also dissenters tend to lose their research grants or are not likely to be given them in the first place).

I also found that about 90 percent (obviously I am making an estimate here) of the material I encountered supporting global warming had obvious, glaring errors in it. The reason I say 90 percent rather than 100 is because I do not pretend to have the capacity to adequately determine whether certain data figures in articles in certain journals were accurate or not. I just know I always encountered written results that in my brain did not always match what the rest of the article seemed to be saying.

My point is just that I encounter this so often it is almost a running joke with me. I am honestly not looking at this material with an eye for mistakes. The mistakes are much more obvious in media productions that did not arise out of the scientific community however they are still there in Scientific American and everywhere else.

For example a recent article I was reading in a science magazine which shall remain nameless (though I can certainly point you to it if you are interested) suggested that carbon dioxide from china would cause acid rain in the U.S. I was baffled by this. I had never heard of CO2 causing acid rain, how could that be possible?

After a little investigation online I discovered that there was research indicating that it was normal for CO2 molecules to be separated within the atmosphere and fall to earth as very slightly acidic rain. However the acidity was not greater than the average acidity of regular rainwater, and it was possible the carbon-laced water was beneficial to the soil.

In other words it was not what is meant by the term "acid rain." In fact acid rain was originally defined as rain with a lower pH than that created by this exact CO2 process.

Anyhow the errors are more obvious in media productions. Watch 20/20's next global warming piece and you are sure to notice a few. Usually it is rife with statements about how the earth will have more storms with heavy rainfall, more clouds, and yet be a drier, hotter climate.

The PBS series "Voyage to Planet Earth" attributed deterioration of the Louisiana coastline to rising sea levels. They even went so far as to suggest that some of the trees sticking up out of the water must have been on land once. You want to know why this is absurd? It is absurd because long before the global warming debate ever even began the Army core of engineers visited Louisiana and basically "fixed the Mississippi." That is, rivers tend to meander and flood. Thanks to systems of dams and levees put in by the Army Core of Engineers, the Mississippi no longer floods annually, and no longer meanders.

This is great news for nearby towns that could be very quickly taken out by a river changing its course. However it was very quickly discovered that it was bad news for the coastline which was replenished via silt washed downstream during floods. With the inability to get new silt deposits on to the wetlands of the Mississippi delta, and the continuing flow of water through this area the coastline started getting washed away.

This effect was discovered and explained a long time ago. Its cause is known. Meanwhile it is also fairly well known in Louisiana that trees do in fact grow in water. Louisiana's Bayous are full of trees.

Meanwhile the news specials definitely proving that human caused global warming have caused the number intense hurricanes to increase almost always lack that crucial bit of argumentations that actually link the humans to the phenomenon. I saw a whole special once that claimed to "definitively prove global warming" and even had supposed former skeptics renouncing their skepticism with the new findings. The show was based on research that showed a correlation between increased sea-water temperatures and an increase in the intensity and frequency of hurricanes. Where was the crucial link that proved humans made the water warmer? The issue was not even discussed. It was taken as a fact.

Meanwhile credible climatologists will tell you that it takes many hundreds of years for a known climate change to impact oceanic temperature by just a couple of degrees. This data actually comes from ice coring among other places. They can show how a huge volcanic eruption changed the average global temperature, dropping it by 10 degrees or something of that sort. Meanwhile a few centuries later the ocean water temp also lowered a couple degrees.

I could go on all day. Honestly. I can email anyone who is interested articles in scientific American that present evidence that clearly indicates x, which could dispute the notion of global warming, that are concluded with paragraphs that literally state the exact opposite.

Imagine summing up an article for a well respected magazine with statements to the exact contrary of all the evidence and interpretations you have just presented.

Okay, there is more but I need to break this up a bit so that will be all for now.

Blog Goin-on's

2007-07-12T09:38:00.000-05:00

So I spent many hours yesterday trying to fix the blogroll. You may have noticed. You one or two frequent visitors. Unfortunately I have in the neighborhood of 500 links. I am testing each one. Googling the blog if nothing comes up to see if maybe they have moved elsewhere. Updating any links that list a new site for their blog etc. Also I came up with categories so that the links would be more navigable.

So if you visit to discover your blog is in a category you do not really care for let me know. I may be kind enough to move it. It is hard to determine on some of the blogs with an obvious political slant whether to list those as political blogs or as culture blogs. I hate to call something "libertaria" just because a libertarian wrote it when it is actually more of a culture blog.

Not that "libertaria" is bad I just know some people are not aiming for a political affiliation/label so I hate to stick them in one if I do not have to. Anyhow I am willing to cooperate in most such link moving requests, however, keep in mind if you do not link to me and I link to you your opinion on where that link "should be" may not carry an especially large amount of weight around here.

That being said it really is not a big deal. It is worth noting however that I do consider objectivists to be a part of libertaria and I know they often object. Let me reassure them that I am familiar with the objections and I will only move your blog if you really do blog more about culture than politics and libertarian related themes.

Anyhow this is all still a work in progress that I anticipate will take many weeks to finish. In the meantime blogs have already occasionally been moved to the wrong category by accident so keep in mind that the fluctuations have not yet finished and what you see now may or may not be the final categorization etc.

