Smaller & Smaller Eats ....or...Turkey Crap

Wired Science has a great article (surprise!). This one's about micro-algae breeding. It's very dense stuff. ...the algae.

Contrast with this article. I saw a Dirty Jobs episode where they were manually inseminating the turkeys because they are too big to have traditional turkey sex (The turkeys, not the guys inseminating the turkeys. The damned guys wouldn't stop! ...YES! it was turkey semen and it's also disgusting that you would think to ask!).

That was a hilarious episode of Dirty Jobs. It turns out a turkey's reproductive organs are right beside their waste dispensary. They (the turkeys) have a very common defense mechanism: They shoot crap when grabbed by the legs and turned upside down to have semen squirted into them with a plunger. Go figure, it's not just the horses that hate it! Then again, the horses might be complaining about the use of turkey semen. We'll have to have the lab look into that.

Re-use

Here's a great article about "repurposing" AKA reusing something for something other than its original Reason for Being. My favorite is the CD case reused as a cable organizer and also as a sandwich holder/storage container.

Let's go Brazilian!

I'm talking about ethanol fuel here. There are plenty of other great things about Brazil (AKA Brasil), but I'll talk about those things another time.

Before watching this video I was "on the fence" in regards to whether I was convinced in the economic and overall environmental benefits of the United States making the move to ethanol. I now think it's not a matter of whether we should move to ethanol or not, but rather what percentage of each type of ethanol generating items should be included in the move to ethanol.

So here's the scoop:
The guy who helped create Sun Systems & the Java programming language, Vinod Khosla, started a venture capitalist organization and his main focus in recent years has been bio-fuel production.

This video is about an hour long in total but the main "meat" of the idea is in the first 20-30 minutes.

It's worth noting that this presentation was given in 2006 just before Prop 87 was put on the ballot in California and was subsequently defeated. Another key point I would like to make is the current price of oil is, in fact, hovering around the critical $35/barrel price tag that would make ethanol less profitable than petrol/gas.

I have been to Brazil and used both gas (petrol) and ethanol (alcohol) in the same car while there. There was a slightly noticeable decline in acceleration with ethanol but the price difference far outweighed the compromise in performance.

At a time when the Federal government has the U.S. auto industry by the short-&-curlies and Obama will be in charge of making the call of whether or not they are economically viable (not that I agree with that concept, but there it is...), a critical point ought to be that ALL new vehicles be compatible with ethanol and gasoline. It's a simple and inexpensive (approximately $100 per auto) procedure on the assembly line and the Brazilians have already been there for over 20 years. Let's join them.

7 minutes will open your Economic mind

Here's one of the best (and simplest) explanations of current and past economic policies that left & right presidents have employed. If you are excited about the current "change" in presidents, this may curb your enthusiasm and bring you back to reality.

Auto Czar & Auto Bailout...short & sweet

This proposal by our Federal Government is, my fellow Americans, by dictionary definition, Socialism which is a tenant of Marxism. Marxism = Communism. J. Edgar Hoover (douche-nozzle that he was in many respects) is rolling over in his grave. At least he's dead and doesn't have to see this happening first hand like the rest of us Capitalists. Misdirected use of profits have been an ongoing problem with US automakers. Their competitors have maintained a much better position partially because of their reinvestment of profit back into their product.

Thanks a lot UAW! The profits of old have been spread wide and thin!

Bill Hicks = Great Messages

If you start to watch and want to stop, please just skip to the last 1.5 to 2 minutes. He always ended his shows with this concept and would still do so to this day if not for his unfortunate, early death at the age of 32 from pancreatic cancer.

Peter Schiff highlights...Peter at his best!

Nonconformist

"If there is anything the nonconformist hates worse than a conformist, it's another nonconformist who doesn't conform to the prevailing standard of nonconformity."
-Bill Vaughan

Bill Maher & Religulous

Religulous was a great movie and not offensive to the degree anticipated by some of my Christian friends. In fact, he's pretty much dead-on in terms of doctrine (for whatever that's worth).

