The GOP and Science, pt. I: Palin and Creationism

Great: ANOTHER Republican who doesn't know shit about science


Solidification

I knew from the beginning that I was going to dislike Sarah Palin. For one, she's a Republican, and the only Republican that I can publicly admit to supporting is Lincoln Chafee (a former Republican-now-Independent who, among other things, opposed the invasion of Iraq, supports Stem Cell Research, supports gay marriage, and opposed Bush's tax cuts. Did I mention he was a Republican?!?). Then, I found out that she is a die hard supporter of the NRA, one of the most useless and infuriating "non-profit" groups in existence. And then, I read about her positions on science...and was effectively horrified; and not just at her exceeding ignorance of the subject, but how it is yet another blow to the self-proclaimed "maverick" image John McCain boasts.

Palin opposes stem-cell research, supports teaching creationism in public schools, AND she does not believe global warming is a man-made disaster.

Obviously, Palin is the perfect beauty queen for the GOP vice-presidency--she doesn't know shit about science. This is something that infuriates me about the Republican party and its general concession to religious doctrine, and with this first reflection I'll zone in on the embarrassing evolution/creationism debate.

Dumb as we wanna be

With where we stand as a nation, both in terms of wealth and technology, there should be absolutely no doubt on the validity of Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Before I go into why it is such a sound theory, however, I should make the very important point about the very word "theory." To be a "theory" in science is like having your own theorem in math, or having your own grammatical rule in english, or having your own tempo in music theory. In other words, something being a "theory" in science is a big fucking deal, as the entire landscape of the subject is changed based on what theories are accepted by the scientific community.

But how does something become a theory? From years upon years upon years of tests and re-tests. Have you ever noticed the generally small number of scientific theories we have? Let's just rattle off a few, from the tops of our heads: theory of evolution; theory of gravity; theory of relativity; cell theory. The relatively small number of theories is demonstrative of just how difficult it is for a HYPOTHESIS (which is what creationism is) to become a THEORY.

Here is how science works: scientists conduct experiments with a hypothesis in mind. From this experiment, they draw conclusions, and then publish their work in various scientific journals for peer-review from the scientific community. Science and Nature are among the more influential journals in publication. Upon publication, these results are torn to shreds, as hundreds of scientists conduct their own tests of the original scientist's findings, desperately trying to find flaws and misconceptions.

Scientists love to prove each other wrong, but there is a purpose to this process. After the original findings are ripped to pieces, that original scientist goes back to his lab and begins MORE tests in attempts to refine and perfect his hypothesis.

When do these findings become official theories? When there is absolutely no doubt that the findings of the experiments will prove incorrect.
When there is absolutely no doubt that cells are are the basic unit of structure in all living things, the cell theory enters the scientific canon.
When there is absolutely no doubt that physical laws dictate gravitational attraction between bodies with mass, Newton's law of universal gravitation (and later Einstein's theory of general relativity) enter science textbooks.
WHEN THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT THAT ORGANISMS EVOLVE BY INHERITING TRAITS IN POPULATIONS FROM ONE GENERATION TO ANOTHER, EVOLUTION BECOMES A THEORY!

Pale(in)s in comparison

So, to put it in cave-man terms--there is no question amongst true members of the scientific community on the validity of evolution, cells, or any other idea that carries "theory" status. So now you know how amazingly stoopid people sound when they insist evolution is "just a theory."

Let's see what Palin had to say on the subject of evolution/creationism:

"Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information....Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides."

Palin has one valid point in this ridiculous statement--that healthy debate should be encouraged in schools. If the topic were political ideologies, the true meaning of The Great Gatsby, or how history will judge the presidency of George Walker Bush, then hell yes, let the kids debate! but it is in the field of science where this argument becomes mute and Palin's ignorance is allowed to shine.

Before I make any further argument against this stance, I should be clear that creationism is not science. Why? because it is not TESTABLE. When I described the process of peer-review, notice how I explicitly pointed out the process that testing plays in science, how a scientist concluded his experiment through TESTING, how his peers double-checked his results through TESTING, and how his returned to his lab after publishing his results and commenced with more...TESTING. Testing is arguably the single-most important component to the scientific process, and the statement of creationism--that some heavenly figure (NOT GOD)* descended upon the earth, went POOF, and instantly created the 20,000 different kinds of grasshoppers we have on earth--provides us with a mechanism that cannot possibly be tested. Couple that with the truth that there is no evidence whatsoever for creationism, and you have a fairly terrible scientific idea on your hands.

Creationism is not science, so logically, the next step would be to keep it out of the science classroom.
Just like we keep run-on sentences from our children's english papers, we keep creationism out of the science classroom.
Just like we prohibit the false lessons that Columbus brought great prosperity to the native tribes of the indies, we keep creationism out of the science classrooms.

Get it? teaching creationism in a science class equals teaching your child unfounded, illogical bullshit, and we owe it to ourselves as human beings to give the subject of science more respect.




*This is an ever-evolving joke over the whole creationism scandal. Whether it is called creationism or intelligent design, the over-arching goal of the movement is to get religion taught in schools.

Sarah F***ing Palin?!? McCain's VP choice is a strange one

Strange, but it makes sense--this is a blatant appeal to the Clinton Democrats, a group of misguided women who have decided they will vote for McCain because Obama, not Hillary, is the nominee (despite the fact that McCain's platform is a 180 degree difference from these voter's ideology).

What doesn't make sense--and what I'm dying to hear McCain explain--is how he can justify picking a VP who is younger than Obama with LESS experience!!! What has the single biggest attack been about Obama from the GOP? His experience! He's a first-term senator! He hasn't visited Iraq as many times as I have! He lacks judgment!

Now, Palin has a surprisingly strong record on energy/global warming, at least if we compare her to the GOP base. BUT, she is a first-term governor from Alaska and has absolutely ZERO experience in the foreign policy sector, which is, coincidentally, the second biggest attack we've seen from McCain towards Obama!

So, once again, I cannot wait to see McCain justify this blatant appeal to young, change-oriented voters. Call the act of a desperate man, but this VP choice smacks of hypocrisy.

The Speech

A perfect, beautiful moment that defined a momentous movement, all sugar-coated by the most awe-inspiring surroundings this side of the Beijing games.

Before I get to the speech, I beg of you to scrutinize the picture I have included as well as the hundreds of other photos being uploaded on the internet as I type. Having watched three Olympic games, the Super Bowl, the World Series, and countless other events involving crazy fans and charismatic leaders, I can honestly say that the power and unity that was on display at Mile High tonight was unlike anything I have witnessed. The image of over 80,000 people sharing the same vision and same passion, flashing their digital cameras, screaming themselves horse, frantically waving their signs proudly proclaiming "Change." These are the kinds of images our grandchildren will see in history books.

And this is the kind of speech our great-grandchildren will be reading about in those same textbooks. Substantive, eloquent, and above all forceful, Obama hit this one out of the park. It's not easy giving a speech on the heels of such heavy-hitters as Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, Tim Kaine, and Al Gore, yet Obama's speech managed to neatly summarize every theme of the convention while offering every new ingredient liberals like myself had desired.

