A public letter to the state of Mississippi

*sigh*
So, it's that time of the decade. That time when a small group of "christians" try pushing an agenda counter to the status quo, under the auspice of "protecting" someone. In this case, a fertilized egg.

Let me start with my personal position. I have no kids. Not for lack of trying. But I had an operation as a kid that functions pretty well as a vasectomy. Despite this, I lost count on the number of times I heard the phrase "I think I'm pregnant". And each time, I secretly rejoiced. Though as time wore on, I stopped letting myself hope. I'm good with kids, I love shaping minds, and generally I feel that procreation is the ONLY way to keep people on this planet.

That said, I'm not only pro-abortion in the case of dangerous pregnancies, but I'm pro-choice. And if you'll bear with me, I'd like to tell you why.

The source.
First, I object to the source. Christianity. Not that the source IS Christianity, but that it's religion, it's dogma. Separation of Church and State is the very foundation of this county and every attempt to twist that degrades us. And it's not all christians, is a small group of folks that brought us 'creation in schools'. It's about The Wedge. The wedge is a plan to "return America to it's core christian values." They want abortion made illegal, they want women's rights repealed (like voting, and choosing their own manner of dress), and they want THEIR religion taught in schools. In short, they want the U.S. to have all the same things that terrify us about Islamic law.

[that's right folks, you vote against Roe v. Wade and the terrorists win!]

The Law.
Okay, so let's ignore the fact that this is about "abortion" and let's talk about "life". Long before abortion became an issue, we had a bunch of pretty well defined laws about what's "no longer alive". These laws vary slightly from state to state, but the long and short of them is that if the person cannot continue living without mechanical life support, and cannot answer for themselves, then the closest relative has the right to determine their fate. This is so accepted that "pulling the plug" is a common term for ending ANYTHING that's gone on too long.

Okay, so let's flip that over. If brain-dead mechanical assistance means "no longer alive" then brain-dead mechanical assistance can also mean "not yet alive". In short, the fetus is NOT a legal person UNTIL it can survive, on it's own, without mechanical (or biological) assistance. Now, I may not be completely current on the specifics here, but the last I heard, the earliest a child survived a premature birth was about 6 months. And with mechanical assistance about 4 months. I'm willing to assume that no child has, or would, willingly sign a DNR, so those states that require a mechanically assisted wait period should have that apply here too.

So, until we have facts to the contrary let's say 4 months is the earliest a fetus has survived to childhood. Heck, let's say 3. So, 3 months is where the "not yet alive" fetus (legally) becomes a "person" (legally). Prior to that, it has all the same rights (in that state, country, region) as a terminally ill person, not able to support their own life, and not responding to machines. If you choose to treat them as one of the family, great. If not, then a coat hangar in a back alley shouldn't be your only option (homework assignment: go watch Dirty Dancin' again).

Logic.
If we're going to get into legal structures, let's get deep. If someone has a knife in their hand and are slowly pushing it through your chest, to your heart, what are your legal rights? What are your Moral rights? Ethical rights? Think about it. Certain types of pregnancy are just this dangerous to the mother. If an egg deposits in the fallopian tube, the growing "child" will stretch and rupture it long before term, killing both the mother and the fetus. Suicide is illegal (irrational, but we'll get to that another time). Murder is illegal (everywhere). Why should we want laws that allow them in the case of pregnancy?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/07/1023558/-Occupy-My-Uterus-My-Ass!-Fertilized-Eggs-Are-NOT-People

Social
There are dangerous precedents involved here. If we flip these proposed abortion laws back over, then DNRs become illegal, unplugging people becomes illegal, and in short order, we have a vegetative hospice system that rivals the current penitentiary system in both size and cost.

Even in cases where the pregnancy isn't dangerous, there's issues. First, this affects how deep the government can drill into your life. There isn't just a "child" here, but the mother. Best case scenario, her body will be wracked with changes for 9 months, and then she'll be saddled with emotional and financial responsibilities for the rest of her life.

Then there's the financial aspects. Not only do I feel that a woman AND the father have a say in the pregnancy, but the people who have to pay for the results should too. If the mother is on welfare, shouldn't "the people" have a say in that particular pregnancy, or at least provide a proxy?

Compromise
I'm willing to concede that the "child" left growing inside it's mother will probably grow into a baby, and may live to vote. But one final point I'd like to make:
Does it HAVE to be inside THAT mother?
We've proven that in-vitro fertilization can work. In cases of rape, incest, drugs, ignorance, etc., can we just trade out the mothers before implantation occurs? How about freezing the fertilized egg until a host can be found? Then the egg can be moved and allowed it's chance? This works even if everything else is ignored. People of mississippi, I encourage you to ponder.

T-Mobile Inspection...