Also the side bar is getting adjusted quite a bit. Stuff moving up and down, back and forth. I just want to see how I like stuff.

Narrative Vs Dialog

2007-07-10T11:30:00.000-05:00

Lets talk a little about narrative and dialog. Dialog is just what it sounds like. Characters talking to each other (though in theory you can also have a monologue or a dialog in which a character is mainly just thinking to himself).

Narrative is that part of the story in which the narrator/writer tells you what is going on. Both of these elements can be over used, underused, and misused. I mention this because I have found myself over the years developing odd rules for when to use narrative vs dialog that when actually used did not make a whole lot of sense.

There is a time and a place for both and not really a great deal of hard and fast rules for when you use whichever one you use. There are really just people like me who go about saying stuff like "I cannot believe they used narrative there."

Let me give you an example of this. In high school, I had to read Pride and Prejudice. If you like reading other people's conversations that do not really go anywhere and take their precious time advancing the plot then this is absolutely the book for you. It takes place in the English countryside (19th century) among a society of people too rich to be laboring in the fields and too poor to be aristocrats.

Most of the plot is conveyed in very long-winded conversations. Though in fact it seems that the women of this time and place had little else. ::Spoiler Warning - Not that I recommend this book to anyone ever....::: So you follow the main character from dinner to dinner to ball, to writing letters to her friends, to visiting relatives and conversing over dinner, to chatting over brunch, to reading a letter from a lord who has fallen in love with her, to a few more letters and conversations, and finally to her deciding she loves him too and telling him as much.

The trouble is that while all the other major events of the story are conveyed in dialog the climatic moment when the heroine tells her chosen that she loves him is conveyed in narrative. So instead of hearing the finer details of this epic conversation, which you work through a very long-winded book to get to, you get something along the lines of:

They decided to take a walk together. After they had made it a little ways down the garden path she looked at the lord and told him that she really did love him....

This is not verbatim, just roughly what I remember. Anyhow, it was a let down to say the least. So if there was a rule to be taken from this it would be something along the lines of "If dialog is a crucial part of the style and character of your story and the climax happens in conversation, please, for the love of god, share that conversation with your audience."

Still I found myself with one story trying to convey everything in dialog. The setting, the conflicts, and even the physical details of the characters. This basically amounts to having some character at some point comment on everything that you have decided is pertinent to share with the audience.

"Wow! Look at that sunset. Isn't it beautiful? The way the orange sinks into the yellow which blends into pink. And the thin silvery clouds reflecting the pink and gold on the bottom side while maintaining the same silvery gray on their topside as the calm ocean beneath them."

"Yes it is lovely but not as lovely as your startlingly brilliant long red hair, deep green eyes, and delicate white skin. Which of course perfectly compliments your long legs, slender waist and ample breasts..."

This rather odd reaction was due to the fact that I had read some sci-fi stories at that particular time in which the author spent pages and pages setting up his story. He told you not only every little detail of the environment and what his characters looked like but explained the arising conflict in detail, perhaps went into the finer points of the local galactic politics or even detailed the characters genealogy.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. There have been plenty of really great novels that have done this (lord of the rings comes to mind), and it actually makes it easier to jump right into the action if your audience gets a primer of what is going on and why you are calling your evil guys the "DORtinan" instead of the big bad evil guys etc. In fact if a story takes place in a disparate enough culture from our own some of that is likely to be necessary.

It is far less acceptable a device in short fiction than it is in longer works. In a short story you are likely to lose your audience if they have to read page after page of exposition detailing names and places that they have no way yet to actually connect with.

Believe me I have put down many books that did exactly that. So trying to establish a middle ground can be a tall order. You have to figure out what is and is not appropriate to be conveyed in narrative. What would better be revealed in character dialog, or perhaps in a letter or newspaper article they read that day.

How you determine that is dependent not only on the style of your work, but also on the point of view. Which will be coming very soon.

The Great Meta Sci-fi Adventure

2007-07-09T19:42:00.000-05:00

This is a new project of mine. I am trying to put together a broad set of instructions for writing sci-fi, and other fiction. I am doing it for myself more than for anyone else as a means of trying to focus my thought process.

Here is what I know about sci-fi/speculative fiction. There are different levels classified from "hard" to "soft," or visa versa. An example of soft sf is star wars. We call it this because the star wars trilogy is effectively a fantasy set in space. The technology, gadgets, guns, etc. have no real basis in science nor is an attempt made to scientifically explain any of them.

To be hard sci-fi a story must involve science. Though not everything has to have a scientific explanation there is a definite limit to what you can get away with, with a hard sf audience. IMO a good example of hard sf is the thirteenth floor. Though many hard sci-fi-ers would likely not consider anything that made it to the screen to be "hard" by comparison to their written counterparts.

To me the best sci-fi is that has a scientific concept, idea, or technology at the center of its conflict. For example in the thirteenth floor the conflict involved the necessity and lack of an ethical framework for dealing with simulated persons in simulated realities.