Basically, this speech was a challenge, a call to arms for Americans to rid themselves of the failed policies of movement conservatism and embrace new and enlightening change for Washington. As Obama boldly proclaimed to his audience: "ENOUGH" of the Bush policies. Literally, there was not a single issue that Obama missed--his supposed "elitism," his supposed "weakness," his supposed "inexperience," his supposedly "weak economic plan," and, most importantly, his supposed "soaring rhetoric." All were scorched by a speech that trail blazed the stadium and roasted John McCain like the swine he has become, using the simple mechanism of truth to burn through an entire summer of lies and lying liars who misuse them.

It is difficult for me to summarize all of the points that were made, so I'll leave at Obama tore McCain's platform and ideology to pieces, offering detailed yet accessible analysis of the crumbling America we now have and the surging America we can still experience.

Anybody who sits and absorbs the full 50 minutes of this speech and still claims to oppose Obama because he lives on the same block as Bill Ayers should forfeit their American citizenship. This is unquestionably the most talented and brilliant public servant of our generation, and we owe it to our legacy as a country to embrace this precious talent and vote him into office. We are being given a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. America better not fuck it up.

This was a moment that was beautiful, motivational, and otherworldly.

This is history in the making, and I thank my luckiest stars that I was alive to witness it.

Reflections on Beijing, Part III: the 2012 games and China's world domination

Disappointment

I would not want to be in London's shoes right now.

After concluding the 2008 games with a stunning closing ceremony, China capped off what was one of the most successful Olympic games in modern times. The venues were large, polished, and cutting-edge works of art that were edgy, classy, and competitive. The skies were clear and blue. And the festivities were grand.

So successful were the Beijing games, actually, that China has effectively set up a major letdown when London unveils their opening ceremony in 2012. To be blunt, there is no conceivable way that London will match what China accomplished in these games.

Overall, the 2008 games cost a whopping $43 billion. Those blue skies? the result of a massive campaign by the Chinese government to eliminate the toxic smog that coats Beijing the other 346 days of the year, involving the temporary shutdown of major factories and government order that certain citizens not drive their cars on certain days. The opening ceremony alone cost over $100 million and featured 15,000 VOLUNTEERS, all who trained 8+ hours a day for over 3 months leading up to the ceremony.*

London has no chance.

The kind of mobilization, nationalism, and control that was exuded with these games is only possible in a country like China, a place of unlimited money, unlimited labor, and unlimited power for the leaders that be. Again, London simply has no chance to match what was accomplished in these games.


Would you ever expect an image like this to come out of London?!?

World Domination

The 2008 games behaved as a coming-out-party of sorts, opening the doors for a colorful myriad of brilliant athletes to capture our hearts and seize our admiration. While there were several athletes in particular who captured my attention (Michael Phelps, Usain Bolt, Shawn Johnson, May/Walsh), the obvious standout of the games were the Chinese athletes, who signaled a new era of Chinese dominance on the Olympic turf.

Once again, this is a level of dominance that is only possible in a country like China. Obsessed with international recognition, the Chinese governmentn scours its landscapes, searching for children who are both young and talented. Once found, they are taken from their homes and trained mercilessly, working towards the ultimate goal of winning a gold medal for their motherland China.

Though this scenario is heartbreaking, props must be given to how clever China has been in assembling these athletes.

In the 1988 games, China won five gold medals. In the 2008 games, they won 51. The dramatic turnaround is the result of this cleverness. Self-conscious of the medal count, China specifically picks athletes whose talents lie in sports that produce the most medals. This way, they stack the most medal-plentiful sports with superior athletes, running up the scores and sweeping the golds. This was evident in sports such as men's gymnastics and diving, where China accomplished a near sweep of the gold medals. But that is not all.

Not only does China place emphasis on the sports with the most medals, but they also focus on the sports with the least amount of attention, further increasing their propability to sweep the golds. Obscure sports like weightlifting and shooting become medal goldmines, producing for China eight and five golds, respectively.

And this is where China will prove to be unstoppable, and why the United States has no chance to counter.

The Chinese sporting environment is built around the Olympics. Nowhere is the love of organized sports similar to the United States, where the worlds of baseball, basketball, and football are billion dollar enterprises. Consider this: The US basketball team, a team composed of some of the most talented athletes to ever grace this earth, produced only ONE gold medal for the US' medal count. Olympic baseball? similar dilemma. Football? Forget about it! Compare that with the 12 gold medals China earned in weightlifting and shooting and you have a culture clash of epic proportions and one that will be impossible to control and impossible to counter. So I would recommend that we enjoy the US' lead in total medals for this Olympics, because it may very well be the last time we experience such a privilege.



*Also, the director of the ceremony, Zhang Yimou--the same guy behind "Hero" and "House of Flying Daggers"--was told by the Chinese government that he would have an unlimited budget to create the greatest opening ceremony in Olympic history. Yeah, I know, the artist's wet-dream!

Hillary's speech

Easily the best speech I've seen Clinton give. While I will always take what she says with a grain of salt and a tablespoon of pessimism, this is the most convincing evidence yet of her support for Obama.

The speech itself was rich with one-liners and inspirational anecdotes, and while it still dragged from a mid-section of broad policy statements, the allusions to the first Democratic convention and especially Harriet Tubman were effective.

I'm interested to see how the psycho-fans I mentioned hours ago react to such a bold declaration of support for Obama, but now that Clinton has enrolled in the major prerequisite of party unity, I think it's time that she get some better clothes! Let's hope Michelle can take her down the Magnificent Mile for an afternoon on the town...

Memo to Hillary supporters: Sit down and shut up!

There are three things that irritate me in this world: Chicago White Sox fans, ketchup on hot dogs, and die hard supporters of Hillary Clinton.

For the sake of appropriateness, I will focus on the final selection.

Hillary supporters, I will keep this short and sweet: sit down, shut up, and get over your own disillusioned dreams of rebellion. All you are doing is hurting the democratic party and embarrassing yourselves in the process.

This is the part of the blog where I am supposed to slightly contradict myself, giving Hillary credit for running a, *cough*, great campaign, and how she has now opened the door for myriads of bitchy women to run for the presidency. Well, at least the latter is true!

Look, the core constituents of Hillary's fan base--old people who remember the prominence of the 90s, racist southerners who don't want a black man president, and crusty women who support her out of necessity--can support her until Iran bombs the US. It's their freedom as American citizens. What they should STOP doing, effective immediately, is proclaiming that their support for Mrs. Clinton is because A) she was a fantastic candidate, B) the party is being unfair to her, and C) once again, she DID run a fantastic campaign!

Let's take this one step at a time. Hillary was nothing special as a candidate. Despite a senatorial career that has been less-than exceptional, Hillary's presidency began with more fireworks than the opening ceremony to the 2008 Olympic games. Why? because she was the first viable female candidate in US history. Hillary's candidacy was nothing more than a careful construction of polling-influenced decisions, all pieced together to create a candidate that n-sync with the liberal majority of this country while not too liberal for the conservative crowd that loved the prominence of the 90s. In other words, be Bill, not Dennis Kucinich.

