LITHIUM: THE SEEDS OF GALAXY FORMATION?

     There's a weird property of metals called "cold welding" whereby, in a vacuum, two pieces of the same metal will join together when they come into contact with each other. The description goes as follows:

The reason for this unexpected behavior is that when the atoms in contact are all of the same kind, there is no way for the atoms to “know” that they are in different pieces of copper. When there are other atoms, in the oxides and greases and more complicated thin surface layers of contaminants in between, the atoms “know” when they are not on the same part. (Richard Feynman)

    This got me wondering, one of the mysteries of the universe is how large-scale structures like galaxies came to be in the nearly uniform densities of matter produced in the Big Bang. Randomness surely played a role but I get the impression from my readings that such randomness would've been too slow for protogalactic cores to develop into the enormous superclusters of galaxies and voids present in the universe today over a mere 14 billion years.

     Dark matter is called into question as a possible attractor as the hypothesized material, while it has gravity, is only affected by gravity allowing the newly formed matter to gather around its mass whereas ordinary matter is affected by electricity, magnetism, radiation, and subject to gas properties like pressure, temperature, etc.
    The trouble is, while scientists are certain dark matter exists, no one knows what exactly it is making it kind of impossible to test this hypothesis.

     Now I have to believe something like this has been thought of before and discredited but nevertheless I'm putting it forth: what if something more mundane could've led to the creation of galaxies?

     In the first few minutes of the Big Bang, the temperatures and pressures were still sufficient to convert the newly created electrons, protons, and neutrons into the heavier nuclei of deuterium, helium, and a smidge of lithium.
     Of those three elements, lithium is a metal and when the universe became cool enough to allow the formation of atoms after 300,000 years, there would be lithium floating around amidst this ever decreasingly dense gas which I imagine would have formed vacuum-like conditions quite quickly.

     Now if like atoms of metal cold weld for the reason stated above, does it not stand to reason that even the tiny, tiny amount of lithium theorized to have formed during the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis would have, through random interactions, found one and other and welded together forming ever larger seeds to acts as attractants to the far more enormous amounts of hydrogen, deuterium, and helium out there?

     I would like to believe that over the millions of years between recombination and the first stars, there was plenty of time for atoms of lithium to make clumps of anywhere from hundreds to tens of thousands of atoms which would have collectively more concentrated gravity than the surrounding material which doesn't particularly enjoying interacting with one and other.
     Helium is famously unreactive and hydrogen is content once it finds a partner to bond with. Neither will naturally clump...but lithium would...and might that be enough to begin the slow process of gathering ever larger clouds of gas together to form the first stars and protogalaxies?

     I honestly don't know...but I like the idea.

HUMOR IS SUCH A SUBJECTIVE THING, DON'T YOU THINK, MOLLARI?

     Is there a name for the kind of humor where increasing the perspective progressively in steps keeps flipping the opinion of the observer back-and-forth from ire to empathy?

     I saw this post about a woman allegedly abusing her dog. You've likely seen the viral photo of the dog whose mouth has been muzzled with duct tape:

pictured: internet rage

    Now, because I'm me and am not in a hurry to rush to judgement, I found myself thinking strange things about the picture like, what if the rage the internet is showing with regard to this image was wrong...but also right...and then wrong again...and so forth?

    Like, what if everyone's mad because they see what appears to be an open-and-shut-case of animal abuse?

   But then you find out the reason the dog's mouth is muzzled shut is because the animal's jaw was broken and its owners couldn't afford the veterinarian's bill? Now you feel bad for misjudging. Maybe you even want to create a Kickstarter for the owner's vet bills.

   But then you find out the reason the dog's jaw is broken is because the owner kicked the dog in the face. Now you're angry again. How could she?! Arrest her!!!

   But then it's revealed the owner kicked the dog in the jaw, breaking it, in order to stop the dog from mauling the owner's small child. Now we feel bad again. She was only protecting her family and still wants to see the dog healed. Again, how we've misjudged...

   But it turns out the child was being mauled because it killed one of the dog's puppies. Now we're angry again. What kind of family teaches their kid to do these things?! Arrest her! Call the Child Protection Service!!!

   And I have to stop here because I can't think of anything absurd the puppy could have done to "deserve" being killed by the small child (which would, in turn, require another pullback of perspective to villainize that and so on and so forth)...

   But what is that kind of humor called? Surely it has a name...or at least a TVtrope associated with it.

    I wonder...

THE SECRET TO PERFECT POPCORN (who knew there actually was one?)

     Years ago I gave up microwave popcorn, not because of some bullshit health concern but because companies like Orville Redenbacher, Pop Secret, and Act II shrank the size of their packages. Microwaves have preset popcorn settings designed for 3½ oz. bags. Yes, I could take the time to figure out the time difference but I'm lazy and absolutely HATE when companies shrink product sizes to raise prices rather than hold the size and be honest that inflation is an insidious thing eating away at the value of everyone's dollar like the tax on the poor it is.

Don't think I forgot about you, supposed-to-be-half-gallon-sized ice-cream

You used to be 1 lb. bags when I was young before becoming 14.8 oz., 12.6 oz., and now 11.4 oz.

 Bastards...

      So I went back to making popcorn in a pot over the stove. The thing is, no matter what I did, the kernels always came out chewy. They could never match the awesomeness of microwave popcorn. Just what does that electromagnetic radiation do to those kernels that makes them come out so fluffy and crunchy anyway*?

     It made eating popcorn a decidedly less satisfactory experience. I tried looking online for solutions. Nothing worked. Whether I kept the lid closed or slightly ajar...chewy. Whether I heated the pot first and then added the kernel or heated the pot and kernels simultaneously...chewy. The solution continued to elude me until one day I noticed the bag of popcorn seeds actually had cooking instructions on them. Here I thought making popcorn was about as simple as making cereal, who the heck would need instructions?

     Curious, I read them. Unlike the Orville Redenbacher seeds, the store-brand variety had an extra step and this step has proven to be the secret that apparently no one else online has figured out when it comes to making perfect stovetop popcorn.

     Roasting.

     Yep, that's right...roasting. The instructions were as follows:

• STEP 1: Place a small amount of oil in the pot (a few tablespoons)
• STEP 2: Add a half-cup of popcorn seeds and cover.
• STEP 3: Over medium heat (not full blast!), heat the pot, shaking occasionally to distribute both the oil and seeds.
• STEP 4: When the first kernels start popping, remove the pot from heat to a cool burner (i.e. one that hasn't been used) and let the pot sit for a minute. Do not remove the lid (though you can add butter at this step if you wish)
• STEP 5: After a minute, return the pot (with the lid still on) to the original burner and continue heating over medium heat (again, not full blast)
• STEP 6: When the kernels begin popping, shake the pot to stir up and redistribute the remaining kernels. Popcorn is done, like with microwave popcorn, when it goes 1-2 seconds without another pop.
• STEP 7: Empty into a bag/bowl and enjoy.