I'd like to take a look at the local run of T-mobile commercials. Normally I'm only moved to comment on the truly idiotic fare provided us. But the latest run of t-mobile commercials are incredibly spot on if you know what you're looking for. The basic idea is to knock off the famous Apple commercials featuring two spokesmen "I'm a Mac" and "I'm a PC" featuring all the troubles of Windows, and the simpler, easier solutions from Apple. The targeted Mac audience at the time was younger, hipper crowds with an artistic flair, and those commercials reflected it. The PC was represented by an older, more corporate looking gentleman who (no offense) looked a little bloated. They were wildly effective, and I can understand why others have mimicked them.

This new crop of commercials features a pretty brunette woman representing t-mobile, usually in some eye catching pink outfit keyed to the T-mobile corporate pink. On the left side of the screen, a dull-witted young man with the ATT network represented by a scheming, balding older man. On the surface it kinda looks the same. But that's where it ends. In the first commercial, the speeds of the two networks were represented by motorcycles: T-mobile being a rice rocket that never moves onscreen, whereas ATT is represented by a pocket bike that actually delivers our hapless customer to the commercial. Careful observers will notice that at no time does the t-Mobile bike move or even gets touched, and the pink-clad rep doesn't even have a helmet. "4G" users in the LA area have noted that coverage is a little spotty if you end up behind a barrier, like a few sheets of writing paper. Like the cycle you can't ride, you get coverage you can barely use.

Similarly, if you read this article in Wikipedia, you'll see that the highly touted "4G" T-mobile LTE network isn't really 4G at all, it's an interim step between the two formats. LTE is actually a high-speed version of 3G, and to be fair, it is almost twice as fast (at best rates). Most of t-mobile's competitors have not succumbed to this dishonest labeling, even those who also have LTE or other interim networks. This effect is illustrated by the T-mobile girl, looking shockingly thin, almost anemic, wearing a pink sundress designed to give her the illusion of greater substance while the ATT rep is in a good fitting suit.

Since Apple has been partnered with ATT for so long, and the commercials are carefully constructed not to take shots at the iPhone hardware that must run on ATT, one must wonder, did Apple let t-mobil get the number of their ad agency with the purpose of undermining their efforts using T-mobiles own commercials? :) I feel like T-mobile has gotten what it deserves with these obvious rip-offs.

Rave Act of 2011 (AB74)

The following is the silliest anti-rave legislation I've ever seen. Look carefully at the wording... this applies to everyone who:

• plays any recorded music (including Musak, country rock, etc)


• at "night" (between sunset and sunrise"


• during an event that lasts more than 3 hours (not necessarily all at night)


• not in a bar or sports arena.

So, any club that doesn't serve alcohol, most restaurants, and any kind of dance instruction (like Sr night polka dancing) would all be breaking the law. Every time a store has a sale (ie "event") and has musac plying, all night prayer vigils, and congressional meetings where the national anthem is played are all in violation. While it's fresh in my mind, EVERY New year's eve party would probably break this law.

Movie studios could only operate during daytime hours. Heck, Ralphs, Vons and Home Depot all played Xmas music well after dark. Oooh, yeah, Let's not forget halloween. Most of those parks and spook-houses have some kind of music running for 5-6 hours at least. And at the extreme silly end of the interpretation chain, a ladies' sewing circle plays Fox news in the background all afternoon, but happens to run a few minutes after sundown would be in total violation if Fox plays ANY kind of pre-recorded music. Speaking of fox, how about those late-running all-day football fests. Those are events and what beer commercial doesn't have some music....

This bill is ill-conceived, and ill intended. The fallout from this could be immense if passed. But if people know that it's coming, it won't stand a chance. Forget telling your raver friends, tell everyone who ever listens to music and does anything at night.

New Rave Act (AB74)

Assemblywoman Fiona Ma proposed legislation yesterday to ban large electronic music events in California. In her own words “The introduction of AB 74 is the first step toward eliminating these dangerous events”. Read the full text of the proposed legislation at the end of this email.

Fiona Ma's legislation is just one part of a larger agenda by the police and policy makers to shut down electronic music events in California. Our music and culture is being discriminated against and if we don't stand up and fight, they will succeed.

Thanks very much for your time! You can find the proposed legislation here:
*
*

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the Anti-Raves Act of 2011.

SEC. 2. Section 421 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
421. (a) Any person who conducts a public event at night that
includes prerecorded music and lasts more than three and one-half
hours is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of ten thousand
dollars ($10,000) or twice the actual or estimated gross receipts
for the event, whichever is greater.

(b) Subdivision (a) shall not apply to a public event on private
property if the entity that conducts the public event has a business
license to operate a bar, club, theater, entertainment venue, or
other similar business, or to conduct sporting events, and conducting
the public event is consistent with the business license.

(c) For purposes of this section, "night" means that period
between sunset and sunrise.

SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because
the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school
district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or
infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty
for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the
Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the
meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitutio

Cold and Flu season

"An expectorant increases bronchial secretions and mucolytics help loosen thick bronchial secretions. Expectorants reduce the thickness or viscosity of bronchial secretions thus increasing mucus flow that can be removed more easily through coughing, Mucolytics break down the chemical structure of mucus molecules. The mucus becomes thinner and can be removed more easily through coughing" (Adams, Holland, & Bostwick, 2008, p. 591).

