Extra Life

On October 17th, I'll be participating in Sarcastic Gamer's Extra Life Marathon. From 8 AM Saturday to 8 AM Sunday, I'll be playing video games in order to raise money to help children with cancer at the Texas Children's Hospital. I'm looking for sponsors to help out.

If you want to know more about what Extra Life is, click on the link to check out their homepage.

If you're interested in donating, please click here to go to my page. They accept PayPal and credit cards. Any little bit helps!

Thanks!

Ruminants and Aldebaran

Ruminants. It's the name for animals that are able to digest cellulose by a ridiculously complicated digestive process that I unfortunately have to know about for my biology class. The most famous ruminants are cows and their 6 stomachs, a fact that circulated around my elementary school for a few months because some people thought it was the coolest. thing. ever.

Anyway, "ruminants" sounds like the name of an alien species. Maybe it's because I just saw the Star Trek movie again this weekend, and it does sound similar to Romulans (sort of), but I have decided that ruminants are aliens. Plus, that whole regurgitation and six-stomach thing is kind of creepy.

In addition, this hypothesis would explain the phenomena of cattle mutilation. The most (in)famous explanation for this is that aliens did it, which has led to some amusing jokes in films and video games.

But, quite clearly, the reason for cattle mutilations is punishment.

Cows come from a planetary system around Aldebaran, the brightest star in the Taurus constellation. They sent out reconnaissance teams to earth millions of years ago in order to determine the threat that the rising species of humans would pose (obviously not much). In an attempt to remain incognito, they allowed themselves to become "domesticated" and used for food, leather, and occasionally pets.

Over the years, however, their descendants forgot their true purpose. When new cows began arriving during the mid 20th century, they were horribly dismayed by this fact, and expressed their rage by ritually killing their once-kin in a violent and horrible fashion. This also serves the dual purpose of an observational experiment of humans, as they wish to see how we will react.

So there you have it. Cows are aliens.

The next time you take a bite of that hamburger, think of that.

Facts ARE Stubborn Things

In a recent post on the White House blog, people were asked "if you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to [us]." Their stated purposes for doing so aren't particularly clear, but it seems to be either to keep track of alleged misinformation or to try to correct it.

This kind of pisses me off. I'm not going to go way out into crazy conspiracy theory land on this one, but this sounds a bit too much like 1984 for my liking, even if their intentions are completely innocent. And because I have something of a habit of writing letters to politicians (I wrote one to a city council-woman informing her that her bill to restrict access to places that made over 50% of their profits from alcohol to people over the age of 21 because she thought this would keep young girls from becoming strippers was fairly inane, ending it by "thank you for your intern/secretary's time") I decided I would write a short letter to flag@whitehouse.gov.

It ended up being four pages. : )

I'm reproducing it here, in its unaltered and unedited form, with the exception of my contact information at the end. That's all been edited out, though I did include my actual name, address, phone number, and all to them.

Anyway, I tried to be unbiased, but I don't know how well I succeeded. To be clear, this isn't about healthcare reform (though I do talk about that, obviously) but about the administration's actions in asking for this.

Also, if anyone reports me to flag@whitehouse.gov for this, please, let me know!


To Whom It Concerns:

In the video posted on the White House blog, Linda Douglass explains how the White House is asking for this information because people are "taking sentences and phrases out of context and cobbling them together to leave a false impression." I find this rather interesting, as the title of the blog post, "Facts are Stubborn Things", falls victim to this same error.

The full quote, from John Adams' defense of the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre, is actually, "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

Macon Phillips, the author of the post, has committed the same logical fallacy of misleading quotation that Linda Douglass claims she is trying to prevent. Looking at the full quote in context, it does not particularly apply to the situation at hand. John Adams was speaking as a lawyer in a criminal trial, not as a politician defending his position. Furthermore, attempting to draw the parallel between President Obama and President John Adams is misleading, as John Adams had not been elected president at the time he spoke these words. In fact, the American Revolution had yet to fully begin.