     Step 4 was the secret. Who knew? Sure, it takes a little longer to make, but it comes out fantastically. Leaving the lid ajar (to let steam escape) is unnecessary. Nope, it's letting these kernels stew in hot oil for a bit.

     So if your stovetop popcorn's been lackluster, give it shot like I've outlined above. I'm going to make some right after I post!**

_________________________________________________________________________

* Now I wonder if microwave popcorn has been pre-roasted...

** Yes, I'm secretly hoping this post becomes popular...

OVERTHINKING THINGS THEATER PRESENTS: EXPRESSION

     With Caitlyn Jenner (she/her) in the entertainment news yesterday, I've once again been thinking about the often maddening encounters with people talking about gender, etc. online. It seems we, as a society, are now at that point where we need to come to a consensus on how to use English's various binaries because if the internet (stereotyped through Tumblr) shows anything, it's that there exists a significant group of people pontificating on these very things but either using the terminology inconsistently, unscientifically, or even illogically.
      The basis for these thoughts lies in biology, specifically with how life is classified into various kingdoms, phyla, families, orders, and so forth. I would not expect the following proposed usages to take over common everyday speech, but instead to act as a technical reference.
      The way I see it, there are certain fixed things about us and certain constructed things about us with former being biological in nature and the latter being largely made up by society over the course of history.

      My aim, in this decidedly unscientific presentation, is to attempt to bring some order to the mess that's been created through millennia of assumptions.

      From my various readings online which come primarily from comments sections, comedy articles, social issues sites, linguistic pieces, and from the occasional actually scientific piece I would gather that there are four broad categories to human expression: sex, gender, orientation, and identity.
      Allow me to explain how I've come to perceive the difference between all four.

SEX:

     Of all the categories, sex is the most scientific (in that it can be objectively determined) and it is fixed (i.e. it cannot be changed). Its basis is your genes, something we presently have no way of altering wholesale after birth. Your sex is your XY or XX designation. Biologically, this is male and female respectively. So to refer to oneself as male or female is to refer to one's genetic definition only regardless of any subsequent categories.

      In life, the XX and XY combinations are the ideal and are also by far the most frequently occurring. However, there are rare births featuring XXY and XXX combinations for instance. Additionally there are rare births for those born with both types of genitals (though I'm not aware if only one, both, or neither are functional) and those biological males (XY) with androgen insensitivity syndrome who develop like women but have no ovaries or uterus. For those rare births, the term intersex might be most appropriate. Whether to use the terms intermale or interfemale, however, I do not know. That would require more discussion.

      Finally, there are those who have undergone genital reconstructive surgery. While this does not change their genetic sex, for the sake of compassion, I think we can allow the prefix trans- to be appended to either male or female to describe such a change with trans-, in this case, to carry the meaning "made into". Thus a transmale would be a genetic female who underwent that surgery.

GENDER:

      Gender, of all the categories, is the most socially constructed one. It's probably also the most confusing one to read about online as it will be used interchangeably to refer to sex, gender, and identity (as I will be using those terms in this essay). Because I've studied Linguistics, I would suggest taking a page from that discipline and use the terms "masculine" and "feminine" to label the respective poles of the spectrum.

      It is here that I will mention that gender is not a binary, but a spectrum. For a psychological analogy, I refer to introversion and extraversion. When you learn about the Myers-Briggs types, you learn that people are predominantly either introverted or extraverted, but they are not only one or the other. Also, when one is stressed, they will tend to behave in the opposite manner (that is, a introvert under stress will exhibit extraverted tendencies). Overall, gender is a lot more like a probability.
      For instance, my test results put me at 85% introverted thus making it very safe to assume that in any given situation, my behavior will exhibit introversion. Extraversion is possible, but unlikely. I imagine I would behave rather extravertedly if I were to find myself in an involved conversation about Babylon 5, for instance :-)

      I've come to see gender the same way. There are typically masculine things/ideas/activities and there are typically feminine things/ideas/activities (as well as a whole suite of neutral things/ideas/activities I'm sure). If one were to make a list of those things and have a person check off what they like and don't like, you would surely find "manly men" selecting typically feminine things and "girly girls" selecting typically masculine things. These things/ideas/activities have nothing to do with one's sex, orientation, nor do they have anything to do with one's identity but as with introversion and extraversion, one will find that their preferences are predominantly one or the other and that gender expression is ultimately a bit fluid as one encounters new things/ideas/activities and as culture redefines those things/ideas/activities over time (pink used to be a masculine color for instance).
      I don't believe the fluidity of one's gender is very great but I do believe the line that defines our masculinity and femininity is ultimately fuzzy the more you try to focus in on it. From a distance the line will look sharp, but as you draw closer to it, the fuzziness of its true nature will show. Philosophically this also means I don't believe anyone could be perfectly balanced between the two genders because it would be, by nature, unstable. Though I suppose if the fuzziness of one's gender line were close enough to the masculine/feminine dividing line, the linguistically consistent "neuter" or "neutral" would be appropriate, or perhaps the more common term "androgynous". Again, a matter for debate.

      It is, though, because of this belief that I find the terms "bigender" and "genderfluid" to be as ridiculous as the term "ambivert" (to describe someone who feels both introverted and extraverted). Genderfluid is redundant because the very nature of gender is that it is fluid, though unlikely by more than a small amount over any given time. Bigender, like ambivert, reveals a misunderstanding of the spectral nature of the term. We're all "bigendered" as we are all "ambiverted".

      Gender, like light, is a spectrum with its poles labeled. On one side there is violet (masculine) and on the other, red (feminine) with a whole rainbow in between.

ORIENTATION:

      Like sex, this is a fixed quality but unlike sex, I don't think there's any way to objectively test for it that I'm aware of so one must accept the interpretation given by the person experiencing it. Orientation describes one's sexual attraction only and for the sake of clarity, sexual is referring to sex in the biological sense.
      Orientation from what I can tell is a pair of binaries, the largest of which is heterosexual (attracted to the opposite of one's biological sex) and homosexual (attracted to the same as one's biological sex). The less common two would be bisexual (attracted to both sexes, though not necessarily equally) and asexual (attracted to neither sex).