One of the worst rated drugs available over the counter is a cough syrup that contains both an expectorant AND a cough suppressant. If you read the above definition again, it should become quite clear why. Since the popularity of the first medication to contain this combination went through the roof, many others have followed.

But the problem isn't so much with the products, but with the drug-seeking culture we live in. People drink this stuff to get high. It doesn't just suppress symptoms, it makes you feel stoned. That's why it's popular. And then, because it's popular, people who don't know the definition of the word "expectorant" buy it because everyone else does.

Fortunately for most people, the expectorant in Robitussin DM isn't proven to work. It's only medicinal function is as a cough suppressant. Unfortunately that doesn't keep the knock-offs from using actual expectorants. And the people who take those medications usually end up with a mild form of pneumonia caused by unreleased mucous in the lungs.

*sigh*

Read a label this week. Read one every week. Understand what you read.

Columbus day

Things to do while waiting for the mail on Columbus Day

Really, there's nothing like Columbus Day for the ultimate non-holiday. He didn't "discover" America. How can you "discover" a place that's already occupied? He wasn't even the the first European to get here, the vikings clearly made it first. And before them, the Asians traded Jade here. And long before that, on the steppes of russia, someone crossed an ice bridge to get here and start the human population. But, the mail stops running anyway. So here's a few things to do to "honor" his "achievement".

• Go on a LONG trip (kinda goes without saying). But not just around the corner, you need to go somewhere SO FAR that someone else has to fund your trip.


• Remember, you can ignore the accepted laws of nature when you do. 1000 years before columbus sailed, the size of the earth was known. To sail from England straight to China is almost as long a trip as going 'round the other way. The difference is: no place to stop (if the America's aren't there). The crew was near starvation when they landed in Bermuda.


• Go someplace that doesn't speak your language, but don't take a translator. Off to China, no one even speaks Mandarin.


• Go looking for drugs. Columbus was looking for a faster Opium trade route.


• Remember, No matter where you end up, that's where you meant to arrive. If you're heading for Florida and end up in Ohio, make sure to call them all "Gators". Columbus died believing he had landed on India, twice. He didn't take an interpreter the second time either.


• Make friends wherever you end up. And of course we treat our friends properly by raping, enslaving and killing them. Once they're dead, you can plunder their homes.

My first whack at parody

When did the internet start?

I was looking for a line in the UK series Red Dwarf when I came across a plethora of pages musing about the beginnings of the internet. Many answers were given from 1965 when the first email was sent to 1991 when the world wide web was released.

Okay, first of all, the internet is not email. You wouldn't be reading this if it was. And it's not the web either. I worked with the Xanadu project team who were the ones responsible for writing Hypertext. Html was supposed to allow people to transmit documents and keep the biblios in order. The current version is a complete travesty compared to the original intent.

No, look at the word: Inter- net. You see, once upon a time, you couldn't connect from one side of the country to the other without a long distance call. Yes, in the early 80s there were "networks" but most people did internet stuff on local "Bulletin Boards". Mostly colleges and universities provided local network access, and major providers like AOL (Apple on line), Prodigy (no, not the band), and Genie were just huge, dialup boards with no national connectivity.

Some nodes, that had overlapping service, would connect to each other to allow users to extend services to greater areas. I used to dial up to a BBS called MNet. It served southern Michigan via dialup and short wave (yes, transmission of modem signal over ham radio... the first WiFi). MNet was within the boundaries of MichNet, the local Michigan Statewide network. MichNet could connect to Ilinet, the university of Chicago, which had a link to Some Corporation in St.Paul. These sorts of links went on and on.

Eventually, these links became part of ARPANET. A network begun on the west coast and reached all the way across to the country by the 1970s. And legitimately, this could be called an internet. However, it was never intended as a public access net. A great deal of email traffic was sent through Arpa, true, but this was almost exclusively amongst college staff and students. The real internet was yet to come.

In the early 80s, the National Science Foundation was considering linking up Arpa, local networks, and a number of supercomputers to the national board servers to see if they could benefit from it, and added a second net for the military. It was the inception of the NSF net that was the real internet. Finally AOL could email UMass and then off to Xerox in California. the date of decision for this great project was April 15th 1985. It took until 1986 to really get going.

They decided to wait 10 years before the first review, but it took no time at all. By 1990, All the major providers had linked up and the local networks like Michnet and individual universities; and they were all working pretty much seamlessly in one vast network. This was the first real "internet". In 1995, the NSF reviewed the internet and decided that the NSFNet was more of a distraction than an aid. So the project was ended and the connections were rebuilt by the private sector. It took a few weeks to stabilize, but when it came back on line, May of 1995, we had the Internet as we know it today.