Second, it is important to note that John Adams defended the British soldiers even though he himself was a Patriot. He did so because he felt that the laws and principles of man were more important than his personal feelings. By asking for the website and names of those who are allegedly spreading misinformation about President Obama's healthcare plan, the current administration is not living up to the example set by the man with whom it tries to compare itself.

Regardless of whether or not the names, addresses, web addresses, e-mails, IP addresses, et cetera of these people are kept, this is not the principled or particularly lawful manner in which to approach this problem. I myself may be to young to remember much of the Cold War or any of Senator Joseph McCarthy's anti-Communist witch hunts, but in some ways the situation is similar.

I do not in any way mean to imply that President Obama or his administration intends to drag anyone up in front of the Senate or House and interrogate them about their subversive attitudes towards healthcare reform. However, the fact remains that asking for this sort of information can definitely be construed as a first step down this path. For example, when the House Committee on Un-American Activities published a series of informational pamphlets on Communism, they included the home addresses of Communist leaders in the United States.

Regardless of whether or not Congress needed this information, there was absolutely no need to furnish the public with this knowledge. Looking to the past as a guide, it makes me uncomfortable when the government begins to collect this sort of information. Hypothetically speaking, suppose a list of websites which posted blog entries or videos opposing healthcare reform were published. On the internet, as most people with even a passing familiarity with the medium know, there is little regulation. This is inviting malicious attacks, of both the verbal and more 'physical' sort, on these websites.

Clearly, this is entirely hypothetical, but this is the sort of thing that some people will immediately think of when they hear that the government is collecting this sort of information. In the case of communist leaders, the government may very well have been justified in having that information; this letter is not the place to argue one way or the other. When dealing with healthcare reform, however, there is no reason that the administration needs such information.

If the administration would like to combat misinformation, there are many other ways to do so. Advertisement campaigns, speeches, and encouraging your supporters to talk to their friends and family about what you actually believe. If those methods are too old fashioned for you, then by all means, use the White House blog, Twitter, and Facebook. Ask people to e-mail in anything they may have heard, and tell them what your actual stated opinion is. Just don't ask them where they got that information.

Doing so is counter-productive. If the administration's intentions are truly only to correct alleged misinformation, then why does the administration need the names and locations of the sources? So that the sources themselves can be corrected? If doing so involves censorship, then that is unconstitutional. If the administration simply would like to send them its own information, then surely these websites could be found without asking for civilian accomplices. Either way, if people are taking the time and effort to make arguments against healthcare reform, sending them a statement of your position will do nothing to change their minds.

In the end, the only result of this blog post that I can see is that the administration comes across as rather Orwellian. This is not an unreasonable way to feel (and, after all, as the "dictates of our passion... cannot alter the state of facts and evidence", feeling uncomfortable with the administration's actions in this situation does not change the fact that it is of somewhat questionable legality and morality). Nor do I think I am being overly paranoid by saying so. In a world where the news is filled with stories of governments in Iran and China spying on their citizens through their computers, or the example of Amazon.com being able to remotely remove purchased merchandise from their electronic e-book readers, the fear is not a terribly remote one

The real solution here is to teach everyone to be a better media consumer, to analyze information without blindly accepting what they are told, whether the source is the White House or an anonymous source on the internet. This would allow people to decide how they feel about issues based on a wide range of information while remaining as objective as possible. If the administration wants these websites so that they can accurately debate the points presented within, then I commend you for your intentions, if not your methods. However, if the White House simply wants to shout its opinion louder than that of everyone else, that is not free speech. That is an insidious form of censorship.

If the claims made by these websites are so much bunk, the the president should be able to present an adequate defense against them. If not, then these websites serve a valid and much needed purpose by bringing awareness of inconsistencies to the attention of the population. While I would not accuse the president of lying, this is politics, a game that revolves around shades of meaning, semantic and syntactic ambiguities, and subtlety. Politics and equivocation are time-honored and faithful bedfellows; the word bunk, which I used previously, has its origins in the United States Congress. It is no stretch to imagine that any politician is capable of obscuring the truth if it suits his purposes, especially if those purposes are ones seen as noble.