For those who have not seen it, I’ve put together this list of YouTube videos to provide a little more insight into and also introduce you to the movie Religulous. The trailer does not count as an introduction and if you don’t believe that, after watching the 11 minute interview, check out the last link at the bottom of this email where a couple of guys bash the movie based on the trailer (yes, I think they are actually serious).

Soooo…This is the best interview I’ve found.

It’s 11 minutes long and features Bill Maher & the director (who also directed Borat):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeN2q3bA2xQ

Enjoy!
-Eric

Here are some more if you’re interested:

1. Great interview in general with Craig Ferguson –

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErD1WK99Kg8

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-47i46lKv30

2. An overall good interview and thorough. Part 1 (9 minutes) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UieI2A3DMCM

3. Part 2 (4 minutes) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szxd6ycBmD0 (I can send you a link to the Real Time episode referenced as a plug at the end of this clip if you’d like. That was a pretty solid episode.)

4. A sterile introduction to Bill:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHH2JItePlc

5. Interview on The View (Whoopi Goldberg has some good comments at the end) :

Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkfPZnyMaEY&feature=related

Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCrPWWqNl1I&feature=related

6. Bill talking about Religulous on Larry King Live:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CWiASiqDdU

7. Renegade filming tactics discussed in this radio interview with Bill & Larry (director):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1ZDBmMiTsQ

BONUS FUN:

These guys watched the trailer for the movie and are supporting a boycott of the movie (for their own reasons...):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02CRWsfxQdE

New Edumicationalistic Thinkings

I know nothing of this website or this guy other than this video. He may be crazy. I doubt it though.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html

It would be nice to see the fundamentals of the education system change on a level that can allow for more flexibility not only in curriculum but in purpose.

This would be a fun topic to kick-around the table for a while.

Fear, Hope, Change...Motivation for the Proletariat

I would like to see people restrain themselves from using Armageddon-laced rhetoric when discussing (or even promoting) political and/or socioeconomic issues. People from all over the political spectrum have all demonstrated the ability to motivate and generate support for their point of view based on simple fear as opposed to complicated thinking. Until people shelve their arrogance and accept that emotional passion cannot be a lasting replacement for thoughtful rationality, they will rely on the ever-popular and ever-effective method of generating fear.

The Terrorists are not going to destroy us and the world will not be inhospitable for humans for a long, long time to come. I'm not trying to be too profound here (I'll save that for another day), but while it's fresh in my mind, I just wanted to throw it out there - elaboration to follow - that the world is in much better shape than those who politically "motivate" other people believe.

California Proposition 8 and Gay Marriage

Gay Marriage or a redefinition of marriage in our society, what’s going on?

As a matter of an intro for those who don't know, I'm a single, straight, thirty one year old man from Lakeside, California located in glorious San Diego county and I currently reside in Ocean Beach.

An email was forwarded to me with a letter attached that essentially accuses those against proposition 8 (e.g. not against gay marriage) of wanting gay marriage taught in school in the context of "respect for marriage". Essentially, and I think both sides can agree, there is some relatively vague language in the California Education Code that needs to be revisited and rewritten to remove inconsistencies in the definition of marriage in terms of how it relates to sexual orientation. Rewriting those sections (220, 51500, 51933) is a topic for another time. The concern of the anti-gay marriage movement in this letter is really whether gay behavior (call it "marriage" or not) should be taught in school.