This brings me to her campaign, one of the most foulest, most arrogant campaigns in recent memory. Basically, Hillary ran a campaign of inevitability. She was a Clinton. The name spoke for itself. While her campaigning in Iowa featured PLENTY of Clintonesque flip-flopping (such as her famous statement that she never really voted for the Iraq war resolution), Clinton's campaign was lazy. While Obama was running a grassroots campaign of town-meetings, chain-emails, and door-to-door stops, Clinton sat on her thrown, testing the wind and enjoying her substantive lead in polling and financing. She WAS the Democratic nominee. This WAS her time. Oh, what a surprise she had!

We all know what happened next--Obama won the Iowa caucus. Though Hillary scored a surprise victory in New Hampshire (overplaying it as her "comeback"), the air of inevitability continued to South Carolina, where Obama and his supporters gave her a supreme bitch slap of grassroots organization. Yet the arrogance still continued, right up until Super Tuesday, where Clinton and her asshole strategist, Mark Penn, were convinced that her name power and nostalgia for the 90s would squash the brass young candidate from Chicago. Again, so arrogant and SO WRONG!

If we're to view this from Clinton's perspective, she got her clock cleaned on Super Tuesday. Failing to win even a majority of the delegates, Clinton's campaign was left in shambles following the demonic day of voting. Why? BECAUSE HER CAMPAIGN HAD NO STRATEGY BEYOND SUPER TUESDAY. Obama exploded off of his surprise showing, racking up 11 straight victories in the following weeks and creating a lead in delegates that proved to be insurmountable.

Following this route of contests, Clinton's campaign deconstructed to what political-junkies like myself always knew it was--Karl Rove with a bad hairdo. The many instances have already been chronicled, like the campaign's darkening of Obama's skin in commercials to make him appear more "black," her comment that Obama was not a Muslim "as far as" she "knew," her RIDICULOUS pandering to Michigan and Florida voters to have their delegates seated, and the horrid sell-out to Indiana voters over the gas tax (officially the dumbest fucking idea since "they hate us for our freedom"). Roveian to the inch.

So, Hillary's campaign for president can be called a wealth of adjectives, but "good" and any synonym of it is not one of them.

Finally, I am so tired of hearing about how unfair Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid have been to Hillary, and how she "deserves" more respect from the party leaders.

Hillary should have dropped out of the race in March, when Obama's delegate lead was unmatchable. Her constant campaigning in Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and North Carolina has developed exactly what pundits said it would: a schism in the party that no speeches of unity and hollow calls for action can mend.

How do I know this? because there are STILL Hillary supporters organizing during the DNC, talking about how they want their voices heard and Hillary respected! Some have even made the outlandish statement that Clinton will walk away from the convention the party's nominee.

And are Bill and Hillary doing anything to stop this? Until tonight, not really. We still get reports of tension between the Clinton and Obama supervisors, right down to Bill's bitching over what the topic of his speech will be at Obama's DNC.

Pretty much, nothing good came of Clinton's never ending campaign. Standing on the DNC floor today, she has less respect, A LOT less money, and a small group of psychopath devotees. Whatever this group does, the cause of this ugly effect is crystal clear, and Hillary is undoubtedly to blame.

So, fans of the Hillary cult, PLEASE sit down and PLEASE shut up. You only hurt the party and abuse our intellects.

Reflections on Beijing, Part II: Phelps IS the Greatest Olympian Ever

There is a debate raging across the sports world on where Michael Phelps stands among the all-time great Olympic athletes, and while I am always interested in a healthy dispute, I rarely waste my time with one as simple as this: Phelps is, without a doubt, the greatest Olympian of modern times.

Not to say that he has no competition for the honor. Carl Lewis was a nine-time gold medalist and long-jump specialist, winning the latter event four times. Jim Thorpe, who only competed in one Olympics, still boasted the unbelievable achievement of gold in the pentathlon AND decathlon. Paavo Nurmi, a Finish runner, won nine golds in the 1920s, doing the amazing feat of running the 1500 and 5000 meter races within 2 hours of each other.

We cannot, and should not, discredit these achievements, as each one is demonstrative of incredible human potential.

Yet, Phelps' achievements stand alone: eight gold medals and seven world records in the Beijing games, which is the single greatest sporting achievement we are ever likely to see; fourteen gold medals across two games, including two bronze, giving Phelps an astounding sixteen career medals. He has won more gold medals than any Olympic athlete. In fact, he won more GOLD medals in the Beijing games than over 50 competing nation's TOTAL medals!

Now, there are several arguments circulating on why Phelps is not the greatest Olympian, the most prominent stemming from the fact that he is a swimmer. Apparently, a swimmer would have an easier time winning 14 gold medals.

This is, obviously, a ludicrous argument, as several key facts show.

First off, there is the top 20 list of top Olympic medal earners, a list where Phelps is one of only three swimmers. Gymnasts dominate the list, for the most part. But that makes me wonder...if we approach this logically, wouldn't swimming, a sport with an allegedly low difficulty, boast more athletes on this list? If it's easier for the athlete to win more medals, why are there not more of them? That little tidbit crumbles the entire argument.

Beyond the list, though, the Phelps' versatility in these games demands extra attention. Throughout the course of the games, Phelps succeeded at three different distances--the 100, 200, and 400. If we were to compare to, say, track, that's the equivalent of a single runner winning gold in the 200, 400, and 800 triple. No swimmer ever accomplished this; in fact, it has never been attempted.

And, another fact to consider--Phelps won three golds in three different strokes, and when he competed in these matches, he was facing masters of each craft who trained for that one, INDIVIDUAL race. This all-encompassing, 360 degree mastery places him in a league of his own. Oh, and did I mention that he competed in 17 races in eight days?!?

I can cite facts till the cows come home and write as extravagantly as I want to prove, once and for all, that Phelps is the greatest Olympian of all time, but I feel that such efforts, whether they are mine of proving or other bloggers disproving, are all in vain. Why? because Phelps will vanquish any dissenters come 2012.

Phelps WILL be at those games, most likely competing in 5-6 events as opposed to the 8 event blowout of the 2004/2008 games, and doing so in other distances with different swims (such as the 200 meter backstroke). What can we count on? Another 4-5 gold medals, another 4-5 world records, and the complete silence of any critics that he is, without a doubt, the greatest Olympian in modern times.

Reflections on Beijing, Part I: Why I Love the Images of Defeat

With the 2008 Olympics officially coming to a close last night, I felt overwhelmed by a rush of emotions, creating a strange whirlwind of euphoria that was a potent mixture of happiness, sadness, anguish, and excitement.

While it always requires the completion of the Olympics for me to realize how much I enjoy them, I felt more so that these games in China fully affirmed why, specifically, it is that I love the games as much as I do.

With my first note on the games, I'm going to focus on the competition of the Olympic games, a pure, fully-embodied level of commitment that no sporting event, in my opinion, can match. Is it that many of the athletes will never be compensated for their efforts? that many of them work full-time jobs or go to school full-time on top of their athletic schedules? or the simple fact that they spend roughly 25-40 hours a week training for one night out of four years for their shot at Olympic gold.

