Lack of Abortion as Plot Element

Well, nice to see that my posts are appearing on both Blogger and Facebook again. Let's see how long it takes this one to post, since I'm talking about Abortion.

I just watched the movie, Legion. Or tried to. You see, 3/4ths into the movie, I couldn't stand it anymore, and had to turn it off. I got sick of ridiculous attacks which back off from our handful of heroes for no apparent reason, other than to give the thriller enough time for character expose. The thought of God exterminating the entire human race unless one child born to a cigarette-smoking gas-station waitress is repugnant, even to an atheist like me. The plot is so bad that even Gabriel, the protagonist warrior-angel of the film, couldn't stand it, and had to revolt against Heaven. The demons are not demons, they're angels, which gua And, of course, we just needed to see a cute, little kid turn into a monster right before our eyes, as if that's somehow supposed to make us feel good about parenthood. But that's kind of my point, because once again, we see Hollywood trying to make a plot out of an unwed mother.

In Legion, she contemplated abortion, and changed her mind. The child then turns out to be the game-changer of the film, and that theme has been played over and over again recently. From Waitress, to Juno, to Knocked Up, and now Legion, screen writers are repeatedly putting forth poor girls who have unwanted pregnancies, but something stops them from terminating it. Then, naturally, the birth comes along, and we have our happily ever after. What on earth is behind this theme?

I find the trend mildly bothersome, but only mildly. After all, it's tricky to make a movie that can adequately describe the truth of a developing fetal brain being paramount to the ethics of an abortion -- without putting an audience to sleep, that is. It's far easier to put a heroine in a situation where her pregnancy is late, the decision to keep it has been made, and the birth is imminent to another disaster looming somewhere around her. It makes for exciting drama, and so I can forgive writers for taking that particular short cut.

Sure, I'd like to see a female character have an unwanted pregnancy, get an early-term abortion, finish high school, go on to college, and have a successful career. That would be refreshing.

But fuck, what a boring film that would be!

Eric

Facebook Takes Forever. Sometimes.

Well, I've just posted two rather brilliant blogs lately. Both of them play off of rather recent events, and so are best viewed right away. But, no. Facebook has apparently decided that it wants to drag it's lazy ass in posting these blogs.

As it currently sits, the vast majority of the people who view my blog do so after I write it up on Blogger.com, and it then posts automatically onto my Facebook page. Often, as when I posted my blog entry regarding Wisconsin's smoking ban, the relay onto Facebook is immediate. Yet, for some inexplicable reason, Facebook suddenly decided it's not in the mood to post my blog entries right away. Or indeed at all. It probably will, but why the hell did this have to go and happen when I had two blogs with short shelf lives?

This has happened before. When I wrote up my blog entry regarding Mount Rushmore, I didn't get any posting on Facebook for it. So, sick and damned tired of waiting for it to appear, I copied and pasted it by hand, convinced that Facebook had stopped this service. And wouldn't you know it, no sooner had I done so than Facebook decided to wake from its stupor, and post from the actual blog. So, for about half a day, my Facebook page had TWO postings with exactly the same thing about Mount Rushmore.

Do I have to cut and paste again to get this damned thing to work?

Mount Rushmore was a rant against nationalism. It didn't post. My tirade about the smoking ban in Wisconsin supported a new law. It posted right away. Now, I'm not yet convinced that there's any political reason behind why certain blog posts suddenly appear on Facebook, and others don't, but it certainly seems fishy to me.

Perhaps freedom of speech doesn't entirely apply to social networking sites.

So, with that having been said, here's what you're missing out on: My brilliant juxtaposition of the recent 100-degree temperatures along the East Coast with the "Snowpocalypse" event of last February, and the ridiculousness of certain so-called conservatives using the snowier of the two events to argue against global warming. This was followed by another blog post which reported that NASA satellite-tracking has observed satellite-launch space debris (left over from multi-stage launch vehicles) isn't returning to earth. Why? Because the same CO2 which is warming the near-surface of our planet is responsible for blocking the heat from returning to space, causing the cooling, and thinning, of the highest stratospheric layers. Result: space junk is remaining in orbit - a measurable proof of global warming, every bit as eye-opening as the disappearing ice caps.

So go back and read those. They're too good to miss. And if Facebook decides to block this particular post, I'm calling bullshit!

Eric

NASA finds yet another confirmation of global warming.

So you want more proof that global warming is happening? NASA has recently found some.

