I'm an optimist, which sometimes makes me give people too much of the benefit of the doubt. Case in point: I'm an Obama supporter (I've been for a long while, back before it was cool) but lately I'd been thinking that if one of the worst case scenarios happens in the next election, namely McCain being elected, that it wouldn't be all that terrible.

This makes me wanna kinda change my mind. Can we please not elect any of these crazy Republican guys? Please? I'm tired of watching my homeland turn into a crazy-town.

Jean and I watched An Inconvenient Truth this weekend. If you haven't seen it, go rent it and lament not voting for Gore (unless you did).

First I'll admit that several years ago, I was a global warming skeptic. Not so much recently, but that's one of the reasons why I wanted to see the movie: to see how it addressed my previous skepticism. You see, intelligent people continually test their own assumptions. They stay current with the latest research and thinking trends.

Some people would rather stick their fingers in their ears, though. I've been staying away from these articles because I hadn't seen the movie, but now that I have I couldn't resist and I wish I hadn't read that one.

Here's a choice quote:

"'You will not teach or show that propagandist Al Gore video to my child, blaming our nation — the greatest nation ever to exist on this planet — for global warming,' he wrote in an e-mail to the Federal Way School Board.
The computer consultant is an evangelical Christian who says he believes that a warming planet is 'one of the signs' of Jesus Christ's imminent return for Judgment Day."

If this doesn't scare you... These people are literally worse than any threat of terrorism. Facts, evidently, are for "the left." Well, if that's true, I'm more left than I've ever been.

We've got 10 years left to fix this. We've just about fixed the ozone layer which shows what's possible. What I don't get is how this is any different. I guess there were no CFC lobbyists.

This one is tough, though.

A few years ago, I spent a rather huge proportion of my day behind the wheel of a car moving at a snails pace mile-by-screaming-at-the-car-in-front-of-me-mile though my 40ish mile (one way) commute to and from work. I eventually decided that had to change, or I was going to have a heart attack at 30. Since then, I've either driven traffic-free for as short of a distance as possible, or ridden public transportation. My stress levels are much better because of it.

Well, they were, but now my stress comes in the form of reading daily news feeds like digg and reddit. Here is a brief scan of the headlines today:

"Fox News mislabels Democrat/Republican AGAIN; this time makes it look like R's are winning a race that they're actually losing," "Montana state lawmaker calls governor "bigot" for believing Earth is hundreds of millions of years old," "For security purposes, known and wanted actual terrorists are EXCLUDED from TSA list," "Rumsfeld Sat On The Board of The Company That Sold Nuclear Reactors to North Korea," "The question that stumped Bush: "Do you believe the war in Iraq and the rise of terrorism are signs of the Apocalypse?,"" "Lawyer Must Leave Navy after successful Supreme Court challenge of the Bush's military tribunals," "Congress Needs Tutorial on the U.S. Constitution"

So the question is, do I stop reading the news? If I let it get me upset enough it might drive me to try to *do* something about it, which is every American's duty when they disagree with their government. However, at this point in my life I'd like the luxury of a little less daily stress - and becoming an activist isn't probably the best route for that. Turning a blind eye doesn't seem right either, though. Maybe I should read other news sources instead? But, isn't that the actual problem? Isn't that what got us here? Too many people turning a blind eye and watching news that makes them feel better because they don't need the stress? Maybe FOX news has it right. If the facts are upsetting, change them!

I guess I'll just have to "go about my business," which according to an exact quote by President Bush is my job as an American.

From the article:

"On the October 2 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh suggested that the recent resignation of former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL), which came after allegations that Foley sent inappropriate emails to a 16-year-old male congressional page, was a "set ... up" "coordinated" by the Democrats."

I feel ill.

More from Rush:
"I just have to ask the question because I don't know, I'm not around 16- or 17 year olds. But how many of them save instant messages like that, just on their own?"

Uh, like... all of them? It's a default setting on most IM clients.