      Anecdotally, it seems when one is heterosexual or homosexual, they are very strongly that orientation, like practically 100% so. The question for me is, how much overlap in terms of sex and intimacy would be permitted before one is considered bisexual by the population at large?
      I remember reading in the New York Times about a man who was bisexual but who admitted his attraction to women was much more fully formed making male intimacy difficult. But I also wonder if, for the sake of example, a man told a woman he had sex with 100 people, 5 of whom were men, would he be bisexual? What if it were 2? Or 10? It seems to me, whatever the number, it must be low because the idea (speaking for myself only) of having sex with a man is a never-go and being sexually intimate with a man is incredibly uncomfortable to even think about. From watching porn, the closest thing to male intimacy I could imagine being even remotely acceptable to me would be participating in a train (2 men, 1 woman) and the most gay heat-of-the-moment type thing that wouldn't necessarily freak me out would be if the woman in that scenario sucked on both our dicks at the same time for a moment. But anything lingering would skeeve me out quickly. Double penetration (one dick in the vagina, the other in the asshole, a.k.a. DP) also feels very gay to me. Not sure if even the heat of the moment could overcome that (the difference being the former was not my choice/out of my control and the latter would most certainly be). But even holding a man, stuff like that...no, I'm very very heterosexual. I'm diverting quite a bit, but I'm hoping you see what I mean.

       I don't know what the incidence of asexuality is in humans nor do I know what the psychological threshold for such a label would be. I'm looking at it from a heterosexual (i.e. a clearly defined orientation) viewpoint when I say even if I weren't attracted to any females (or males for the sake of completeness), that if asked, I would still say I'd rather be with a woman than with a man thus making me heterosexual even if I have no plans on doing anything about it. In other words, I'm treating the idea of asexuality like celibacy. But I'm going to assume unless medical evidence is presented to the contrary, that like transgender, asexuality is a thing even though my mind can't grasp it.

      One final note. I've also read the term "pansexual" used online. I don't know precisely what the current users of that term are getting at, but I think the term could be co-opted here. As I stated before, I'm heterosexual thus meaning I want to have sex with women. However this does not include women resulting from genital reconstructive surgery. I want to have sex only with women whose parts were factory installed. Therefore, I would take the term pansexual to mean someone who would have sex with those who have undergone genital reconstructive surgery (transsexuals). The prefix pan-, though, would probably have to be appended to hetero- and homo-.
      So, for me, if I would have sex with a transsexual, it would make me panheterosexual. A panhomosexual would be the "sex with same" counterpart and a pansexual would be a bisexual person who would have sex with transsexuals. I think that makes sense.

      Additionally, undergoing genital reconstructive surgery would necessarily change your orientation. A female heterosexual after surgery would be a transmale homosexual. I think that follows logically.

IDENTITY:

      Identity would be how you present yourself regardless of the previous referents. The simple binary in common speech would be you're either a man or a woman. For labeling purposes you'd either be cis- or trans-. If you are cis-, your identity conforms to your sex and if you are trans-, your identity does not.
      Oversimplifying, a cisman is a male (by sex) who feels male, thus identifying with his biological sex and a transwoman is a male (by sex) who feels female, thus not identifying with his biological sex. This, until recently, has been considered a mental disorder but medical consensus has come to realize that trans- is merely a variant, albeit an uncommon one, and thus should not be treated as though insane.

      For proper labeling, one should always use either the prefix cis- or trans- (cisman, ciswoman, transman, transwoman). Man and woman without any label would be common speech and an assumption borne by the speaker based upon his or her analysis of your social presentation. In other words, "how you look" to the speaker. I guess one might think of the difference as how words like "chemical" have both proper and common uses. Using man and woman without prefixes would be the rough equivalent of using chemical to refer to man-made compounds and with the prefix would be like using chemical to refer to substances which cannot be physically separated into components.

      I suppose, like for orientation, if a person undergoes genital reconstructive surgery, then their trans- identity would necessarily shift to a cis- one. It feels internally consistent even though I'm unsure if it's "correct" or not.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      I think this covers all the major bases. The results are a mouthful but I'm not looking to replace common speech. No, my goal is to create a consensus-driven consistent technical description for proper classification of basic human expression. It is by no means complete, but I am hoping, rather, is for it to be a start from which debate may flow and help bring about codification.
     As for which pronoun group to use, in regular conversation I would suggest that if you don't know, that you politely ask which pronouns the person you're addressing would prefer.
     In writing, keep pronouns internally consistent and use basic compositional techniques like an initial parenthetical for clarity.
     For example, in writing, when one first uses a common organization name, it is first spelled out and then followed by how it is more commonly known or will be subsequently referred to as in parentheses. "The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is responsible for collecting income taxes". So, when writing, when the subject is introduced, it may be followed immediately in parentheses with the person's preferred pronouns. "Mary Smith (she/her) likes to play basketball." or "Jake Jones (she/her) tells us that her favorite band is Green Day."

SUMMARY:

Sex = male/female, optional inter- (for atypical sexes) and trans- (for those who have undergone genital reconstructive surgery)
Gender = masculine/feminine, optional neutral or androgynous (for those whose gender is very close to the masculine/feminine divide)
Orientation = hetero-/homo-/bi-/a- (appended to -sexual), optional panhetero-/panhomo-/pan- (for those whose attraction includes transsexuals)
Identity = cis-/trans- (appended to either -man or -woman)

Examples:
--- A masculine male heterosexual cisman would be the prototypical "man" in common speech. He is male by sex (that is, XY), masculine by gender (shows greater propensity for liking things/ideas/activities typically associated with men), heterosexual by orientation (sexually attracted to his opposite, i.e. females), and identifies with his sex (i.e. male).
--- A feminine female heterosexual ciswoman would be the prototypical "woman" in common speech.
--- A feminine male heterosexual cisman is the same as the first example except that his gender shows a propensity for things/ideas/activities typically considered feminine by society.
--- A masculine female heterosexual transman would be a genetic female who identifies as male, is sexually attracted to males, and shows a propensity for things/ideas/activites typically considered masculine by society.
--- A masculine transmale homosexual cisman would be the same as above except the person would have undergone genital reconstructive surgery.

COMPETITIVE GOLD AND SILVER

     I should make it clear that I don't think the United States should return to the Gold Standard. I can't really articulate the argument why and it may seem surprising to hear such a thing from a coin collector. However, that doesn't mean I don't think gold coins shouldn't exist as money.

     Why not have competing currencies? Congress could use its authority to coin silver and gold and put them into the marketplace as money alongside the present day fiat coins and currency.

      Just don't give them the same name.

      Leave dollars and cents to the fiat currencies. Leave them as is.

      However, there was another denomination name in the past: the eagle. An "eagle" was another word for "ten dollars". The word never appeared on a coin. I think it was just an official name and nothing more.
      The next step up was the union. A "union" was supposed to be another way of expressing "one hundred dollars". I remember the term coming up when there were talks of making $50 gold coins in response to the massive gold find in California back in 1848. The proposed $50 coin, which was never made, was referred to as a "half union".

      We could run with those terms...