Whatever the reason, the raw emotion on display during Olympic competition is something that never fails to move me. And when I write that, I do not solely refer to the moments of triumph.

Of course, I feel myself welling up with pride watching Michael Phelps' ecstasy after Jason Lezak's historic comeback in the 4 x 100 m freestyle relay, or the May/Walsh repeat of sand volleyball gold, or Shawn Johnson's brilliant smile after finally winning gold on balance beam; yet, while the flip-side of the games, the moments of failure, give me an immediate sensation of misery, it was these games in Beijing where I realized the strange and indescribable love I had for those times of disappointment.

I love the aftermath of the woman's 100 meter hurdles, seeing gold medal favorite Lolo Jones hit the ninth hurdle, finish seventh, and spend the next five minutes burying her face in her hands, kneeling on the track as if in prayer, and looking blanklessly into the sky wondering what went wrong? In that same freestyle relay, I love seeing the expression of shock on the French team's faces, how their dreams of ruining Michael Phelps' perfect Olympic games will never occur and how they will forever be remembered for blowing their lead to Jason Lezak. And with that same gymnast, I love seeing the eruption of emotion on Shawn Johnson's face after a brilliant floor routine in the All-Around final, knowing that despite her best efforts, despite a full year and countless of hours of practice, her world-champion status will be no more.

Just look at the images:


Phelps and co. rejoice after Lezak's sensational comeback in the 4 X 100 relay.

Shawn Johnson beaming after her masterful beam routine earned her the gold medal.

Lolo Jones, after her trip on the ninth hurdle cost her a gold medal. She finished seventh.

The stunned French relay team, whose goal of smashing Phelp's gold medal dream failed to materialize after Lezak's comeback.

Shawn, after a hard-fought night of stiff competition and very questionable judging gave her a second-place finish and stripping of her world champion status.

I should make a clear distinction--I do not prefer the sad moments of the games to the happy moments. I think it's the fact that I am moved by such unbridled, uncompromising focus on a particular goal, and I can empathize with the feeling of falling short of that ultimate, surreal feeling of complete accomplishment. That is why I love those moments of loss.

Despite the cameras, despite the crowds, despite the bubblegum princess sideline reporters from NBC, these athletes give us insight to pure, unadulterated human emotion. And they move me so.

And maybe it is because of the direction our culture is taking that such naked emotion affects me like it does. As our country becomes more advanced, we become more isolated. Greater communication, as the great irony demonstrates, draws us further apart. I am surely not the first person to point out this dichotomy, as many an artist and commentator have already observed how our increasing reliance on technology and machinery strip us of our inner cores and bring us closer to the metal, hollow creations that serve us unceasingly (think "Wall-E"). Maybe, when I see the emotions of the games, I'm reminded that such emotions still exist.

Why Biden is a good--and slighty alarming--choice for VP

Obama's choice of Biden as Vice President makes perfect sense, though the Senator from Delaware does carry some baggage.

The task of choosing a vice president is never an easy one. I'm glad that I've never had the opportunity to embark on such a crusade.

In choosing a running-mate, several criteria must be met: 1. The mate must be 99.9% n-sync with your views, in order for that person to fully campaign on your ideologies and help your chances at being elected; 2. The mate must appeal to some kind of demographic that you yourself have had trouble with reaching; 3. The mate must offer some kind of X-factor that brings an extra layer of intelligence, sophistication, and grit to your campaign.

This list is obviously basic, but you get the point--choosing running mate is hard goddamn business, and it is no surprise that Obama assembled a committee for his choice and waited until the week before the Democratic Convention to name his selection. Now, let's see how Biden stacks up with the criteria.

N-Sync: Biden is a fairly moderate liberal, which follows well with the image that Obama has been projecting. He is pro-choice, pro-gun control, opposes oil drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuse, opposes capital punishment, supports government action against global warming, and he supports comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship. So, he hits every major base as far as the big issues are concerned with no serious gaffes (and this was definitely an important factor for Obama, as the previous front-runner for the VP slot, Tim Kaine, was undoubtedly rejected because of his pro-life position).

Voting: This is an important factor in choosing Biden, albeit not as important as the final factor (in my ever-so-subtle opinion). Biden comes from Irish working-class roots, a self-made man who could appeal to the "bitter" voters who felt alienated/intimidated by the Harvard-educated, orange-juice-drinking, jogging Obama. Also, Biden has been a senator for a whopping 35 years, and that experience will look quite enticing to any voters still foolish enough to prefer Senator McBush's judgment to Obama's.

The X Factor: Biden is Mr. Foreign Policy, and while Obama has already demonstrated far greater judgment than McCain regarding foreign affairs, the addition of Biden to his team will cement the advantage on foreign policy. How influential is Biden on an international scale? As chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden recently made an important visit to Georgia following their devastating war with Russia. The kicker? Georgian leaders personally invited Biden. Now THAT is muscle. Add to it Biden's strong stance on China's rise to power and you have a tailor-made ambassador of foreign chops.

A second x-factor that Biden brings to the dinner table is aggression, something Obama has tinkered with but not fully committed to. Biden famously remarked during the primaries that Rudy Giuliani's sentences were composed of "a noun, and a verb and 9/11," in response to the constant fear-mongering that Giuliani and similarly-wacko neocons were divulging. Imagine the witty one-liners in store about McCain's houses, or his generally forgetful nature! Biden adds an obvious spark to a well-intentioned if passive campaign that tried to focus its message on unity and positivity in an age of fear-politics and smearing. Nice try, but aggression wins modern elections, and Biden is the right guy to have unloading his guns for your side.

The Negatives: Unfortunately, Joe Biden is human, and he brings with him several controversies and some access baggage that the McCain will no doubt use against the Obama/Biden campaign. Aside from the obvious targets--Biden's supposed plagiarism, an incident of resume inflation, his...hair plugs---Biden has had the tendency to shoot from the hip, occasionally making comments that irritate democrats and enrage republicans. Now, I'm always up for fiery, controversial politics, but with a voting bloc as white-bread and lame as the current American demographic, the characteristics that win elections are steady, consistent, and above all else, NORMAL, and while Biden should be given carte-blanche to attack McCain, we should also sincerely hope that he doesn't get too carried away.

Not that he would ever approach the level of, oh...Dick Cheney!

So while Biden is not flawless, he's easily the strongest VP pick Obama had at his disposal, and should Obama win the general election come November, Biden will no doubt make a strong, eloquent Vice President.

Kingdumb come: Ben Stein makes a movie

Ben Stein—known for his immortal mantra of “Bueller…Bueller…” in the 1986 film “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off”—is a smart guy.

An undergraduate of Columbia University in New York, Stein was Valedictorian of his graduating class at Yale Law School, where he was a classmate of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Following graduation, Stein served as a speechwriter for President Nixon (where he was rumored to have been the famed “Deep Throat” informant to Bob Woodward) and President Ford, a trial lawyer for the Federal Commission and a professor of economics and political science at Pepperdine University and the University of California, Santa Cruz.