In other words when I write I do not want the science to be a backdrop or merely something encountered along the way. It should play some role in the conflict. Though there are also great psychological and speculative fiction that arises through the use of a more philosophic concept at the core of a story's conflict. These can be great tales as well. I am not opposed to that. In fact I do hope to create this sort of work one day as well.

The next issue to contemplate for me is adventure. It is not necessary to have adventure in a good scifi tale however I feel a certain nostalgia for the authors who once intentionally incorporated adventure into their work. Jules Verne and Michael Crichton come to mind. But alas adventure is not always going to be called for.

Thats all for now more on the great meta sci-fi adventure later.

Hello 2007

2007-07-09T19:22:00.000-05:00

Yea! Blog redo...

Sometimes I think I am dirty. Not like in some sort of sexual way, I mean like I feel like I am tainted. I feel like my past defines me so much that I cannot escape from it. I look at myself and my siblings and I think can't I do better than this? Shouldn't I be doing better than this.

I feel underutilized. Like I am somehow this big underachiever. I left uga because I realized that the only reason I was in college was because I was afraid of what I would be if I did not get a college degree. Meanwhile I knew plenty of people who had gotten there 4 year graduated and worked in pizza delivery or magazine sales or something that really did not require a degree to get into.

It all started seeming like a big scam. Still I realize that I want greater things for my life than just massage therapy and mother (eventually). Yet I am having trouble really nailing down what those things are much less how I am supposed to achieve them.

I am frustrated with my own level of patience. I have been exploring writing sci-fi for several years now and I feel as though I have made considerable progress in that realm. However I have finished very few stories.

I start. I stop. I don't generally get to an end before losing patience with the idea. I feel like I have the discipline of a gnat. That is partially where the "dirty" comes in.

A part of my brain still functions with the skills and habits I learned growing up in a very dysfunctional home. These skills include a certain amount of escapism, a short attention span, little patience, limited awareness of my environment, and once again a lack of discipline.

When I run into that frustration I feel like some kind of inbred mongrel. This is where I ask myself pointedly do I accept and embrace what I am or do I try and change. Do I attempt to become something better. Or am I in fact being too hard on myself.

My Atheism

2006-11-26T00:11:00.000-06:00

I've been blogging more on myspace mainly because its more convenient and I know a lot of people there. That being said it is not my intention to let this blog die, thus we will say that SotR is on hiatus. Or more precisely on extreme slow down. Also I'm working 2 jobs and going to school. I still post at catallarchy when I get a chance and actually think of something I want to say, though not as often as I would like. Anyhow I am hoping that after mid january I'll be back down to 1 job and the blogging, writing, and internet surfing/prowling can begin again.

That being said I am actually here cause I got a lot of thoughts about atheism rushing through my brain. I find it kind of frustrating that many of the world's prominent atheists seem more focused on arguments against the existence of god instead of positive and important reasons to be atheist. Other than THE END IS NIGH reasons. I mean the x-tians got us way beat on end-of-the-world scenarios and apocalyptic visions, though the environmentalists generally do well in that department as well.

Here is what I think:

If there were a theistic God (or gods) it would

1. see a necessity in the existence of atheists and/or non-believers.

2. not condemn such necessary beings to an eternity of torment for not believing in it/them.

Its not that I have any desire to be an accepted and necessary part of some cultural deity's master plan. Mainly I want to give a theistic perspective to my own moral imperative to atheism/non-mysticism.

You see I've noticed that us humans have an amazing capacity for inventing, and imagining non-existent things. We dream of things, write about things, and fantasize about things that do not exist. We draw them, paint them, sculpt them, pretend to be them on certain holidays, and even present them as actual things on television and in theater. Now some of these things are not impossible and the very act of imagining them is the first step in bringing them to existence. Flying machines start as dreams, then drawings, sculptures, contraptions, and eventually become helicopters, planes, and even ornithopters.

Some of these things cannot really exist. Such as horses that dance across rainbows (I'm leaving implicit the idea that this is accomplished without any technology - sure we might could invent come kind of nanotech someday that will turn a rainbow into solid matter, and we could subsequently watch a real horse prance up it but thats really besides the point), old brooms that hover in the air can transport us across the sky, and individuals who can walk through solid bricks without the use of an opening (hole, doorway, window, etc.) of any kind.

You get the idea. The problem is sometimes we see things that our brains are telling us are there that cannot really exist, or that can exist but are in fact not really there. You wouldn't believe how many monsters I saw under my sister's bed as a child. Of course it wasn't only monsters. There were ghosts banging on drums, lions, bears, leopards, a gorrilla once right outside my window, witches, aliens squatting in the corner, and bugs many, many, nonexistent (and sometimes existent bugs) invaded my bedroom at night. Or so my brain would tell me.

I had a particular fear of ants. One night I woke up in the wee hours of the morning and turned around to my pillow after having a particularly bad dream about ants and was horrified to discover that my pillow was in fact an anthill. It had a checkered pillowcase which had become a little twisted from where my head had been. In the dark it looked as though there were small dark bugs wondering up the sides of my pillow, following the spiral up to the top and entering right where my head had been.