      The silver coins could be referred to as eagles and denominated as such but with no official conversion formula. There could be quarter-eagles, half-eagles, eagles, and double eagles: 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, and 1 ounce of silver respectively.
      The gold coins could be referred to as unions and denominated like the silver eagles with again, no conversion formula for the other currency types.
      Smaller (or larger) versions of both types of coins could also be authorized if needed.
      How many dollars one could get for these coins would vary based on market trends. Likewise, how many silver eagles one could get for a gold union would also vary.

      The point would be to let the currencies comingle and be used by the public as desired. Laws to prevent abuse of the powerless could require employers to pay employees in the currency of their choice without fear of penalty as well as for banks to pay out debts in the currency desired by the account holder. Stores could post prices in three units much like it was during the Civil War when pricing based on paper money, silver, and gold could be found.
      It might be a little confusing at first and it ultimately might mean nothing. Gold and silver money might prove unpopular with the public and limit its use in commerce. Or it could be very popular forcing Congress to make its dollars more attractive to the public.

      I think it would be a fun experiment. I certainly don't see the harm in doing so.

THINGS CHANGE...

     It has come to my attention lately that the DSM-5, released just this year, has officially come to the conclusion that transgenderism (or gender dysphoria), in the light of new medical and psychological evidence, shall no longer be classified as a mental disorder.

     I like to think of myself as a scientist and one of the things that comes with being a scientist (as a philosophy since I am not employed as one in any field) is that things held true today may be overturned by new evidence in the future. This is one of those things.

     Seeing as how I am neither a doctor nor have I ever been trained as one, I readily accept this change even if it may take some time getting used to because who am I to judge the consensus of hundreds, if not thousands, of medical professionals with far greater knowledge of the subject of human psychology and development? I would think it absurd to do so.

     I would have to hand in my scientist card if I were to continue to hold a belief found to be no longer consistent with present knowledge and I shan't be doing that.

     As such, I have vocalized some opinions here on this blog that I would now, in light of this new knowledge, like to take back. I apologize for ever having held those opinions and I will take the time to educate myself as opportunity permits. Henceforth, I will stand against ignorant claims made against the transgendered to the best of my abilities. This does not mean you will see me at protests and whatnot but it does mean I will no longer stand with the "it's a mental disorder" crowd.

      I neither seek nor require the forgiveness of anyone whom I have offended with my prior stated views in this blog. I do this for myself but I choose to let the random happen upon to this blog know that the view of transgenderism being a mental disorder is no longer one I hold.

      I suspect it will take some time to clear from my head thoughts I've held in the past but that is the goal. Out with the old knowledge, in with the new!

A POST LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE WORLD...

     I wonder if the liberal/conservative divide has run its course in American politics? We seem to be at an apex for the two ideologies...at least from the perspective of the House of Representatives. Hell, I'm not even sure what the words liberal and conservative mean politically anymore. I've had this notion that liberality was about embracing change or at least trying something new; that is was akin to progression...future thinking and that conservativism was about preserving the status quo or even retrogressing to a time or way of doing things perceived to be better than the way they are being done now. Liberalism was about trying out untested ideas and Conservativism was about proven ones (even if those ideas had been proven ill-advised).
     Yet that's not what the words mean. Like how "theory" means one thing to scientists and means quite the opposite colloquially, liberal and conservative, when worn as political labels, take on very different senses from the dictionary senses of the words.

     But where do we go from here? If liberalism and conservativism are on the way out, what ideologies replace them?
     In the past, there were liberal and conservative Democrats as well as liberal and conservative Republicans. What was their ideological dividing line? What did the parties back then ultimately disagree on before reaching an apex that allowed the current liberal/conservative paradigm reign?
     I'm not sure. I'm guessing this was the turn of the century (the 20th one) right up and through World War II that defined it. I imagine it came to a head in the McCarthy era. The Cold War paranoia may have ended the one reign bringing about the current liberal/conservative divide.
     Or maybe it goes back further to the ascendancy of the Republican party. Abraham Lincoln was its first President and soon after the Whig party died out. Perhaps a third party will rise soon in this country, electing its first President causing one of the two major parties to go extinct (I'd bank on the Republicans going extinct because they seem to be rushing headlong into it with their Tea Party and overzealous conservative factions).

     What might tomorrow's paradigm be? Libertarianism/authoritarianism? Labor/Capitalists?
     Personally I'd hope for the rise of a true labor party in this country. One emerging paradigm is the Haves vs. the Have Nots and there's a lot of Have Nots in this country who are unrepresented in government or at best marginally so. Congress is comprised as a percentage of their body by many more millionaires than are present as a percentage of the nation's population. Congress is also heavy on lawyers and businessmen. As Neil deGrasse Tyson asked (and I'm paraphrasing), where are the engineers, the scientists, the teachers, the service industry, the philosophers, hell even the ditchdiggers? Can we truly be represented by a government if that government's representatives do not even remotely resemble its constituencies?
      Personally I'd like to see a political party comprised of the actual poor, working, and middle classes and if any of its leaders are wealthy, they should have worked their way up to it. They should know intimately what it is like to be in the trenches so to speak.
       I would think the next divide would be between labor and the capitalists. The Republicans seem almost totally comprised of the latter category and the Democrats mostly so. What about the rest of us?

      But given the very close, very bipartisan vote on defunding the NSA (I believe it was 217 - 205 against defunding it), perhaps the next partisan divide that will shake up and reorganize the parties will be that of libertarians and authoritarians (though I'm sure the latter side will pick a better moniker). Privacy versus Need to Know.

      I hope something happens in the next few election cycles because this current stalemate between the two parties is preventing the government from governing at all and it's really annoying. To paraphrase a line from Babylon 5, the two parties are like divorcing parents fighting in front of their children and trying to make those children choose sides. It's one or the other we're told. I just look forward to a modern-day John Sheridan who can rise up and remind us that we don't need either of those parties anymore.

      As a Facebook friend suggested, we need to form the Mercutio Party...a pox on both your houses!...and figure out our own way through liberalism and conservativism; libertarianism and authoritarianism; labor and capitalists; privacy and publicity; individualism and community; etc. etc. etc.

ADDENDUM: This Daily Kos rant I offer as an example adding weight to my argument that the next division will be between labor and capitalists. If professionals organize in this country into guilds like screen actors and writers have in Hollywood, then I think the country will begin moving toward a real middle class again. Loyalty to companies seems a quaint and antiquated notion these days. It is further brought about by declining benefits and loss of pensions. Why bother sticking around? Accountants, lawyers, secretaries, hell even clerks, et al. need to organize into guilds.

BANKING REGULATIONS, SHMANKING REGULATIONS...