It seems that the various bits that get discarded by launch vehicles during the process of putting satellites up into orbit are staying up there. What normally should happen is that these discarded stage-rocket pieces encounter trace gasses in the upper stratosphere, decelerate due to the drag, and then return to earth, burning up in the lower atmosphere.

Well, wouldn't you know it, the increased CO2 is retaining more long-wave radiation near our planet's surface. That means that while it makes the lower-most layers of the Troposphere (below the clouds, where we are) warmer, less long-wave radiation can reach the upper stratosphere to make it warmer. Since this reflected long-wave radiation makes up a significant warming factor in these highest layers, we are seeing, paradoxically, that the uppermost stratospheric layers are growing cooler. That's right, global warming is heating the surface, while cooling the upper stratosphere. The result of this cooling is that these high-altitude layers are thinning out as they cool, with the air molecules growing closer to the planetary surface.

NASA noticed this cooling trend in an interesting way. While tracking the discarded stage-rocket pieces, they noticed they were staying in orbit, and not returning to Earth. This got a few heads busy, and they began to research why. When they found the cooling trend in the upper stratosphere, they knew they'd found the culprit, since fewer air molecules could decelerate these bits of space debris. But they also knew they'd found a problem. If those extra pieces of space junk end up staying in orbit for far longer, it drastically increases the odds of another rocket or satellite crashing into one of those pieces.

So, now global warming now threatens everyone's cable TV reception. Maybe that will finally get people off their gas-guzzling lazy asses!

Notice how this directly contradicts the right-wing media machine, which consistently tries to tell people that global warming isn't happening because the upper stratospheric layers are growing warmer. No, not according to NASA, they aren't! Talk about yet another blatent Fox-News lie! And if you want confirmation on this, check it out on Planetary Radio, as podcasted on the Planetary Society's website, www.planetary.org. None other than Bill Nye himself reported NASA's findings.

I think Senator Al Franken said it best: You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.

Eric

It's Hot, Hot, Hot!

Have you seen the temperatures along the East Coast yesterday? From D.C., to Philly, to New York and everywhere else along the Colonial Corridor, temperatures soared over 100 degrees.

Yet just last winter, the Eastern seaboard was socked with so much snow that the media was giving it special names. "Snowmageddon" and "Snowpocalypse" were terms thrown about. And with them, were all the conservative pundits jumping on the news story as an opportunity to attack global warming. Right-wing hack after right-wing hack got on the air and said things like, "Does anyone even take global warming seriously anymore?" or, "This global warming stuff really sounds ridiculous right about now, doesn't it?"

Yeah? How'dya like me now?

Look, back then I pointed out how climate has a saw-tooth pattern, and that extremes in temperature or weather at any one given point should not be taken as representative of an overall trend. I reminded everyone how vacuous an argument it was to discount global warming base on a single weather pattern. So it would be equally invalid of me to say that global warming is confirmed by this current heat-wave which is making New York feel like the Big Baked Apple.

But, the conservatives started this line of reasoning. So, now that their own argument has backfired on them, I have prepared a statement which I would like to make on behalf of every climatologist and science-minded citizen who knew what they were talking about the whole time when they raised the alarm over global warming. My statement follows:

Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, NYAH!!!

Okay, so I'm being facetious. But it's hard not to be. When conservatives like Sean Hannity,Rush Limbaugh, and especially Michael Savage embarrass themselves this badly, how can one not take advantage? Seriously, we just have to rub it in their faces! There's being stupid, there's imbacilic, there's moronic, there's being a straight-up dumbass, and somewhere beneath that is the knuckle-dragging, gorilla-brained idiocy that conservatives displayed during the snowstorm of 2010, dubbed, "Snowmageddon."

So what do we call this heatwave? It should have a snazzy name too, shouldn't it? How about, "The Heat Bowl" or "The Great Eastern Bake Off"? "The World's Largest Sweat-Lodge?" I'm open to ideas.

Enjoy the hot-seat, you myopic neocon liars, out there. You earned it!

Eric

Smoking Ban

So, it seems Wisconsin now has a new smoking ban, effective this past Monday, the day past independence day. No longer will people be able to light their own miniature firework in commemoration of American freedom in a bar, restaurant, or hotel. Could this be that this violates the very spirit of freedom which America stands for? Are we becoming the nanny state that McCarthyists feared?

I've brought my non-nicotine-addicted brain cells to bear on this issue, and I'm forced to conclude that the answer is clearly no. We, the People, have not lost the right to smoke. We can still buy, sell, and use tobacco products. We can smoke at home. We can smoke outdoors. We can smoke in designated locations.