It took me what felt like hours to convince myself that what I thought I was seeing could not in fact exist. I knew in my brain that my pillow could not have been transformed into an anthill while I was sleeping on it. I knew that what I was seeing was likely an optical illusion from the checkered pillow case in the dark. I knew that ants would have no reason to turn a pillow into their nest in the context of an inhabitted bedroom. Yet for me at that age it felt like a risky venture to allow rational thought to defeat the credibility of what my eyes were telling me was there. Eventually tugged at the pillow, the illusion vanished, and my fear subsided enough for me to put my head back on it and go to sleep.

The point is that as humans it is very easy to fool ourselves. It is easy for millions or even billions of people to believe in nonexistant things. In fact I suspect its easier to do it in large groups because we reinforce one another's beliefs. That is the point of the scientific method. To make sure that what we think we are observing we really are observing. The interpretation of a perceived pheonomenon is still up for debate, but we can know that something was observed even if its not what we think it is.

This brings me to the big "What if?" Imagine 5 people are stranded in the jungle they all get bitten by the same mosquitoes and all of them get sick, and 4 out of 5 die. What if you concluded that the survival of the 5th person was a miracle from god. Sure there are plenty of religious folk out there that would not stop with "it's God's will" or "it's a miracle," but at one time thats exactly what they would have done. And there are those that would stop there even today, and would not question a declared miracle of God.

Now suppose that that 5th person had eaten some berries and that those berries turned out to be a natural antibiotic to the bacteria in the mosquitos. If the investigations stops at the religious explanation, you never discover the cure that could save and protect others.

Thus the question goes, if I believe in things that I have no evidence for the existence of, will I miss what is really there, could I miss or fail to investigate a mystery, will I stop the search at an easy declaration of the will of an omnipotent benefactor? For if it is the will of God, am I not "explaining away" the miracle by finding a natural, physical, scientifically provable explanation?

My definition for supernatural is summed up in 1 word: "nonexistent." I have a moral imperative to not believe in supernatural things, in mystic and magical things, because it is important that I not be deluded into believing in something that isn't really there and thus missing what is.

That being said just because there is no hard evidence for the esistence of a thing does not mean that it doesn't exist. To believe in the existence of any one thing requires first and foremost that it be something that can be proved to exist or not exist if evidence were attained. For example I believe that extraterrestrial life exists even though we do not yet have evidence of such. That life could be some algae on a rock a billion light years away.

Though it is not scientific to declare that such algae/life exists it would be equally unscientific to declare it non-existent due to a lack of evidence. Put simply we can't speak to that which we don't know.

So finally I get back to my original statement. I think that if a theistic god existed it would want and see a necessity non-believers and/or atheists to exist, and seeing the necessity of their existence would not punish them for their beliefs.

This is presuming a god that created human beings, and is benevolent to some degree (i.e. wants them to thrive and prosper). The advance of human society and technology requires that somebody investigate that which we cannot explain. The miracles, the ghosts in the attic, why some things burn one color and others burn another color, why the wind blows (at some point someone had to doubt that this was merely the breath of god). At some point someone has to challenge the mysteries, and the miracles, and that takes people who aren't satisfied with the explanation "it was the will of God."

That person doesn't have to be an atheist, there are many shade of gray between doubting a popular explanation of a phenomenon and declaring the nonexistence of a theistic being. But to me the one leads easily to the other and thus atheism can be seen as a natural extension of that societal doubt. For what is an atheist if not someone who doubts and/or disbelieves the popular explanation of how and why we and all that exists exists.

Atheists do not doubt God, there is no God, they doubt their fellow humans, though more specifically they doubt the non-scientific explanations that their fellow humans often devise to explain things they don't understand, like how we came to exist.

Thus if there is a God (and there isn't lol), and if said God gives a rats ass about humanity, and those humans which it presumably made and gives a rats ass about, are fallible then it needs us - the skeptics, the non-believers, the atheists.

Seeing V

2006-03-19T22:45:00.000-06:00

I saw V for Vendetta last night and it was a really awesome movie. I highly recommend it. Its full of potent symbolism, literary allusions, rife with anarchic and libertarian content and... well its just a really good movie. The hero of the movie, "V" is a combination of heroic genius and insane terrorist.

If you've seen the trailer you know that it takes place in a future UK where the government has become super powerful and oppressive. Interrestingly enough though it is being haled as a "uncompromising vision of the future" there was very little gadgetry in it. There were no flying cars and the highest tech devices seemed to be the plasma screen televisions everyone had, and the sweeping listening devices. To put it simply it wasn't so much a possible future as it was a possible now. Though they did place it twenty to 30 years into the future.

In any case it was a great movie, and it makes you think. It was nice to see the wachowski brothers back to focusing on strong plots instead of super special effects. Not that it didn't have any.

Anyhow it got me to thinking, without telling you too much of what happened in the story I will say that it takes place within the context of a society in utter fear of their government. That government got its power by playing on people's fears after a major war followed by a bad terrorist attack.

This parrallels some of the things that happened in wake of 9/11 in the U.S. Mainly people's willingness to give up liberties in return for greater security. AKA the PATRIOT act. What I'm wondering is how far we are from stumbling down a similar path?