     Just another of my many dumb ideas. Economic bubbles like the housing bubble which burst in 2006 and the derivatives bubble which burst in 2008 can cause massive amounts of damage to an economy and affect many millions of people greatly. At the center of these storms are banking institutions lending out money, making what amounts to financial bets, and insuring those bets against losses. It turns out this is a ridiculously multi-trillion dollar industry in a world there is only about three trillion dollars in existence. It's kind of interesting when you think about it...it also sounds fraudulent and that's probably because it is at some level.

      One thing I've learned over the years is that banks are not required to fully back their loans. In fact any given bank is only required to have a 4% cash reserve which means that if you've deposited $20,000 in the bank, they are only required to keep $800 of that onhand and the bank will make loans with the rest. (oh wow, it's actually worse than that)

       That might sound all well and good but here's where it gets crazier. Thanks to something called Fractional Reserve Lending (which is totally legal by the way), it turns out the bank can lend out far more than the $19,200 it has available to loan. It's kind of scary. The example in the link shows how a $100 deposit can legally turn into over $350 in loans for the bank and legally exist as over $450 in deposits when only $100 ever existed. This is a source of inflation by the way. I personally don't think for a moment big ticket items like cars, houses, and education would cost what they do if they weren't propped up by these kinds of lending schemes.

       Now, despite the massive recession following the Lehman Bros. collapse in September 2008 - I think it's called the Great Recession now - banks are rather insistent that they are not in need of additional oversight in their lending practices. Personally I think that's bullshit to the highest level yet they're clearly getting away with it so don't expect much folks. But I did have this one idea and believe it or not it comes from a Warner Bros. cartoon.

       I remember when a bank robber would rob a bank in certain cartoons, they'd pass by the front entrance where the bank proudly boasted its total assets. The criminal would then erase everything but the cents and run off. Well...what if banks had to do a version of that?

      What I'm thinking is this. A bank has so much cash - physical actual cash - on hand. It also has various obligations on hand such as depositors' accounts, certificates of deposit, mortgages, other types of loans, etc. Larger institutions might have various CDOs and other derivatives on their balance sheets as well.
       Now, I'm one of those people who believes that it was overlending by the banks which led to this problem. I see it like a hot potato or a pyramid scheme. When things are going well, no one notices but eventually it has to end because otherwise the value of an asset or commodity would become infinite. Take houses for example. At the start of the bubble, people sold their homes for a tidy profit and those homes in turn could be sold again for an even higher price. I saw homes in my area go from about $250,000 to over $500,000 over the span of five years or so. The mentality becomes that of "Houses can only go up, Up, UP!!!" and they do...for a while. Eventually, however, some schmuck is left holding the bag when he can no longer sell his home for a higher price. He's forced to take a loss. Now the word gets out that if you're patient you can get a better deal. Now home prices start to sink leaving more people holding the bag because now their homes are worth less than what they paid for them.
       On top of all this mess, as home values were increasing (on paper, mind you), banks were all too happy to have owners tap into this "equity" and loan the homeowners money off the fictitious increasing value of their property. And why not? The home's value is rising so fast, the loan will pay for itself. I'll remind you here that people are stupid and easily swept up in such fads.

      Anyways, the point I wanted to make was, how about a trade? No new banking regulations (hell, we can even undo some other regulations too to sweeten the pot) in exchange for a number. A number which must be posted on the bank's entrance, on every bank statement, front and center on its webpage, etc. That number would be just how much your account would be worth if the bank had to pay out all its obligations at once with the actual cash it has on hand. Realizable assets like loans and mortgages don't count. It's simply CASH ON HAND ÷ OBLIGATIONS. This figure could be expressed as a percentage. In other words, for every dollar I have on deposit, the bank in the event of failure can guarantee me x.xx% on the dollar of my deposit. Bank statements would express the actual guaranteed amount.

       Now imagine you received your bank statement and saw the guaranteed amount of your $20,000 deposit listed as $800. That might give you pause. But it's worse than that. The derivatives market is estimated at over $600 trillion, and the real estate market is estimated at $34½ trillion, the stock market capitalization is estimated at $15.35 trillion, among other things I'm sure. Think about that. About $650 trillion dollars being traded around compared to about $3 trillion in cash.
       Viewed totally, that means there's only about ½¢ for every dollar in obligations so if the entire system (somehow) collapsed, you (on a system-wide basis) would only receive less than $100 for your $20,000 deposit. The reason I say less is because not all of that $3 trillion dollars is in banks. If I remember correctly, 2/3s of it is held abroad too so you're talking less than $33 of your $20,000 could be guaranteed.

       If a bank had to admit that to you; that it could guarantee so little of your deposit...would you feel safe putting your money in such a bank? Yes, a lot of unwarranted assumptions are being made here. Obviously FDIC guarantees are not being considered but I wouldn't anyway. The banks abuse the FDIC notion now. They figure since your deposits are guaranteed up to $250,000 by the federal government, they see no reason to be careful with your money because fuck it, it's guaranteed. You won't lose so why should they give a shit about what happens to it? Banks lend money in your checking accounts too. Checking accounts are supposed to be demand accounts and thus fully on deposit at the bank but they sweep the money up when the bank is closed and lend it for short periods during the overnight without your permission nor do they share the profits with you.

      But anyways, long-winded entry aside. That's what I want. A single number. A number that shows just how much my deposit is actually guaranteed for. Banks would have much greater incentive to be careful and considerate with other people's money if people saw at a glance how reckless the bank is behaving. People would seek the highest guaranteed number.

      How to properly enforce it would be another question.

STARTED WITH THE INTENT OF BEING AN ASSHOLE...ENDED UP CONTEMPLATIVE

     I've got myself reading comments on a post related to autism. I tell you, if you've ever needed help understanding what denial is and/or looked like, read a forum for parents of children with autism.

     Right away you're assaulted with corruptions of the English language: "My son is not autistic, he HAS autism..." said one mother who clearly doesn't understand that many nouns have adjectival forms and that the -ic suffix does in fact mean "having, showing, or affected by" among its several related definitions.
      Another mother put it this way, "I think a better way to say this is that you have autism. If you say you are autistic that means thats is [sic] all you are" - I find posts like this somewhat ironic as it seems parents with autistic kids make sure you know this fact, even if you didn't ask. It's like the old joke about "How can you tell if someone is a vegetarian? Don't worry, they'll tell you." And God forbid you're not 100% completely on their side of thinking. Oh, the hell that will rain down upon you. They're perfect little angels who, unlike typical children, need excessively costly care and limitless attention from one-on-one aides devoted to their "special needs", another term that bugs the shit out of me for being too vague and ultimately dishonest. These parents go way the fuck out of their way to delude themselves into thinking these kids can be just like typical kids; that all we need to do is understand they're just different. Different being a hell of a loaded word. Yes, autistics come with a range of misbehaviors. My Best Friend worked with them so I've got the stories ranging from ones who are otherwise alright except in certain circumstances - meaning they're fairly trainable - to ones which are so lost that they can't even speak at eight years old, still wear diapers, and have no clue whatsoever just how strong they are.