Clearly, Stein is a smart guy, so I wondered why he would take part in a film as seemingly ignorant, shameful and perfunctory as “Expelled: No Intelligent Allowed.”
The documentary, which opened in wide-release April 18, boldly declares that Stein “blows the horn on Suppression! Science and Education has expelled smart new ideas from the classroom. What they forgot is that every generation has its rebel…”

In this case, the “smart new ideas” of today’s scientific world mean Intelligent Design, aka, creationism in a cheap tuxedo—the argument that our world, in all its complexities, had an intelligent creator behind its design (meaning, a Judeo-Christian God) and is not the product of Darwinian Evolution by Natural Selection.

When I originally heard of the prospects for this film back in 2007, two thoughts crossed my mind: one, that challenging Darwinian Evolution, a scientific theory of insurmountable evidence, is simply intellectual suicide, and two, that a man as accomplished and presumably intelligent as Stein would know better.

So I saw the movie…and was amazed as what I saw. But to better demonstrate why it is so misguided, I presented members of the ECC faculty with some of the more powerful claims that Stein and his company of propagandists make about evolution. Taking part were David Zacker, a Professor of Humanities with a PhD in the Philosophy of Science, and Marc Healy, an Instructor of Anthropology who teaches a course in Human Evolution at ECC.

Claim #1: The Theory of Evolution has failed. Darwin could not comprehend the complexity of life and his rudimentary ideas reflect this.

Stein’s first major argument of the film boldly professes that evolution, as a theory, has failed. While no explanation or hard data is ever provided to suggest how this has occurred, and what led to the falsification of the theory, an argument that is presented is that Darwin, in the late 1800s, could not account for the complexity of the cell or life as we know it today.
Therefore, his theory cannot account for these complexities, and the theory is flawed. As Zacker puts it, Stein & co. are going about it the wrong way.

“That’s not the way to complain about it,” Zacker said. “You don’t criticize the theory because you don’t like the person or the person didn’t understand something else. We just call that an ‘ad hominem,’ you’re attacking the person, not the theory.”

Furthermore, as Healy explained, the statement that evolution cannot account for the complexity of life is also flawed.

“The reason Darwinism has become the central organizing theory of modern biology is precisely because the theory is extremely successful at explaining relationships and phenomena,” Healy stated. “The nearly universal acceptance of the modern synthesis of evolution within biology is not based upon some cult of personality or ancestor worship- it's based upon the continued success of the theory to generate answers.”

Claim #2: Scientists know of these flaws, but they suppress anyone who questions the theory because they are afraid of dissent.

This becomes the bread and butter of Stein’s film—that “smart new ideas” are being kept out of the classroom by a greedy, paranoid and totalitarian majority that supports Darwinian Evolution; unfortunately, this is also flawed.

Firstly, there is nothing “new” about the idea of Intelligent Design.

“Intelligent Design is not really a new idea- it was first put forth before Darwin as the ‘watchmaker’s hypothesis,’” Healy stated.

By “watchmaker’s hypothesis,” Healy is alluding to the “watchmaker analogy” that was used by 18th century philosophy William Paley, who argued that in viewing a watch, we understand that the watch, in all is intricacies, had a creator, just as our universe.

Secondly, the film seems to be misunderstanding the process of science and the nature of scientific theories.

“All theories have flaws in them,” Zacker said. “Every theory does. You go to any scientific theory, [and] there is something that is unanswered.”

“If I say to you,” Zacker continued, “‘Ok, my theory has some flaws in it [and] there are some things that it can’t explain, or that I can’t explain yet,’ and you don’t understand that that is…part of the way that science works, you might think that that means that your theory is bad, when it doesn’t mean that, it just means that you have more work to do with the theory.”
So, Stein & co. misunderstand what it means for something to be a “theory,” which is to say, a scientific explanation backed by years of research and mountains of supporting evidence. Scientists have absolute faith in their theories, and to claim any have major flaws is to undermine the years upon years of data and effort that supports a theory’s claims.
And finally, the film’s supposition that scientists do not question evolution is entirely flawed.
Healy stated, “Evolutionary scientists question evolution all the time- there are great debates that rage about different aspects of the theory. The basic tenets of the theory, however, are no longer seriously questioned.”

Claim #3: By suppressing Intelligent Design, scientists are breaching academic freedoms and our basic freedom of thought.

Expanding on Stein’s second claim of totalitarianism, this third statement proclaims that freedom and liberty—characteristics that are what America stands for—are being violated by the monopoly that evolution holds in science classrooms.

Once again, this attitude comes from a misunderstanding of science.

As Healy stated, “ID [Intelligent Design] isn’t really being ‘suppressed.’ Rather, it’s being rejected, just as astronomers reject astrology, and historians reject holocaust deniers.”
Zacker also spoke on this idea, saying, “It [ID] is probably suppressed in the same way that a Geologist argues that the earth is flat gets suppressed. There’s just no evidence for creationism.”
And so is the film’s misunderstanding of how science works. Evolution has built the reputation it holds because of the preponderance of evidence that support its claims in a WIDE variety of disciplines, such as geology, paleontology, biogeography, zoology, botany, comparative anatomy, molecular biology, genetics and embryology, to name a few.

Zacker said, “If there is evidence, or somebody can find the evidence [for ID], scientists will listen to them seriously, but until you start finding the evidence and start showing the evidence…and it’s gotta be a body of evidence, [but when] you start showing that, it will start coming around.”

Problem is, the evidence is not there.

Claim #4: Evolution makes you doubt religion and embrace atheism.

With this claim, the film slowly and subtly begins making a case for organized religion, stating that bad, secular atheism draws people away from good, holy creationism.

“This is a mere canard,” Healy stated. “People who put forth this argument deign to speak for all people of faith. Darwin eventually became an agnostic, and indeed his theory is entirely secular, but it does not negate the existence of God. At best it is entirely silent on the matter.”

Furthermore, it is ridiculous to think that an embracement of scientific truths—based on evidence and reason, mind you—would make someone abandon all sense of righteousness and morality.

Healy stated, “Few would take seriously the idea that geologists who claim the world is 4.6 billion years old, or physicists who claim the universe began with a big bang some 14 billion years ago, or the tens of thousands of educators who teach these ideas, are leading people down the dark passages of heresy towards the sinful gates of apostasy. This is easily recognizable as falsehood.”

Interestingly, what is often presented in the religion/science debate is people of a certain religion imposing their viewpoints on science, as opposed to accepting the evidence and views that science provides.

“It seems to me that they’re going the opposite route,” Zacker said, in speaking of theists who criticize evolution. “They’re trying to find a theory that rationalizes their view as opposed to finding a theory that makes sense and then using that to inform their view.”

Claim #5: Evolution de-privileges humans, and our society is decaying as it embraces its ideals.

Once again, the film makes broader strokes with its claims, this time increasing its scope to our current society and claiming that many of the problems that currently exist are due to our embracing of bad, secular evolution. This is simplistic beyond measure.

“That would be such a simplistic view of the way that society works that I couldn’t imagine that actually being the case,” Zacker said. “You can track the rise of Christianity and the fall of Rome. Does that mean that Christianity leads to the fall of Rome? I don’t think so. Is there a connection? Maybe, but it’s much more complex than just Christianity.”