My whole life I've heard people talking about how everything is going to hell in a handbasket. First there were the protestants grandparents and their peers who believed every major tornado and/or disaster to be a sign of the "end of days" and of God's wrath upon the sinful.

When I got to elementary school there were the assemblies, plays, and speakers all telling us about how greenhouse gasses were destroying the world. There were cartoons that depicted a world underwater by the year 2000 if we failed to "reduce, reuse, and recycle."

And in the last 7 years since I was originally introduced to libertarianism and objectivism I've heard all manner of end of the world tales. Sometimes they are of government and the economy collapsing in on themselves, and sometimes they are of an extreme rise in government power that causes civil society to collapse.

Since the reelection of the Bush Administration its the left thats been crying fascism, and talking about oppression and the evils of a big powerful government. Many of them envision a future in which we have no freedom of religion, speech, or of person, and that the Bush Administration is going to take us there.

Now that I've said all that I would like to point out that things are getting better and have gotten significantly better in my lifetime. College campuses have admittedly gotten worse, becoming bastions of censorship instead of free speech, but culturally we are more accepting of diversity, we can afford more, technology has gotten better, healthcare has even gotten better. Imagine getting knee replacement surgery in 1980 and being out of the hospital on the same day, being able to put weight on it within 24 hours.

Access and dissemination of information is better and quicker than its ever been. More people are surving illness that were considered terminal just a decade ago.

Compare now with McCarthyism and the red decade. Compare now with how people lived during the nixon administration, and its hard to see a hell-in-a-handbasket scenario(That is unless you are one of those people who thinks the world is going to implode upon itself the moment we "run out of oil.")

Now back to the PATRIOT Act, and the current Bush Administration. Here we have an administration that has decided its okay to spy on Americans in America. They have been caught listening in on us, and apparently that's only a small fraction of the illegal intelligence-related activities they have been up to.

It is now okay for the government to search homes without warrants, detain individuals declared as "enemy combatants," they may demand and acquire personal records about you (including financial, library, and religious records) without a warrant or without telling you - oh yeah and you cannot contest them doing so, they can listen in on your phone conversations by getting a warrang from a secret court without proof that you are connected to terrorist activites... and well it goes on. President Bush just made 14 of the provisions of the Patriot Act permanent, 2 more were extended.

So maybe the Bush Administration isn't after absolute power, maybe they just want to secure their political position by making it easier to catch the bad guys. You catch a big bad terrorist on American soil, and it looks good. It looks like you are doing your job. So lets pretend for the sake of argument that no one in the massive enterprise that is the bush administration, nor any of their collegues or cronies are power-hungry madmen. Let's suppose their purpose is more benign, and perhaps more short-sighted. Maybe they believe this will make america safer, maybe they just want to leave a strong legacy for the next republican contender for the white house.

My question is what doors might this administration be leaving open for others to walk through? Maybe the Bush administration has no desire or intention to curb dissent, or persecute religious and sexual minorities, but what if someone else does?

Could a future attack or disaster give an ambitious individual the perfect opportunity to do just that? If the doors are open, and the tools are there, how far are we really from an oppressive dictatorship?

The fact is I don't know the answer. I'd like to think that it couldn't happen. That there are enough groups out there like the ACLU, and the Institute for Justice who would see it coming. I'd like to think that information is open enough now, and that we are tolerant enough, brave enough, diverse enough, and smart enough that it could never happen. But I really don't know.

I think that it would take more to achieve that sort of end than it ever has before, but that is far from saying it is impossible. I think it would take more than a charismatic politician, but perhaps far less than another 9/11.

This is actually so sad its funny.

2006-01-28T17:28:00.000-06:00

Yeah its about my dad again. But its actually humorous this time.

He put up this long comment on my last post trying to explain me into his neurotic worldview in which he thinks I am obsessed with him, and defined by my anger toward him. Most of its fairly inane bullshit. Its him pretending to be a psychologist. I could pick it apart but I wouldn't convince him anyhow and its not interesting enough to demonstrate for anybody else.

The funny part was when he said this: "I am guessing that my apologetic tones in my recent response to you were somewhat of a disappointment. After all, if I don’t respond in some think-headed, self-absorbed manner, then I am failing to live up to the image of me that you have managed to share with the entire world. "

He's referring to the response he put up on my father's day post. That was the post where I decide to let all my emotions go onto the page. I went on and on about how I felt and exactly precisely why I did not think my father deserved any respect from me. It was a very heartfelt post that I ended by talking about my own desire to have a father in my life.

He responded basically by saying "I demanded the respect that I knew I deserved," and then going off on a rant about how we wouldn't give it to him, and how we only wanted what he couldn't give. He finished with a little addendum on which he decided to comment on what I like to refer to as the "meanest thing anyone has ever said to me." Which I only happen to remember because he put it in writing and printed me a copy which I read many times over when I was a teenager. His comment was basically blaming my mother for his act of name calling.

Now let me explain something about my worldview. In my world if you had an estranged daughter who posted her feelings openly on the internet, and went into detail about how she felt and why she felt that way, and even mentioned a sincere desire for a father in her life, and you happened to stumble upon it - you would be fortunate.