      As far as I can tell, there's no cure for autism and the cure, if one can be found, will likely be like those for cancer, a range of remedies. Or no cure will be found because a prenatal test will finally be developed to detect the gene or genes responsible for autism and their prevalence in the population, like that of Down Syndrome, will drop precipitously. I'm suspecting the latter will be what ultimately happens.
      More denial here: "I also agree with others who've pointed out that this is not an autistic child, but a child with autism. This is an important distinction in advocacy efforts to educate the public and educators that our children are not broken, not defective and not defined by their diagnosis." --- If they are not broken, defective, or otherwise defined by their diagnosis, then why all the advocacy? I feel like they want it both ways. They're not defective, but they need special-this and special-that. They're not defined by their diagnosis until the school refuses to treat them any different than a typical student in which case these children have special needs which must be addressed by the school system. Huh? That's like saying a blind person isn't defined by their diagnosis. Yeah, they pretty much are and compared to sighted people, their eyes/optic nerves are quite defective indeed, even broken. Yet analogizing this woman's sentences, she would likely claim that a person who's blind is no different from you and me but he needs special books printed in braille and seeing-eye dogs when out in public, but no different. Nope, not at all.

      They of course despise the adjective normal and will be quick to scold you for using the term because they feel this stigmatizes their autistic children as abnormal. They'll use the word "typical" or "regular" (and yes, the words will often appear enclosed within begrudging quotation marks) instead for describing children exhibiting expected behaviors not that I understand how the logical following that your autistic child is "atypical" or "irregular" is any less stigmatizing but whatever. "Some children's needs can't be met in a 'typical' classroom. That is why we have special education classes and teachers."

      Another common thread I take from these discussions are that these kids with autism are "not my (the parents') problem: they're your problem and you have to pay for it!" I find frequent appeals to government laws like IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) and threats to sue in open court. Never mind that I have no idea where this money is supposed to come should the parents win their cases no matter how meritorious the filing.
      I also see many references to all children having a right to an education. Again, it's not my problem, it's yours. Yes, but what rarely goes addressed is what to do if they are uneducatable? One commenter wrote the following:

What's the answer? I love how people bitch about education, but there are no solutions offered. Serious questions: 1) Is it fair to put special needs kids in a school with other kids? 2) Is it right for a teacher to spend 90% of their time on 10% of the kids? 3) Would there be objection to segmenting schools to where kids were sent to teachers who are equipped to teach different levels of learning? 4) Autism comes in many forms. If a child is non-verbal, yet superior at electronic learning, and another autistic child lashes out (Aspergers), would you put them in the same class due to Autism?

He followed up in response to another commenter who said that we (teachers) have to try to reach them all...

I agree that you try to reach them all, but at what point do you realize you can't? Being a little selfish here, but why should my child be told to read the book while you spend your time with the children who need the special attention? If it truly is an equal education, why is it that kids who take time from the rest of the class consistently [are] not removed and better place in classes with teachers who are better equipped to teach special needs children? If it is the social aspect that we are trying to give these kids, isn't that what recess, lunch, electives are for?

     He was treated well though such comments can often lead to flame wars.

      I know there are no simple solutions to this problem that's not a problem until you decide it's not a problem because then it most assuredly is. Personally, I'm an advocate for euthanasia for anyone who cannot be made to independently and lawfully participate in society. It seems the only humane thing to do. Yeah, I know it's not their fault they turned out this way. I also really don't believe George wanted to kill Lenny. From a resources point of view, it seems so entirely wasteful. All this investment with zero potential for positive overall returns. For every successfully trained autistic who makes the covers of magazines and gets interviewed on television for the public to praise, how many spend their lives in institutions in abysmal conditions just because we can't bring ourselves to give them an injection of euthasol (assuming it works the same on humans)? What is the success rate of education and training of individuals with autism? Does it even approach that of high school graduation rates or are they marvels of wasteful inefficiency? What is the cost/benefit analysis? I know from a parental point of view, their child is of course perfectly precious but what do the numbers say? I suppose for my own curiosity's sake, what is the cost/benefit analysis of the average human? I might be unpleasantly surprised to know the results.

      I hate these entries because they never go anywhere...

MORE EVIDENCE I DON'T GET OUT OFTEN...

     I went out with The Security Guard and his (our?) friend last night. After a meal at TGIFridays, we went to two Go-Go lounges. The first one was a den of sadness which felt a lot like the one I was taken to last year, possibly two years ago (time's slipping through my fingers at an ever-increasing rate). The second one, however, was much different. The girls there, dare I say, seemed happy to be there or at least didn't come across like they wished their lives had taken different paths.

     What made this experience different is the girls would actually sit down and talk to the patrons. Now, I'm not stupid: I know they're looking to get lap dances which pay considerably better ($20) than the dollar bill alms received after they "perform" onstage. I use the term loosely because trust me, whatever you've seen on television does not happen in these places...girls are not energetically and/or acrobatically dancing on the stage nor are their moves particularly sophisticated (though one girl danced rather seductively). I imagine there are upscale places where the television experience happens but not here.

     But I will tell you this...it's nice that they do that [talk to the patrons]. For a guy like me not used to receiving any attention at all from girls, let alone very pretty ones (another difference between this latter lounge and the first one...the girls were much prettier at this establishment). Even while fully aware they're ultimately soliciting for a lap dance, they will spend a few minutes with you. During that time you get some conversation, eye-contact, and even some flirtatious touching (patrons can't touch the dancers, but the dancers can touch you within reason). I'll even add patience because, for those of you who know me, I'm not exactly the life of any party in any given social situation so that too has an added bonus that my shitty initial talking points don't immediately lead to failure.

     I see its value for guys like me. It has the potential to be confidence boosting which anyone knows I need. I'm smart/cynical enough not to believe that these girls actually like me or are attracted to me so it's not possible for them to take advantage of me. However, I realize they're providing a service even if it's not the one they had intended and make sure they're paid even when I decline the lap dance. And like with a good server in a restaurant, if you get better service, they get better tips and my friend, The Security Guard, has done work in these kinds of clubs for years so he's able to teach me the proper etiquette.

     Unlike my prior three experiences in these clubs, I did this time, accept an invitation for a lap dance. I wasn't planning on it but I allowed peer pressure to overcome my normal cowardly resistance and quite frankly, this girl was sexy as hell.
      That was a very different experience for me. I'm not sure what to make of it. It's sexy as hell, or at least she made it such but considering it takes me about two hours (after taxes) to make $20, it's not something I could ever do with any sense of frequency. But she made my first lap-dance experience worthwhile and gave me a little bit extra, possibly a lot extra (even if I thought my experience was typical, her rapid recoiling from what she was doing when another girl passed in the background to go into the dressing room would let anyone know some rules were being violated). As such, I was sure to tip her on top of the cost of the dance.