Also, while the fifth claim of the film may have a certain emotional resonance with certain viewers, in reality it does little to counter the claims of evolution, which was supposedly Stein’s intent on making the film.

“What makes evolution right or wrong is that there is evidence for or against it based on testing,” Zacker said. “So, again, that’s rationalizing, looking at the world [and saying] ‘I don’t like the results, therefore, evolution must be wrong.’”

Claim #6: Evolution is the blame for the holocaust, as its world view of "survival of the fittest" heavily inspired Adolf Hitler and his Nazi regime.

Stein goes for the ultimate emotional appeal with this whopper of a statement, suggesting that Darwin could possibly be to blame for the largest systematic slaughter of human beings on record. Sadly, in making this statement, he makes one of the most common—and embarrassing—faux pas anyone can make regarding evolutionary theory.

“‘Survival of the Fittest’ is a term coined by Herbert Spencer, not Charles Darwin,” Healy stated. “It's a very popular misconception and not a very accurate summation of natural selection either, which is based upon reproductive success, not survival.”

So, not only does the film put words in Darwin’s mouth, but it totally misunderstands what Darwin originally argued with Natural Selection, which simply states that, A) variations will exist in species, B) a variation that affects a proportion of that population positively or negatively will increase or decrease that proportions reproductive success, and C) this variation will eventually result in new species. In other words, the theory states nothing about “survival of the fittest.”

Beyond the film’s chronic misunderstanding, however, is its failure to recognize that a statement of this magnitude is really a two-way street.

Zacker said, “If you take evolution, and you say, ‘Ok, here is somebody who believed in it, and they did really bad things based on their understanding of the view,’ and then you condemn evolution as a result, if you’re gonna be consistent, you’d have to virtually condemn every religion that’s out there, because everybody’s misrepresented a religion.”

Claim #7: Intelligent Design is a valid science and deserves to be taught alongside evolution in modern science classes.

This statement is incorrect because of one key point—Intelligent Design is NOT a science.
“ID can't be said to be science for a number of reasons,” Healy stated. “First of all, science seeks explanations rooted in natural processes, not supernatural occurrences. God may very well enact miracles, but if so they are outside the realm of empirical, naturalistic phenomenon that can be studied scientifically.

“The biggest difference between ID and a scientific perspective is that ID presupposes a conclusion and then seeks evidence to support it, which is entirely unscientific.”

These statements echoed exactly what Zacker said, that Intelligent Design is not a science because it is not testable.

“It’s either not testable or when the tests are conducted, we find that the evidence is against creation science,” Zacker said. “Being a good scientist, you’d have to reject the theory.”

The Thrill is gone: How China has tarnished the Olympic games

I've seen the most pure example of athletic accomplishment destroyed by madness and corruption, decomposing from the inside-out due to rampant nationalism and pure dishonesty.

Or, the Chinese are lying, cheating bastards. Either way you put it, something is rotten in the state of Beijing (which, I learned the other day, is pronounced with a "J" as in "juice," not "G" as in "gigli.")

I am referring to the female Gymnastics scandal, a little rumble of a story that is now gaining more exposure by the day. And that is good, as the more pressure mounts, the more incentive the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has to further investigate the affair.

Not that they will discover any newly incriminating evidence, though, as the proof is already in the chocolate pudding of descent that China has lied and cheated to claim Olympic gold in female gymnastics.

He Kexin, a brilliant young gymnast whose performance on the uneven bars was a major contributor to the Chinese team's victory in the team all around, is 14 years old, a full two years younger than the new standard for Olympic gymnasts. How do I know such shocking information? Why, the Chinese government! See for yourself:

In case you can't make it out, the second red-lined box clearly states that Kexin is 14. The source? A China Daily article from May, 2008 on Kexin (remember, the government controls the media in China).

Here is a clearer image.

Now, let us fast-forward to the present day. The China Daily archives all of their articles on the internet, and the aforementioned article, "Uneven queen the new star in town," is available. Except something is different this time around...see for yourself:

Again, consult the second red box. This time, Kexin's age has mysteriously changed from 14 to 16...

But wait, there's more! Here is a 2007 article from the GOVERNMENT-RUN news agency Xinhua that writes of some 13 year old gymnast named He Kexin:

Translation: The thirteen-year-old He Kexin, from Wuhan, met opponent Yang Yilin, who is on the National Team. Amid cheers from her hometown audience, the young girl excellently executed the full set of moves in the finals, and just beat out Yang Yilin, who already had high scores. Lu Shanzhen, the General Coach of the National Gymastic team, also applauded her performance.

But wait, there's MORE! This is an official roster for City Games, a sporting competition in which Kexin competed. This was published January 27, 2006, and again, it was from a government source, this time the Chengdu government. Look at what the roster lists as Kexin's birthday:

A clearer copy.

I could go on, as there are even more examples of the schizophrenic age of the ever-enigmatic He Kexin.* But, I think you get the point. The Chinese government has blatantly, bald-faced lied about Kexin's age, falsifying her passports in the process (which were, conveniently, manufactured in February of this year). While the immediate repercussions of this disaster are obvious--a stripping of the gold medal from China and an awarding to the silver-place United States team--this sad event represents the increasingly dangerous nationalism that seems to be taking place with China and the Olympics games.

Look, I understand that the Olympics are never the kind of event that inspires countries to hold hands and sing "We are the World." The Olympics are fast, frenetic bouts of athleticism, where the most dazzling of athletes compete for the most prestigious of awards: gold, silver, and shiny bronze medals and an added level of international respect for that country.

Even with this obscene level of competition, though, there is still a level of respect among the countries, a mutual disregard for petty political differences and a focus on good, CLEAN sportsmanship. China has proven itself below this standard.

And this is something that worries me, that the extreme nationalism that has come to define China is rearing its ugly head in the supposed purity of the Olympics.

In preparation for the games, Chinese authorities scour the countryside, personally choosing athletes of impeccable talent to star in the future Olympic games. If athletes are "lucky" enough to be chosen, that is effectively the end of their lives as they know it, as the athletes are then taken from their homes and train full-time under government supervision.

And the program has worked. At this moment, China is second only to the United States on total medal count, boasting a whopping 35 gold medals. At this moment, we are seeing the new rivalry of this era mature to sporting events. USA v China for global dominance.

Yet it's a shame at how it's being done, that a country's leaders can be so power-hungry that they would destroy, abduct, and lie to succeed. Enjoy the Olympics while they last, ladies and germs, but beware the gilded tint.



*And Kexin, I should point out, is not the first underage gymnast that China has used. Yang Yun, a Chinese gymnast who won bronze in the uneven bars routine of the 2000 Summer Olympics in Sydney, later admitted in a television interview that she was only 14 at the time. And guess what? Her passport that was issued for the games said she was 16!

Obama got Rick Roll'd!

Probably the most clever example of the increasingly irritating "Rick Roll" phenomenon.

Enjoy!

Phelps' athelticism is astounding, but his music needs some work!