Here would be an obvious inroad back into her life if you wanted to take it, however you would not be successful by ignoring everything she had to say and asserting the exact opposite. Even if you disagreed with her reasons for why she thought you didn't deserve her respect, if you ignored her reasons and feelings on the subject and just insisted that you did deserve it, and that you appropriately demanded it. That would come off as kind of... what's the term I'm looking for... Oh I know "Thick headed and self-absorbed."

In my world "apologetic" usually involves an apology of some sort. Now if she happened to mention something you said that hurt her feelings in the past, right then in there, if you remember saying it you could easily take responsibility for that and apologize. Something: like "you know what, I'm sorry. it was wrong of me to say that," or "I didn't mean that," or "calling you an infestation in my castly might have been a little extreme. I'm sorry," would have been apologetic. On the other hand if you decided to blame your ex-wife and mother of that child, whom was not around at the time, for giving you the idea, for the name that was called... I wouldn't call that apologetic.

I would say you had an inability to take responsibility for your own words, and decided to evade that responsibility in a very mean-spirited and tactless way. If I didn't know the person I would have to assume that upon saying that they had no interest in mending fences with that daughter, if they did I would say that they were stupid... of course thick-headed and self-absorbed works too.

Now I realize his most recent response was just an attempt to prove that he really isn't as simplistic and stupid as I made him out to be, and as is typical claims he's doing it because I would be "hurt" if he didn't respond. Given how much I've written about him on this blog long before he happened to discover it this is kind of ironic. I never could have been as open in my writing about my relationship with him as I have been if I had thought he was waiting around to say stupid defensive bullshit in response to my feelings.

But alas I've come to realize that I've shed way too many tears over someone who was never worth it. Complete strangers have been able to see and feel the genuine sadness and frustration I've expressed in my posts about my father, but all he can see in them is unwarranted anger that obviously has nothing to do with him, and that he can't be blamed for. There is nothing left between us. No way to build bridges, no place to start mending anything. Yet I count myself fortunate. I can honestly say that I don't need a father anymore, and I am content to live without one.

Where the sidewalk ends

2005-12-11T23:58:00.000-06:00

I've finally figured out something about complicated people, we have a hard time understanding people that are simpler than ourselves. And I don't necessarily mean stupider or less intelligent when I say "simpler." What I really mean is less complicated. I've never been able to introduce someone to one of my parents without divulging have of my life story... why? because my life is complicated. The relationships in my life have always been at least a little more complicated than those of my peers. When I called my grandmother "mom" friends would want to know why she was so old... and occasionally why she was so fat. When I called my dad "dave" friends wanted to know why I called my parents by their first names. When they asked my how I got the name "rainbough" that launched into another slew of stories. References to siblings, and even cousins could end up being a half hour conversation in and of themselves to explain how the sister was a cousin, or the cousin was a niece but really a cousin, and the aunt was a sister but really an aunt, and my mom's oldest daughter was neither mother or aunt, but later was mother, and finally simply Diane.

Fastforward to 8th grade and I end up living with a parent without the capacity to understand me, nor the desire to try. Likewise I did not have the ability to understand him, because strangely enough he simply wasn't complicated enough.

I was so long infuriated in past emails and letters with my father's tendency to not only ignore whole paragraphs of my feelings that I had carefully and clearly written out but then to even to repeat things I said as if I hadn't said them. For example in one letter I recall saying "I realize that we grew up in a very different environment than you did..." His response started like this "first of all I grew up in a very different environment than you did..." He then went on to imply that I couldn't possibly understand what he was saying because I didn't take into consideration this fact even though it was me who had introduced it.

Not responding to or commenting on my feelings was one thing, the real problem I had was that he acted as if they didn't exist. He would respond as if they hadn't been written... as if they weren't there on the paper/screen before him. For example I might thoroughly refute a belief of his and have him respond by simply reasserting it. No response to my arguments, no recognition that they even ever existed just a reassertion of his belief without any argument to back it up. It was baffling. Had he not read it? How for example could he repeat a sentence almost in its entirety to the word that I had written and imply that he was introducing new and unconsidered data. Yet he would respond to selective parts of our exchanges ignoring 95 percent of what I said.

It finally occurred to me after all these years that he wasn't ignoring my thoughts, feelings, and arguments in all those letters, he simply could not understand them. He may understand the words on the page, but he can't understand the broader abstractions. He doesn't get implications, and he has no way of recognizing when his own arguments have been fully refuted. I don't have to even worry about him reading this.

Yes my much posted on wayward father aka sperm donor, has finally found my blog. I always got a kick out of hiding my feelings in the open, and being so easily found on the internet that my grandmother has even attempted to send me emails regarding my relationship with my dad (and you know I didn't tell her about my blog). But alas he won't understand the words I'm writing right now. If he says anything it will be a meaningless assertion that will have little to do with this post. Its actually kind of disappointing.

Where am I supposed to go with that?