I make no claims as to who is 'right' and who is 'wrong' concerning the issue of healthcare reform. I have not done enough research into the topic to offer a well-formed opinion, so anything I would say would be reactionary at best. However, in regards to the issue of tracking this information, as stated on the White House blog, I do have enough knowledge to offer an opinion.

Someone could pick apart my letter and find all sorts of logical fallacies contained within it. Perhaps I myself have falsely attributed motives to John Adams because I misunderstood his intentions with his quote. It is entirely possible that the White House did not realise that there was more to the quote, or the context that it came from, when it was used as the title of the blog post.

However, I am not the White House. I do not have a responsibility to the American people to insure that my information is as accurate as possible. While I do my best, if I state something incorrectly, than only a handful of people will be affected, at most. When the White House misleads the public, intentionally or not, there are much larger consequences.

In the end, there are two issues here. The first is that the White House has fallen prey to the same offense it accuses others of in its blog post. The second is that the president should not ask for his supporters to report on other citizen's opinions and beliefs, even if only for the purpose of trying to improve their opinion.

The first issue is a relatively minor one. This is a mistake that everyone makes, but it is one that should we should attempt to avoid at all costs. The second, however, is far more serious.

This is America. We do not have the KGB. We do not have the SS. We do not have the Thought Police. This is not The Prisoner. This is not V for Vendetta. This is not Battle Royale. At the moment, we are not close to have or being any of those things, and I have no desire to move any closer.

To that end, I will offer my own opinion of healthcare. Please, correct me and tell me how I am wrong. Try and convince me that President Obama's plan will work. I will freely offer my own information; you have no need to take it. Ask, and you shall receive.

i am concerned as most government programs are unwieldy at best, cumbersome, inefficient, and far more complicated than necessary. I am more than happy with my private insurance (especially as I am still on my parents' plan for a few more years). By introducing public health insurance, an unintended consequence could be that companies will stop providing health insurance for their employees, as they can get it from the government. Private insurance companies would then raise rates on their other subscribers. As far as I know, there is nothing in the healthcare plan to prevent this from happening.

Also, I have heard people talking about how some medical conditions will be classed as more important than others, and for those deemed inessential, the wait for a doctor will be longer. I have benign essential tremor. The benign in front of it, I assume, would qualify it as the latter. However, this condition is bad enough that without medication I am unable to use my hands for anything at all, I stutter, and even have some difficulty walking, as I have tremors in multiple locations in my body. Although this is not life-threatening, it certainly severely impacts my quality of life. Would I have to wait for two months to see my neurologist like this while on government insurance?

Third, how would pre-existing conditions be treated? Would I be denied treatment for things like my tremor altogether?

These are the concerns I have with the healthcare reform. Again, I haven't done extensive research in the matter. Perhaps the administration can calm my fears on every single point, and I will be satisfied. Perhaps not. That is not the issue at hand.

I am more than willing to give out this information; I feel slightly threatened and rather annoyed at the idea that people can 'report' me to the government for posting these viewpoints. Even if the list is never used, can it be destroyed? I do not believe so, not after Watergate. Nor can this letter.

In order for a government to function, a certain level of trust must exist between the governed and the governing. The actions outlined in the blog entry have begun to undermine this trust for me, though I cannot necessarily speak for others. I have lost trust that the government respects my privacy and begin to suspect that my right to free speech is somewhat hampered. The government also does not seem to trust me to decide things for myself, which is rather odd, as unless the voters first declare a national referendum to amend the constitution so that we can have popular initiatives on the national level, I will never vote on the matter. I already cast my vote, in absentia, as it were, through my votes for my senators and representatives last November.

I understand that public opinion is important. I understand that senators and representatives will face pressure from their constituents during the August recess on how to vote on healthcare reform. I understand that the administration is trying to do whatever it takes to pass a bill that it clearly feels is in the best interests of the nation.

However, I suggest that President Obama and his administration look to the example of John Adams that was mentioned previously. John Adams did what was right, what was a matter of principle. Was defending the soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre in the best interests of this nation? I cannot say. He himself thought that it was certainly not a wise choice for the future of his political career. However, three years after the trial, he wrote in his diary that “it was, however, one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested Actions of my whole Life, and one of the best Pieces of Service I ever rendered my Country.”