First, the obvious: Michael Phelps is the greatest Olympian in the modern history of the games. Tonight's victory in the 4 x 100m team medley brought his Beijing-games medal total to an astounding EIGHT gold medals, a feat that eclipses Mark Spitz's justifiably impressible performance of seven gold in the '72 games. This, totaled with Phelps' six gold from the Athens games, gives him an [insert adjective] 14 gold medals with two bronze. Add to this the 32 world records he holds (along with 26 individual) and you have, bar none, the most amazing athlete of our generation. It's been a duty and an honor to watch the man.

Better than Tiger at golf. Even better than Michael at basketball. Now THAT is good.

Beyond his athleticism, though, Phelps is class-act and class-A cool, always confident and collected. Watching him tonight, he seemed not the least bit rattled by the fact that he was attempting an UNPRECEDENTED FEAT of Olympic performance. And after his victories and world-records, his interviews with Bob Costas are polite, proper, and entirely courteous (just now, he's thanking his teammates for their help in winning his last gold--why can't all sports have superstars like this?)

Second, the more mysterious: Phelps' rather suspect taste in music. Now, it's been a very surprising practice of mine to find that many famous people have excellent tastes in the arts. Barack Obama's iPod features, among other artists, Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Sam Cooke, and Public Enemy, while his favorite films include Godfather Part II. Bill Clinton is a die hard fan of jazz, as is Woody Allen. Hell, even Scarlett Johansson is Tom Waits fan, and Christina Aguilera listens to Etta James.

So, famous people, no matter how high their suck-o-meter, can still manage some decent taste in places other than their taste buds. So imagine my shock when I discovered the contents of Michael Phelps' iPod, someone who is obviously high on the awesome-scale: Lil' Wayne. Young Jeezy. Jay-Z. Twista. USHER.

Michael, I forgive the Jay-Z if it is early, pre-sell out Jay-Z, but TWISTA? YOUNG JEEZY? Seriously, Michael. Usher?

Michael, I had such fucking hopes for us! Let's start with some fusion-era Miles Davis. That was an instrumental component to the formation of hip hop music, so you should find the transition to that style easy enough. But we'll go slow--we wouldn't want to overwhelm you.

Hey, I can dream, can't I?!? As Phelps' swimming skillz improved to superhuman standards between the Athens and Beijing games, I can hope the same for his tastes in music between the Beijing and London games. So, c'mon Michael, let the good times roll!

Remind me: WHY is it such a big deal that John Edwards had an affair?

The big breaking news today is that John Edwards has admitted to having an affair with Rielle Hunter, launching off a firestorm of criticism and speculation on the former presidential candidate's political future. While pundits and housewives around scream at Edwards and ponder why he would do such a thing, I'll ask a more direct question--why should WE even care?

Here are just a couple of the stories that have developed in the last 24 hours:

1) Georgia (the COUNTRY), after invading the breakaway province of South Ossetia, has inspired reactions of invasion and bombing by neighboring Russia, a country that strongly supported Ossetia's independence from Georgia. Why should WE care about THIS? Georgia is a staunch ally of the US and the modern western world, offering not only troops to the war on "terror" in Iraq but also a country that features, wait for it, a pipeline of oil through its lands (it's always about oil, isn't it?). A continuation of this conflict between Georgia and Russia would unquestionably result in the annihilation of the former country.

Yet what gets all the attention? John Edwards and his increased libido.

2) John McCain continues his downward spiral from independent maverick to GOP neanderthal with what is possibly his most dishonest attack-ad yet against Barack Obama.

See for yourself.

The dishonesty of the ad is shocking. The vote that the ad alludes to was an Obama vote for a recent budget resolution that proposed raising the lowest level tax-rate from 25% to 28%. What the ad does not mention is that it was a fricking BUDGET RESOLUTION! Not only is there considerable baggage to complicated measures like resolutions, but they are the complete opposite of BILLS, which the McCain campaign seem to equate with resolutions. Bills are precise, resolutions are broad, and as the vote stands, taxes may have been raised with the resolution, which, I should point out, revolved around the discontinuing of Bush's tax cuts for the super-rich!!!

And, once again, we have the irritating practicing of McCain not-so-subtly stating that Obama is an elitist who will raise taxes on the poor and drive away in his Ferrari.

Do I really need to address this? McCain grew up in a family of admirals, received a top-notch education at the Naval Academy (which he boasts to have thrown away), and left his first wife for a cozy engagement with the heiress to the multimillion dollar corporation ANHEUSER-BUSCH!!! McCain owns six houses on my last count, including one in Phoenix worth almost $5 MILLION. Oh, and he wears a pair of loafers that cost a whopping $520.

Now let's compare this to Obama--born to a single white mother, raised on food stamps, graduated from Columbia, worked for $20,000 a year as a community organizer, and then graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School. Which of these seems opportunist and privileged, and which one seems the product of hard work?

Those are the first stories two that popped into my head, but further excavation yields a wealth of similarly news-worthy material: the first ever conviction of a Guantanamo prisoner for...being Bin Laden's driver; the information that the Justice Department, under Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, hired lawyers based on political affiliation, a shockingly partisan development from the supposedly un-partisan branch of the government; the revelation that the White House, with specific direction by Vice President Dick Cheney and Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith, forged a document linking Saddam Hussein to Al-Queda. This final story is so severe that it should unquestionably involve the impeachment of Cheney.

But what gets the attention? John Edwards and his affair.

Now, I am in no way discrediting the severity of the situation. John Edwards had an affair, he has admitted to it, and there will be a long, arduous process of rebuild with his wife and kids; however, this is a private matter, one that we should have the courtesy and honor to leave to the Edwards family to resolve.

The public madhouse over the Clinton sex scandal was ridiculous in its own right, and the firestorm over Edwards' infidelity proves we have not gotten any more sensible. Instead of focusing on the real issues facing our country now, we labor over the personal problems of our celebrities and idols, from Brangelina's twins to the latest fuck-up by Lindsay Lohan. Don't we have better, more valuable things to do with our limited time?

And I'm not alone in this sentiment. Here is a direct quote of an Elizabeth Edwards blog that appeared on The Daily Kos earlier today: "I ask that the public, who expressed concern about the harm John’s conduct has done to us, think also about the real harm that the present voyeurism does and give me and my family the privacy we need at this time."

Can't we honor her wish?

Weezer

I was never much of a Weezer fan. Sure, I bobbed my head and hummed along to 'Hash Pipe' or 'Keep Fishin'' when they would float across the radio streams, but I never felt motivated to investigate the band any further. Well, following some recommendations from a couple of semi-reliable sources and a new-found curiosity for alternative music, I gave the band a shot.

And boy, what a trip.

Weezer's musical odyssey has been kind of like a match--a brilliant explosion of light, followed by small flickers of faintness, followed by insignificant darkness.

BLUE ALBUM: Weezer's self-titled debut is considered a classic of 90s pop, and it deserves every inch of praise. To paraphrase rock music critic Jim DeRogatis, while Howard Hawkes remarked that a great film was composed of three great scenes and no bad ones, "Weezer" provides an album with 7 great songs and no bad ones.