My first hate mail

2005-11-20T17:57:00.000-06:00

I received this in my email recently:

keep telling yourself that you sickening, disgusting
faggot.

face it, you animals lost by a large margin. You are
no different from other perverts and are not worthy of
marriage. now ooze your fat ass back to your trailer
park before you miss you faggot boyfriend on springer

Apparently this guy has a real problem with females marrying males. He seems to think the traditional male/female pair-bond is something disgusting and perverted. I've never encountered such a militant homosexual. Being female I have actually never been called a faggot before. I'm going to have to tell my fiance that there is some strange fellow out there that thinks we should not only be on jerry springer but would more appropriately be overweight given the male-on-female acts of perversion (i.e. sexual intercourse) that we often perform.

I wonder how he preposes that humanity continue to reproduce. I guess thats not really important. What's important is not being perverted. I guess I'm going to have to become a lesbian and marry a woman so that I don't mess up the natural order of things. My fiance is going to be awfully disappointed.

Or to put the previous paragraphs another way I would like to quote the now immortal words of Beavis and Butt-Head:

"Heh heh heh... What a dumbass."

Gay marriage in Texas - a future headline

2005-10-17T20:31:00.000-05:00

The State of Texas Recognizes that Gay Marriage is “similar” to Heterosexual Marriage.

In a bizarre twist the state of Texas in its earnestness to ban gay unions, and annihilate the possibility of civil unions from other states being recognized as marriage within its borders has now enshrined the idea into its constitution that gay marriages are not only meaningful unions but also are in fact similar to more traditional forms of marriage. The wording of the constitutional ammendment went something like this:
“The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”

While the wording is fairly broad, its intention matters to its ultimate interpretation in the courts. The state can’t outlaw legal statuses “similar to marriage” without looking at the underlying relationships that are protected by that status unless they want to outlaw every legal partnership in existence in the state. Thus, in order to enforce their own constitution, the state has had to make it clear just what makes a gay contractual union “similar to marriage” but a power of attorney relationship within a non-homosexual household not “similar to marriage.”

Though the legislature is still struggling with the issue the argument has already been made by gay rights advocates that contractual unions between gay couples designed to protect the legal rights of their romantic partners cannot be considered marriage or even “similar to marriage” because the constitution has already defined marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Last week the legislature attempted to remedy this problem by proposing that contractual relationships in which the signers of the contract are having an “intimate relationship” would be considered “similar to marriage” while those who entered contracts who had no such relationship would be considered “not similar to marriage.” However this idea was reconsidered when 3 wives of state senators sued the state for an official annulment of their marital status arguing that their licenses should not constitute legal marriages due to a lack of intimacy in their relationships.

The legislature quickly dropped the “intimacy” approach and is now struggling to create a legal definition for sex that includes typical homosexual romantic behavior. Unfortunately, they have hit a roadblock in that the Texas legislators are not entirely sure how gay sex works, and are currently searching for a non-gay expert on the subject.

Apparently fucking up..

2005-09-12T17:39:00.000-05:00

I just had a WTF is wrong with everyone and everything day.
Started out good... ended with a big WTF!!!

looking over my should wondering what is wrong with me.

I feel shafted, I feel worse than shafted, I feel set-up sabotaged, and yet I know it was probably all a misunderstanding. Sure it was. Thats all it ever is. No one is ever bad except for me. No one fucks up except for me. No one lies except for me, and I'm a fucking honest person.

I left work today angry and confused and wondering (and not for the first time either) if my hr is a liar. Why? Is something wrong with the world that I look at it and see liars where kind generous people used to be. Is something wrong with me?

Apparently I fucked up. I lost the opportunity for a promotion because when my h.r. asked me if I was interested in a job that would mean a promotion and a raise and I told her that yes I was interested I wasn't clear. She told me to let her know my decision even though I was saying to her right then that I wanted the job. The problem was she wanted to know if I would be going back to school, because that would effect my availability. She also mentioned that she needed to know soon because she would be starting interviews in the next couple of weeks. I told her I hadn't decided and needed to figure out if I could afford november classes. That night I figured out that I couldn't afford to take november classes and decided to tell her that I would have a completely open availability starting in November.

The next day I talked to her for a few minutes but she wandered off and I didn't really want to talk to her about the position while I was out on the sales floor (afterall that sort of thing is supposed to be a private matter and not discussed in front of other cashiers/employees). I decided to talk to her later, but I was not able to get a break and by the time I was off she was long gone. So I figured I'd talk to her the next day I worked which was about two days later.

That day I once again couldn't get her in private, so I figured I would wait until lunch. During lunch she wasn't around, so I planned to talk to her at the end of my shift. Unfortunately I got off late because of a fellow employee arriving late, and I missed her entirely because she got off at the same time. Thus I figured I would catch her the next day before my shift (this was yesterday). So of course she was not there at all yesterday. Finally during lunch today I find her in her office (and keep in mind this is about 5 days after the initial inquiry) and tell her I will not be taking classes and ask about the position.

What do I get? "I'm sorry Rainbough but when you didn't tell me you were interested the next day I assumed you had decided to do something else and went ahead and filled the position."

This is from someone who said she'd be starting interviews in the "next couple of weeks." She just filled the position. If I had thought for a moment she needed to know the next day I would have gladly left her a note, or told her in the few minutes I got to talk to her out on the floor (though I still wonder if that would have been appropriate given the lack of privacy).