Gay marriage taught in school. Is learning about gay marriage a threat? My thought is that this shouldn't be an issue about marriage being taught in school any more than other modern day unions being taught in school. There are plenty of unions (or marriages) that should be explained in school as a matter of simple social studies on a local, national, and global scale (odd note: It turns out that there's a lot of gay sex in adolescent male Bottle-Nosed dolphin world. But they're pushing for marriage in Florida this election so we don't need to factor that in.). There are countries whose 30-something men barter pigs and woven bags for teen wives (Papua New Guinea) while other oil-rich polygamists countries maintain harems as long as the money is there (Saudi Arabia and friends). These are relationships that exist in the world and that behavior should be taught along with other behaviors. The judgment on whether a behavior has merit on a religious morality level lies at home where people are free to judge without reprisal. The facts will remain. There are gays, polygamists, monogamists, and isolationists. Yes, these are people in the world. 6 billion strokes to move the different folks of the world. But I digress...

Is there or should there be a legally defined hierarchy of these behaviors (marriages, unions)? There currently is. Is this position providing a service better than the alternative? In the context of raising kids, I'm curious to see the research projects, test cases and consequent statistics (provided by the opponents or supporters of gay marriage) that identify specific threats and benefits to kids and how the children of same sex couples fair compared to the children of opposite gender couples in a comparable scenario. How well adjusted are the kids? Education? Emotional stability? If there is actual, scientific data that confirms the worst, that harm is being done, I'll be happy to read it. Until then, keep the studies moving.

Ultimately, if there is an injustice in the laws, a change should be made. What I mean is, if there is more than more than one way to maintain a successful family unit with evidence of an overall positive effect on society and there are laws in place or proposed that prohibit that family unit, those laws should be changed or defeated. If it is a matter of heaven and hell, it should not be a government position to support one type of union over another. Unless we're communists on the subject of religion (I'm an Democratic Republic American).

In regards to the tax policy on marriage, I strongly disagree with tax breaks for marriage in and of itself (Not because I'm single!). In terms of marriage and tax cuts, the only reasonable conclusion I have seen is for tax relief to be given on a per-child, per-responsibility basis. The government and society as a whole do benefit from people raising successful children and extensive tax relief should be offered for anyone who is legally and financially responsible for raising a child. Tax cuts should not affect someone just for getting married.

To me, the biggest issue of the pro-marriage movements should be that of the big decisions in life and death as they relate to the family unit. For example, I think someone's spouse should have legal dominance in certain decisions their spouse may not be able to make such as funeral (burial vs. cremation), life support (when to "pull the tube"), hospital visitation rights, that kind of thing. Let's not forget timeshare presentations too!

I imagine the early Utah Mormons lobbying for statehood went through a lot of the same discussions and heard a lot of the same comparisons as gays are hearing in California now in terms of moral perversion, degradation of the societal structure, a threat to the American family and way of life, etc. They decided to concede the fight for polygamy until the afterlife for now. However, if the Mormon fundamentalists had won their battle to achieve statehood without compromising their right to marry in their own way (albeit morally perverted to most of the rest of the country), maybe gay marriage would have been tolerated a long time ago too. The fears of the anti-polygamist marriage lobbyists (who did win) have now seen their worst fears come to pass now that the gays are allowed to join together in unholy matrimony. So much would be different... Warren Jeffs et al wouldn't be locked up and a religious practice considered Eternal by some and unnatural and unethical by some would be legal in America making our relationship with Islamic people more friendly and personable (Allahu Akbar! He gave us the chocolate cake! ...and polygamy). I'm a dreamer.

I plan to vote No on the "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry Proposition" (AKA, Prop 8).

Anyone whose eternal views of marriage (or whatever name you give a permanent, interpersonal relationship) differ from that of "one-man, one-woman, 'till death do us part" would be better off voting No on prop 8 to allow gay marriage to continue its success and expansion which will encourage a more direct and complete discussion of creating a constitutionally fair definition of marriage and how it relates to our local, state, and federal governments.

As far as I can tell based on some of the arguments I've seen against gay marriage, here's the worst case scenario: Sodom will burn again.

But even then, there were some survivors. ...although one did transform into salt.

The best case scenario: A goat is elected Chancellor of the United Nations after her wife, the former Chancellor (who was a human female) died in a recycling accident. And people will focus on the family and not the genitals. Let's live the dream!