     It is amazing how creepy some guys are in these places. In the first lounge of the evening, the discomfort on some of the dancer's faces as they put up with the antics of a drunken patron was palpable. It must suck for the dancers because those patrons end up paying more so they have to put up with it if they expect to pay back the house and make money for the evening. Negative feedback loops. I can't do that. I see no reason to treat a girl differently (in the negative sense) just because she's a go-go dancer.
     And no, I'm not trying to play some asshole nice-guy shtick. These girls would see through that as easily as I see through their flirtatious soliciting. I just feel these girls deserve the same respect one would give a waitress. They are not my playthings and I refuse to talk to them like they owe me their time.

     I wonder if I should return to this establishment? It's not like it's prohibitively far from my home. I couldn't afford to go more than once a month, but I can't help but wonder if repeating these experiences would help me with my confidence issues? Also, I've gone enough times now with experienced patrons to have learned how to properly treat/tip the bartender, staff, and dancers. As a final point I would say just because you know the attention you're getting is not genuine doesn't mean it doesn't evoke the same responses and offer the same benefits that genuine attention does, right? It might confer the same benefits that military training does. Simulated combat is certainly not real combat, but it still prepares the mind and body for the real thing.

THE DEVIL'S NOT IN THE DETAILS...

     Sometimes I think what led me on the path to atheism (a term I strongly dislike but I'll use for now because I seriously can't be bothered) is the idea that God is all powerful, all knowing, ever present, and infallible.

     First of all, I'm going to admit that I have not read the Bible cover to cover so I truly do not know if God's omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, and infallibility is ever stated in the Bible itself or if that idea came later. Heck, the First Commandment suggests that God is not the only god out there, just that He must be worshiped above all others. Like, you can have gods AFTER Me, just not before Me. ;-) Moving along...

     I got involved in a discussion about free will and unfortunately had this thought too late for it to be of any use then, but if God knows everything that ever was, is, and will be...where does human free will come in? How is it possible for me to make a choice? If God is all-knowing, then my free will is an illusion because in order for me to truly have a choice, God would necessarily have to NOT know something...but since He knows everything, he can't not know what my choice will be before I've made it. It would suggest that whether or not I am going to Heaven or Hell was determined long before I was born and that it doesn't matter what I do because I never had any choice in it at all. How depressing... Would it also apply to God as well? Does God know everything He will ever do and done before He does it? Does God lack free will as well? Putting omniscience into the story of Adam and Eve and the apple also makes God look less than benevolent when he punishes Adam and Eve for doing what He already knew they were going to do.

     Then I thought about miracles, or rather, the idea of Divine Intervention. I wondered, if God is infallible, how could there ever be a bona fide miracle in this world? If God were to intervene at any point, it would suggest that He was wrong about something but if God cannot be wrong, where do miracles fit in? Again, you cannot claim that He needed to intervene to save a life or whatever because that would imply he didn't know it was going to happen because why else intervene except because something unexpected had happened?

     But then I thought, what if such declarations were the mistake made by overzealous preachers in the past? Sure, it is hardly an enviable position to suggest that God is not all-powerful, all-knowing, ever-present, and infallible but it would certainly explain what goes on in the world better and it would allow for free will too.
     If God is not any of those things, then the reason bad things happen to good people (and vice-versa) is because God is not able to prevent all injustice and rather than that being a path to despair, it would be instead a reminder of the necessity that we do good and resist evil because God cannot do it all for us.
     Other worlds are not mentioned in the Bible but a quick look at any astronomical text will show an unfathomably large universe which must be teeming with planets bearing sapient beings. If you take the grand miracles of God in the Old Testament as evidence of a visiting rather than nanny-like deity, it would explain why He doesn't seem to be around all too often. You could even take the story of Christ as a parting gift of sorts before leaving to instruct beings on another world. God basically telling humanity that he has to go now but will return should evil ever once again take hold of the world. But in the meantime, take these lessons and heed them because it is your (humanity's) responsibility to be stewards of this world; to be just and kind to others; and to be diligent in resisting evil; etc.

     I don't know (obviously). I'm tired too...

Today is NEWSCASTERS PRETEND TO CARE ABOUT VICTIMS AND THEIR FAMILIES Day...

     We have taken our pound of flesh for the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks. It is enough. Time to move on as a nation and get on with rebuilding all those things we have been neglecting as a result of our prolonged response to those terrorist attacks. We are well past the time to be moving money set aside for revenge and destruction and using it instead to rebuild our roads, our schools, our water pipes, our electrical grid, etc. etc. etc. etc.

     September 11th has become this national day of mourning and it offends me. Unless you personally knew someone who died that day as a result of the attacks, today is not about you. You experienced a nexus in history...congratulations...but it's not about you. Your life was not affected, so live it instead.
     But that doesn't matter because ghoulish engines have been built and continue to churn out these prepackaged 9/11-themed sorrowful human interest stories for the public to consume. The news programs play somber versions of their regular themes too, just like the Brady Bunch. And the newscasters themselves wear their sad faces when reading from the teleprompter. The girls who were hired to be big-titted, attractive stage props are made to dress like they're going to a funeral. And of course the endless jingoistic photo montages of American flags, the still-standing Twin Towers made to look majestic, sad-looking people, bald eagles, heavenly blue skies, and don't forget the firemen hoisting the flag shot and the "cross of steel" too because for some reason, miracle! Each news organization quietly competes to get the most talked about montage because why not, it's not like Nielson ratings, Cume, shares, AQH, and TSL take the day off when it's a bad-memory day for the United States. Money, money, money!
     By now, the references to the attack itself are oblique at best. Maybe one picture of the actual attacks and even then, it's a safe one before getting back to the people aspect of it, rather than the political part and the military response. They don't want to stoke any latent anger in the American public anymore and I'm fine with that overall, but not the way the newsmedia goes about it. And then of course, the next day, it's all back to normal: playful banter between hosts and wacky stories and cleavage galore from the hot weather girl...just like yesterday never happened.

PICTURED: not September 11th

JUST SO STUPID IT MIGHT WORK?

     With all the talk about Global Warming, I find myself thinking back to the old simulation game by Maxis called "SimEarth". Two of the eight scenarios in the game had you terraforming the planets Venus and Mars.

     Venus and Mars have their own problems for terraforming: Venus is too hot and has an extremely dense atmosphere compared to Earth. Its surface temperature averages 900°F and the atmosphere exerts ninety times the pressure at the surface than does Earth. Its atmospheric pressure is roughly the equivalent of being about a half mile underwater and breezes would feel more like rushing water than air against your body (we are working on the assumption that you would not immediately die upon exposure to this of course!).
     Mars has the opposite problem: it is too cold and it possesses a rarified atmosphere compared to Earth. Its average surface temperature is -67°F (whereas for Earth, the average surface temperature is about 60°F) and the atmospheric pressure at the surface is about 1/100th that of Earth's.