To say the least I really wanted the position, and I didn't even get a shot at it because even though I clearly stated I was interested, and indicated in our computer system that I was interested, the time to say I was interested was in a narrow window of time the day after she asked, and I had no clue.

I was even thinking at the time after I couldn't find her at the end of my shift that she probably wasn't expecting an answer that quick anyway. Now I wonder if someone is lying to me. I wonder if it was all just a ploy to make it look like she was offering me a chance at a promotion that in reality was never going to happen.

I feel stupid and humiliated because I was there that day knowing my answer and just looking for an appropriate moment, and somehow my own sense of proper time and action shot myself in the foot. And thats that. I can only presume my H.R. was lying about starting interviews in a few weeks or that she's really impulsive and when she decided I didn't want the job she immediately gave it to perhaps the only other candidate.

Well fuck me. I don't even know if I would have gotten the job, and now I doubt I will ever know. I don't even want this job anymore. I've had enough. If I didn't need it I'd be gone right here and now, but WTF difference does that make. I can't afford shit. This job is the only thing paying my bills, barely. I couldn't leave it if I wanted to and hence the WTF state I'm in.

Apparently even kind generous people can be a little WTF sometimes. My H.R. is definitely no exception.

Things I'm dying to say at home depot

2005-08-06T20:37:00.000-05:00

Customer: Are you open?
Me: No I just turn on the light to confuse people.

Customer: Can I check out hear?
Me: No you can only look at home depot, we are morally opposed to selling products.

Me: Did you find everything you needed?
Customer: No I didn't find the winning lottery ticket... bag of money... money tree...
Me: Home Depot doesn't sell cheap fantasies, Have you tried lowes?

Customer: Can I check out here at returns?
Me: Only if I get to keep everything you buy.

Customer: I couldn't find anyone to help me so I'm just going to go to lowes.
Me: Does that line ever actually work.... Do you use that line at lowes too but with home depot inserted instead of lowes?

Customer: Can I check out here so that I don't have to walk to the other end of the store?
Me: Can I walk to the other end of the store so that I don't have to check you out?

Customer: Why do you have all of your registers at the other end and all of your parking at this end?
Me: It was so customers would ask us that question over and over.

Customer: I have a complaint. Why do I have to walk all the way to the other end to check out when I need something on this end?
Me: Its because you're not supposed to need anything on this end.

Customer: I don't think I should have to walk all the way down there to check out when I parked on this end.
Me: If you give me a second I'll remodel the store for you. It should only take a few minutes.

Customer: No I don't have a receipt or the orginal box.
Me: How long have you had the product?
Customer: I don't know 6 or 7 months?
Me: I'm sorry sir we can't take that back.
Customer: You've got to be kidding?!?
Me: No I'm not. But if we ever institute the keep a product as long as you like and then return it for a full refund policy you'll be the first to know.

Customer: I can't believe you won't take this tree back without a receipt or proof or purchase! I've spent thousands of dollars at home depot over the past year and you won't take back a simple plant.
Me: If we tailored our return policy to high dollar customers, the couple thousand a year customers would be shit-out-of-luck returning anything.

Customer: I bought these zinnia's here. No I don't have a receipt or the original container. It was a dollar something... What do you mean you can't take it back?!?
Me: Yeah given that every grocery store, hardware store, and big box retail store in town sells flowers, we usually like to have some proof that you did at some point buy a flower at our store before we fork out money for a pile of dirt with a daisy sticking out of it.

Customer: When I bought these bulbs the associate in electrical tole me I could just use what I needed and bring back the rest of the box.
Me: Actually you can do that with everything in our store. Use only half of your 2 by 4 then bring it back for a 50% refund. Drink half a coke we'll give you half your money back. Use half a box of nails we'll refund the other half. Use half a gallon of paint, or half a tank of propane we'll gladly refund the other half. We call it our half-witted return policy. Just kidding.

In the service of my dreams

2005-07-11T14:21:00.000-05:00

A deep dark flame sits inside me
relentless. A keeper of death
It knows deceit, and strangeness
It sees the dying children
of social experimentation
the long trail of repression
leading to the money made by me
It asks if I should make something
for evil. To avoid the monsters that
knock on my door, that audit my soul
to save my family
to serve my dreams
what price would I pay.
A thousand dollars here,
some portion of my life.
Some set of hours every year
to assure I go so far.
To protect my future from the creditors
who won't trust a non-payer
or the officers, the judges who doubt the
credibility of one that doesn't pay their salary.
If I do this I ensure tomorrow for me
I'll ignore those who die in poverty
struggling on economies broken, manipulated
torn, by our meddling, and my money.
Funding the weapons, the interests, the goons
pointing the guns at you today.
For a small price I am assured protection,
no one knocking down my door, no one taking my future.
From the ashes, and the blood of a lesser world
I purchased my dreams. For the interest and illusion
of democracy I am secure from the taxman.
The flame burns to keep my silent
remember the rule
remember social reponsibility
remember your dreams it says.
Its a small price to pay, from a paycheck
here or there. Its for safety, security, our military
our country. A little each day I keep the world
safe for democracy, by buying your grave.