What we have lost the right to do is blow smoke in other people's faces in public locations, and bravo to that. After all, if one chooses to inhale smoke into one's lungs, that's one thing. Making other people inhale your smoke afterward is quite another. And although the data on second hand smoke isn't statistically significant, it's still damned annoying. The right to swing one's fists ends with someone else's nose. The right to inhale smoke ends with forcing someone else to breathe it.

Ah, but according to the Journal-Sentinel, many are protesting the smoking ban because it removes the ambiance of certain establishments. One band is quoted as saying that there's just something to the smoky atmosphere of a live gig in a bar. It's part of the mystique of being a rocker.

I say, that's what fog machines are for.

The owner of Landmark Lanes claims that the lack of smoky atmosphere will rob him not only of ambiance, but of customers, and that it will cost him his business.

I say, he'll recoup his losses by not having to clean off the nicotine stains from the brightwork.

Actually, Landmark will begin putting out tables and chairs for those who wish to smoke outside on the sidewalk. This should prove interesting, since that's the central avenue for the biggest annoyance on Milwaukee's East Side. No, not cigarette smoke -- hobos. They're thick along Farwell, and they'll target everyone who's smoking outside. Not just outside Landmark, but all the bars and taverns which now must have smoking outdoors on the sidewalks where the bums regularly patrol.

This could get interesting!

Either the hobos will finally get cleaned off the streets as thousands of pissed off smokers force Milwaukee police to finally do something about them, or thousands of smokers will finally quit.

Yeah, fat chance on either of those.

What makes this interesting for me, as a non-smoker, is that this happened so soon after an increase in cigarette taxes which was supposed to pay for so many things in the State budget. Either this hasn't generated the revenues expected, or the State Legislature expects to raise taxes some other way. Or both. Get ready for it. We'll face another huge budget shortfall, and since it's always easier to raise a limited tax than it is to cut an entrenched entitlement, something else will get taxed. And (speaking of taking away American freedoms after the 4th of July) it won't be legalized marijuana, unfortunately for us all.

Yet those who say their freedom is being violated by this ban will continue to whine, completely ignoring the fact that our more important freedoms are being raped by government far more regularly. I've said it before, and it bears repeating, that nicotine really does nothing for you, except get you addicted. It has no redeeming value. It doesn't ease nausea. It doesn't help the symptoms of glaucoma. It doesn't even get you high. So why bother defending it? Why not campaign for that which should be legal anyway instead of fighting over a reasonable limitation of something already legal?

Nah, that would make too much sense!

So, let freedom ring, all you nicotine addicts! You may smoke all you want -- at home.

Eric

Grand Canyon - A Different View?

My, how hard creationists work to make sure that visitors to the Grand Canyon believe that Noah's flood could have done it. In a book written by Steven Austin (not the "Stone Cold" WWE wrestler) titled "Grand Canyon: A Different View," the idea is profferred that a massive flood event could have both laid down the sediments and then rapidly carved them afterwards due to a damming event. In short, it took a lot of water over a little time, as opposed to a little water over a lot of time.

Now, I've known for some time about the holes in this idea. Desert footprints in the Coconino sandstones, for example. Or travertine deposits in the Tapeats sandstone from an extinct and buried riverbed which had been carving its own canyon prior to being buried by new sediments from an advancing sea. But I've just come back from a fantastic road trip with my dad, and it seems that the holes in the creationist idea are even more gaping than I'd originally thought.

You see, the Grand Canyon is only part of the story. The layers which comprise the Grand Canyon are part of the overall Colorado Plateau, and these layers correlate to each other, making any creationist attempt to explain the Grand Canyon being carved by a breached dam from a now-extinct lake being left over from Noah's deluge a half-assed attempt, at best. It's like blaming one kid for all the graffiti in Chicago -- it's just too simple an explanation to be true.

Here's what I saw on my trip: The uppermost layers of the Grand Canyon, the Kaibab limestone, make up the lowermost layers of Zion National Park in Utah, whose towering canyon peaks are a sight to behold! Furthermore, the uppermost sandstone layers of Zion national park's mountain-peaks comprise the lowermost layers of Bryce Canyon National Park, also in Utah. These three make up what's known as the Grand Staircase (even though an area in the center of these three has been recently dubbed Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument). That means that any "breached dam" creationists propose has to not only carve out the Grand Canyon, but also carve out Zion canyon, and somehow erode Bryce Canyon in a way which leaves hundreds and hundreds of hudoos (a hudoo being a towering chimney composed of eroding sedimentary layers, with larger tops than bottoms). Any rushing water would topple any column structures of Bryce Canyon, even if it were part of the creationists' bogus breached dam area, which it isn't, and even if Zion canyon weren't too far to the West to get carved out by said dam, which it is.