While redacting his request for names and web addresses may not cause President Obama to say the same, it is certain the principled thing to do. And as shown by the disgrace of former President Richard Nixon, what is a President without his principles? History tells us the answer. The future, however, is yet unwritten. I urge President Obama and his administration to discontinue this policy as soon as possible.

Thank you,
Generic Name

XXXX Genderic Address Dr.
City, ST XXXXX-XXXX
(XXX) XXX-XXXX
genericemailaddress@emailserviceprovider.com

There Are No Girls On The Internet

This statement is true. It's Rule 30 of the Internet, which is interestingly enough one of three that most people bother to remember (the other two being Rule 32: Pics or it didn't happen (paraphrase) and the infamous Rule 34: There is porn of it. No exceptions.

Anyway, there are no girls on the internet.

I am a girl.

A paradox?

Of course not.

After all, as everyone knows, the internet is a series of tubes.

And though you can technically be on a tube, usually you aren't. Girls are smart enough to realise that, while guys aren't.

Which is why girls are IN the internet.

My First Conspiracy Theory!

I started concocting my own conspiracy theories when I was very, very young. I think I was five when I first decided that there was probably one big mega-corporation that really secretly owned just about every other business out there. How else could all the products be so similar? I never said anything about it, of course, because I thought if THEY knew that I knew, then I would be in trouble (I read far too much as a child).

When I was seven, I first became suspicious of my television set. Shows would report that they had "over 7000 viewers" or "an audience of 50,000." But how did they know? Reasonably, I figured, you could tell how many TVs were tuned to each station. But how did you know how many people were watching each TV? Quite clearly, we were living in Soviet Russia, where TV watches you.

However, these were but the vague musings of a girl who read too much science fiction compared to my next big trick.

I figured out what cooties were.

That's right. Cooties are a giant conspiracy.

Do you remember the rhyme, from way back in elementary school?

Circle circle dot dot
Now I've got my cootie shot
Circle circle square square
Now I've got it everywhere
Circle circle knife knife
Now I've got it all my life

If we examine that for a minute, it bears an obvious resemblance to a vaccination for the disease of cooties.

And where do you get cooties from? The opposite sex.

How do you get it? Touching.

Beginning to sound like anything else we know?

Cooties are a modern sort of fairy tale, warning children about the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases before they're really old enough to know much, if anything, about what sex is. The "cootie shot" represents abstinence, birth control, methods of safe sex to prevent STDs, vaccinations against things like HPV, and treatments for STDs once they are contracted, all at once.

How does it do this? Let's examine them one at a time.

Abstinence: the only way to avoid cooties completely is to stay away from the opposite sex and not let them touch you (or people of the same sex who have contracted it, interstingly enough. This could perhaps indicate a growing acceptance of homosexuality in our culture, if cooties is transmissible along same-sex pathways. :) Or it could just be a childre's game).

Birth control/ methods of safe sex/ vaccinations: I'm going to lump these three together, as they can often go together, as shown by condoms, and are all measures taken (for the most part) before you engage in sex. The cootie shot, in my experience, was most often administered as a preventative measure when you knew that you were likely to be touched a lot by the boys- before recess, for example. This seems a fair analogue to birth control and safe sex.

Treatment for already contracted STDs: This one seems a little more controversial. After all, doesn't everyone have the cootie shot for "all their life?" No, of course not. How many times did you sing the cootie song, tracing circles on your friends' arms in elementary school? More than once, for most of you, I should think. The cootie shot, then, is not a one-off solution to the problem. It could easily represent lifelong treatment for a chronic condition such as herpes, or a more contracted medication regimen for chlamydia or gonorrhea.

So, cooties represent STDs fairly accurately. But this isn't something that children were likely to have come up with on their own, though it certainly is possible. Instead, I think it much more likely that adults either created or adapted a pre-existing game in order to subtly teach children about STDs and abstinence and/or safe sex.

Sure, it may not be the most diabolical plot in the world... but... I was like... ten... when I came up with this. Give me some credit. Also, a cootie shot.