     The means for terraforming these worlds were objects called "oxygenators" (for converting CO₂ into O₂ and thus creating a cooling effect), "vaporators" (for releasing H₂0 into the air to moisten the world and raise the overall temperature), "N₂ generators" (to release inert nitrogen into the atmosphere in order to build up atmospheric pressure), and "CO₂ generators" (to release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and thus warming the planet).
      What had me wondering was, "Were these carbon dioxide and oxygen generators entirely fictional?" Plants and animals do it all the time via photosynthesis and respiration so it can't be impossible. The question is can it be done effectively? That is, without further warming the planet?

      Now I'm thinking for Earth and its recent accumulations of carbon dioxide and methane which accelerate global warming trends. Could machines or more precisely, factories, be created all over the world (I'm assuming in desert climes where there's ample sunlight to power these factories and few people to interfere with their operations) to draw these greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere and replace them with oxygen and water? And could the carbon resulting from this be converted into bicarbonate rock (the stuff of seashells)? And could they draw out the "bad" gases faster than we can generate them?

      If powered by solar, nuclear, or wind energy, they would not create greenhouse gases themselves. It sounds ridiculous, but I wonder...

OCCASIONALLY I REGRET THE THINGS I SAY...

      I fully admit that I am an asshole and not just "at times." I am a straight-up asshole and as such I can and do say and think things which, upon happenstance and occasionally outright education, can be later found to be indefensible. I figure in the spirit of this capacity to change and presumably "grow" as a human being, I would let you in on two things I have come to reconsider lately.

      Gawker a few weeks ago published another story in its continuing takes on the Trayvon Martin killing. In this article, it was mentioned that somehow respected newsperson Geraldo Rivera was quoted as saying (and I am quoting, likely out of context but wha'e'er), "I think the hoodie is as much responsible for Trayvon Martin's death as George Zimmerman was." If you're fairly enlightened already, I suspect you have found that comment to be revolting. The thing is, I didn't and for a while (and I mean long before this particular story came out) I was of the general opinion that people shouldn't go around acting suspiciously and that would go double for minorities as they are already looked upon suspiciously so don't add fuel to the fire by adding a layer of conspicuousness to it all. Yes, hoodies look intimidating. I would argue because it partially obscures one's face depriving you of an important aspect of body language to ascertain and because the large pockets in front in which both hands are sometimes in can make it look like you're concealing a weapon. Yes, I have on occasion felt nervous when hoodied (my memory's cloudy but let's face it...black and/or latino) gentlemen had approached me in passing. Basically, don't wear clothing that makes you look like a thug. Sounded reasonable. Then in the comment section of that same article, I read this by geraldlott65 and promptly felt like an ass:

"As a Black man in America, I have always had to be aware of how I am perceived. I have a 14 year old son who doesn't know what its like to be called a nigger by someone means it. The fact is - racism exists. What should young black men do, dress in khakis and boat shoes with polo shirts and sweater tied around their necks. Let's be honest, once most young black men start wearing the "prep" look, we'll have stories of racists killing them because they look threatening in their pink Izod shirts. I bet we even hear that some gangs have Polo and some wear the alligator!

George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin because he could. He was looking for an opportunity to play "Sheriff" and found a victim. Trayvon was a black stranger that wandered into Zimmerman's turf. He is as bad as gang-banging hoodrats that prey on the inner-city. Zimmerman stalked this young man, called it in to the police to get an excuse, instigated an altercation and stood on Florida's law to execute this young man."

      Geraldlott65 made perfect sense: it's not the clothing that these youth are wearing, it's the racist/bigoted attitudes behind them. If you just plain don't like black people, you'll find an excuse to cling to. I've since incorporated this commenter's logic into my brain and will have it at my ready disposal should anyone in my vicinity attempt to make the argument that clothing has anything to do with these types of crimes. I won't accept it anymore.

       The next thing I learned was that I can and do arrogantly dismiss things. Now while I would like to sit here and pretend that that behavior has been eradicated from my mind wholesale, it has in fact not been...just a singular aspect of it. I found myself reading several blog posts this morning from predominantly feminist points of view - this may be the topic of future entry here - and in one of the links I followed, I came across something called "Trigger Warnings" which, briefly stated, is a warning "...designed to prevent people who have an extremely strong and damaging emotional response (for example, post-traumatic flashbacks or urges to harm themselves) to certain subjects from encountering them unaware. Having these responses is called 'being triggered'." My initial asinine response was pretty much, "What kind of whiny pussy-ass shit is this?!" Very brutal and dismissive...perhaps even condescending, I'll grant that. My inner voice isn't exactly known for its subtlety.


      Thankfully, the wiki entry provided a link to (TRIGGER WARNING: This link contains information about sexual assault and/or violence which may be triggering to survivors) an essay written on a site called Dreamwidth by a blogger calling herself Impertinence. Although it was not her job to educate assholes like me about triggering, she chose to do so anyway and in so doing, explained it to me in a way that was perfectly sensible and made me feel ashamed for my private dismissal earlier (no one heard me think it is what I'm saying). It counts as another thing I've learned and something which I hope I will be mindful of should I ever actually enter into dark discussions in this blog o' mine.

      I'll leave it at that...

LONG TIME VEGAN SCHOOLS LIFELONG OMNIVORE, see comments section

      Over the years, I have had many fried foods and by fried, I mean breaded/battered filets in a layer of oil, not pan-frying or stir-frying. Fish filets, chicken breast filets, turkey breast filets, pork chops, even eggplant (filets?)...but never beef. I've wondered why that is. Is it just one of those things like where ketchup is a sensible condiment for french fries but not for mashed potatoes even though really, what's the difference? Or is there a real reason behind it?

       Tonight I will find out. I bought some beef filets (or their rough equivalent) and eggs...I haven't bought eggs for over a year...and fry them in oil. See how it turns out. Messy food preparation tonight, yay! I'll have to addendum this entry tomorrow.

ADDENDUM:  Turns out the beef I had bought was exactly the correct ones to buy for this experiment. As was brought to my attention in the comment section, the cuts were referred to as "chicken steaks." They came out rather well but I failed to season the beef before breading it so flavor-wise, they were a bit lacking. If I bother to make them again, I will have to marinate in teriyaki sauce or otherwise spice them a day before cooking. Oil frying is one of the last areas of cooking I have to perfect as I've been favoring baking and broiling over the years. I was worried they would be too tough and that would be the reason why I had not heard of fried beef. I guess instead, it's just regional cuisine.