People still listen to this guy?

read more | digg story

Pardon my politics... Maybe Seattle brings out the blue in me.

Keith Olbermann's recent commentary on Rumsfeld is brilliant. This is old-school journalistic patriotism at its best.

By the way, Fox news ratings are falling. It's about time. Thanks, Bill O'Reilly! I'm hoping this is a good sign of change in November.

The courts agree that Inteligent Design Isn't.

For Reference: I believe in "God" - but probably differently than you think I do. I also believe that's OK.

Some choice tidbits from the article:

- "An objective observer would know that ID and teaching about "gaps" and "problems" in evolutionary theory are creationist, religious strategies that evolved from earlier forms of creationism." ID is noted as being "an old religious argument for the existence of God" and "a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory", and found to be non-scientific on several grounds.

- Judge Jones's ruling is remarkably contemptuous towards the board, noting that "In fact, one unfortunate theme in this case is the striking ignorance concerning the concept of ID amongst Board members." He also recognized that they had intentionally attempted to mislead the court: "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

- Board members began down the path to the lawsuit by clearly stating their intent to teach creationism, and switched to ID only after consulting TMLC lawyers. This was still understood to be creationism, though — an email introduced at the trial revealed that the TMLC "refer to the creationism issue as 'intelligent design'." Board members didn't appear to be making a concerted attempt to improve education, as they couldn't keep evolution and origin of life issues straight. They believed that there were multiple scientific theories competing with evolution, and they felt ID must be one of them because it "sounded scientific".

So not only is ID not scientific, but the proponents are willing and eager to lie and cheat to try to get it recognized as such. Yay religion. At least the Cathoics still consider Evolution consistent with God's teachings.

Great quote from a slashdot comment I read about this:
- My inclination is that if it was impossible to for a bacteria to spring in to existence from pools of organic molecules over the course of billions of years, its even more unlikely that an omnipotent being could likewise spring in to existence from nothing.

LOL, so believing in ID actually hurts your argument that there is a God after all.

I am now officially done talking about this issue.

And as for the whole Bush spying thing. Don't get me started! :)

read this.

I have nothing to say...

This is a GREAT ARTICLE about how there are no statistics whatsoever that link video game violence to teen crime... or violent crime in general. The truth is, violent crime has been going down in the last several years, especially in people age 14-24.

Oh, the media...
Just more fear mongering to capture ratings from people who'd rather be playing video games.

Article about Alaska's warming climate

Whether or not human-made emissions are causing it, the globe is certainly warming. Why is there still a debate again?

Oh right, because it would cost money to fix it.

"I want my Hummer H2! Who cares about the heat, it's got air conditioning!" - Joe Moron

Edit:
ANOTHER ARTICLE

Interesting, but I don't like to be labeled.

You are a Social Liberal (70% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (38% permissive) You are best described as a: Democrat Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid

Jean and I are going on our trip to Montana next week! If we do anything cool, I'll write up an article for www.craftytraveler.com - It's a new website that a friend and coworker has just set up to try help provide an answer to "where should I go on vacation?" It's a really cool concept, actually... and it's interesting because its almost like he's quitting his day job to travel the world and write about it. Gotta love that.

Work's been keeping me busy, and there's a rumor going around of this great job coming up in Barrow, AK. That's kinda extreme. It doesn't get any daylight there for like 2 months in the winter time. I'm sure if I had anything to do with that project, it would be just for short periods, but it's still kinda neat.

I know I don't like to talk about politics here, but the John Roberts nomination for Supreme Court left me with a bit of an eat-my-words situation so I should point it out. One of the biggest reasons I was worried about George Bush for president in the '04 election was because I was worried about his potential picks for the Supreme Court. I can't find anything wrong with this particular nomination, so I must admit I'm pleasantly surprised. One of the few times lately that politicians have surprised me pleasantly. The rumor is that when Rehnquist retires Bush may nominate current Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, which also seems OK to me - but I must admit the only thing I really know of this are reports that it would anger his far right base... that's gotta be good, right? :)