And there's more. Precambrian schist which is contemporaneous with the Vishnu shist at the bottom of Grand Canyon can be seen in Durango, Colorado, located on the Durango-Silverton rail line. Clearly visible from the tourist train is the layers of shist, and a v-shaped area where a river once carved out a channel before the whole area became embedded with sediment once again. Now, this layer would long predate any flooding event proposed by a Noachian hypothesis, so it again makes for a proper headache for biblical literalists. And these layers are also contemporaneous with the Black Canyon of the Gunnison, whose half-mile high cliff walls are composed entirely of pre-Cambrian schists. There's simply no way this ultra-hard canyon rock could have been laid down by Noah's flood, just as it is equally impossible that such ultra-hard rock could have eroded such a massive canyon in less than 6,000 years.

So the next time some creationist tries to spin-doctor Grand Canyon, ask him, what about Zion? What about Bryce Canyon? And what about the Black Canyon of the Gunnison? How do those fit Noah's flood?

Chances are, he'll not know. Not only because he hasn't confronted the question before, but because these geologic features don't fit his absurd world-view at all.

Eric.

Mount Rushmore

So, I’ve finally visited Mount Rushmore. I’ve heard quite a bit about it, and I must say that I’ve always found it a bit overreaching. I mean, anyone who needs to go that far to show how patriotic one ought to be is taking things way over the top. But I’ve largely been in agreement with the point that Penn and Teller made on their Showtime program, ‘Bullshit,’ which is basically that these four heads, carved in the middle of sacred Indian lands, is tantamount to a great big “fuck you” to the native American tribes, and a pat on the back to white supremacists everywhere.

You see, the original plan for the black hills was to carve the faces of Lewis, Clarke, and Chief Red Cloud. But the sculptor they found to do the work, a guy named Gutzon Borglum, was a bit of a racist shit. This member of the KKK was fresh off the project known as Stone Mountain, commissioned by the United Daughters of the Confederacy in 1919, which featured a gigantic frieze of Stonewall Jackson, Robert E. Lee, and Jefferson Davis, carved into a mountainside near Atlanta, GA. (You can still find this sculpture today. This bastard had some nerve doing a giant sculpture of Lincoln after that stunt!) Borglum chose Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Teddy Rosevelt largely on the principle that these four helped best to forge America and “win the west.” In other words, conquer the Indians. Talk about an insult to history!

Well, maybe so, but that’s at least not the official story proffered behind Mount Rushmore today.

Today, the officials in charge of the Mount Rushmore monument go out of their way to extend good relations to the Indian tribes of the Black Hills. They tirelessly work to extend the hand of friendship to local tribes, and the “lighting ceremony” done each night, is often officiated by a park ranger who is also a native American. These days, the official rationale behind the faces of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Roosevelt are these: that Washington represents the founding of our nation, Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, helped write the Constitution, and doubled the nation’s size with the Louisiana purchase, represents the building of our nation, Lincoln represents the preservation of our national unity, and Roosevelt represents the preservation of our nation for tomorrow – particularly with founding our National Parks.

It’s a pretty explanation, and one which resonates much better than that of Borglum. So I must say, I’ve softened my position on Mount Rushmore just a bit. After all, which is a greater insult to the native lands? Four heads in a mountainside, or a coast-to-coast infestation of Shopkos, Home Depots and Wal-Marts? Certainly the golden arches are a greater insult to the Indians than Mount Rushmore ever was! Native tribes who express their angst at these sculptures in the Black Hills are directing their time and energy at the wrong thing.

I guess by that standard, Mount Rushmore is okay. Not great, just okay. But I must also remember, even as I inform all of you, that nationalism is the evil cancer at the heart of nearly all wars – second only to religion in terms of causation of human violence. And Mount Rushmore is, if nothing else, nationalist. For that reason alone, I must still frown upon this icon of the American West. It remains, not an emblem of America’s greatness, but a tribute to our tendency to steamroll over nature and put up a parking lot.

And I look forward to the completion of the Chief Crazyhorse Monument, located just a few miles south of those four big heads.

Eric