The album kicks into high gear immediately with 'My Name is Jonas,' followed by the wonderful 'No One Else,' then the classic deep-cut 'The World Has Turned and Left Me Here,' and then the hits start coming, with the 90s classic 'Buddy Holly' in all its retro-pop glory and then 'Undone,' which we all know as 'The Sweater Song.'

Basically, from start to finish this is great fun, with rollicking pop melodies played over crunching guitar that sounds like its about to short the amps. Beyond the music, though, is front man Rivers Cuomo, whose self-conscious lyrics of nerdy exclusion and excellent vocals bring a grand humility to the proceedings. Add to it all the closing number, 'Only in Dreams,' which is one of the great epic closing numbers in current Rock n Roll memory, and you have yourself a classic.

PINKERTON: Ah, here's where the bacon really gets cookin'. With "Pinkerton," Cuomo gets serious, shattering his adorable little image of the sensitive nerd into pieces with knee-jerk confessionals that make any emo record seem even MORE false and artificial.

While the Cuomo of "Weezer" was content to laugh at his own loneliness, our little hero of "Pinkerton" is simply tired, tired of being laughed at, tired of feeling no human connection, and tired of...sex.

While the lyrical content of the album is certainly a step into darker territory, the band has only gotten stronger, cranking up the amps to 11 and blasting into the stratosphere. Basically, "Pinkerton" is the work of a live band, with all of the feedback, distortion, and reckless abandon we can expect from a REAL live experience. From the wailing feedback that introduces "No Other One" to the raging guitars that scream into the melody of "Getchoo," the Weezer of "Surf Wax America" and "Say it Ain't So" is a thing of the past. Instead, we have honesty, depression, and legitimate anger, the kind of stuff we college kids can empathize with (Cuomo composed most of the "Pinkerton" material while a student at Harvard--yeah, he's a smart guy).

A classic, and quickly approaching a spot on my desert isle reserves.

EVERYTHING ELSE: This is where your Weezer collection should effectively end, as everything following "Pinkerton" is not worth the plastic it is digitally compressed to. When "Pinkerton" was released, fans and critics alike were outraged over the drastic change in tone from the first album to the second. Sales were terrible, radio play suffered, and major publications wiped the floor with poor Rivers (Rolling Stone famously called the album the "Worst Album of 1996"). Cuomo's reaction to all this was perfectly understandable. After sweating through the slings and arrows of the sophomore slump and emerging with an album as honest and confessional as any album of the 1990s, his beloved fan base wouldn't piss on the record to put out a fire.

So, he disappeared. Completely. And for five years, nobody heard a single note of new material from Weezer. Until 2001, when "Weezer," or, "The Green Album" was released. And trust me--it's a piece of shit. Don't get me wrong, I can understand why Cuomo would record the album. His fan base in shambles, he needed to deliver a fun, commercial album to reclaim his sales and dignity. That's all fine. The problem is that "Weezer" is simply a terrible album.

It all just sounds so lazy, like they weren't even trying. Cuomo's vocals sound bored and disinterested. His writing, musically and especially lyrically, is stilted and uninspired. The rest of the band, from the guitars to the bass and drums, sound muted. Even the guitar solos are a complete step back from the fiery playing displayed on "Pinkerton."

Yet, it still sold, prompting us to a fast-forward to today, where Weezer hasn't missed a step, releasing one album after another of commercial-inspired dreck that lacks any of the shocking originality of the band's first two records.

Aside from the band's descent into irrelevance--which is, really, annoying as all hell--there is the highly irritating Weezer fan base, a two-faced crowd if there ever was one that pisses the living shit out of me. In the present day, with Weezer a full-blown commercial outfit with no inspiration, the same people who panned "Pinkerton" now crave for the band to return to their rock/pop roots and once again produce an album along those lines--fun, catchy, rockin', and honest. Sorry, homeys, those days are long gone, are you are to blame. God damn you, you half Japanese girls!

Raymond Chandler and Philip Marlow

[Notice: This is my first message in 15 days, and while such tardiness can be excused as procrastination, I have a perfectly feasible explanation--honeysuckle.)

Film noir is one of those art forms that everybody--regardless of their background--seems to like. And who could blame them? The striking visuals, the delicious cynicism, and the wonderful, hard-boiled writing bring something for everyone on the platter. So it was always a mystery, really, that I had not invested more effort into film noir and classic crime fiction.

That all changed this summer, though. Upon the recommendation of seemingly every TV-viewer I knew, I began heavily watching the HBO series "The Wire." Two things: yes, it is as good as you have heard, and yes, I'll elaborate on that statement at a later date. Back to the big picture: my immersion in crime fiction, though, kick started my long subdued appetite for more of the genre, and I figured that there was no better place to start than the very king OF the genre itself, Raymond Chandler.

I should make one thing clear, though--Chandler did not create film noir or the detective crime thriller. While it is difficult to credit one single source for the creation of any art, film noir and its most defining characteristics had two major starting points in Dashiell Hammett's 1930 novel The Maltese Falcon and James M. Cain's 1934 novel The Postman Always Rings Twice. It's all there--the hard-boiled, cynical leading man, the smoldering femme-fatale, and the post-modernist ending of gloom, doom, and inevitability.

So, Chandler did not create the very genre in which he laid. He merely offered a superior example.

Chandler fused the noir of Cain with the detective of Hammett, offering his debut novel, The Big Sleep, in 1939, and introducing his lead character and film noir idol Philip Marlowe.

Reading Chandler, the first thing that struck me about his writing was just how literate the guy was. When we think noir, we think of the more modern neo-noir examples of the genre, such as Sin City, the novels of James Ellroy (more on those at a later date) and any imitator of those trend-setters. And, we know of that style--fragmented, choppy and scant on adjectives. Chandler, though, writes with none of these characteristics.

Written from the first-person perspective of Marlowe, Chandler's prose is crisp, sharp and written with laser-like precision. Meticulous details are exuded on surroundings, rooms, articles of clothing, the physical features of pivotal (and not-so pivotal) characters, and nature, the latter of which occurs as a frequent symbolism in Chandler's work. Granted, the prose is still tough and the vocab hard-boiled, but it is damn well constructed.

After Chandler's prose, the next feature that hit me in the face like a glass of cold water was his dialogue, which is among the sharpest I have ever read. Cutting like a knife, the repartee between Marlowe and his various clients/suspects/villains leaps off the page, hitting you with an immediacy that is both shocking in its frankness and startling in its construction. Consider, for example, this passage of dialogue from The Big Sleep:

She took the photo out and stood looking at it, just inside the door. "She has a beautiful little body, hasn't she?"
"Uh-huh."
She leaned a little towards me. "You ought to see mine," she said gravely.
"Can it be arranged?"
She laughed suddenly and sharply and went halfway through the door, then turned her head to say coolly: "You're as cold-blooded a beast as I ever met, Marlowe. Or can I call you Phil?"
"Sure."
"You can call me Vivian."
"Thanks, Mrs. Regan."
"Oh, go to hell, Marlowe." She went on out and didn't look back.

Sharp, precise, and very, very good.

I mentioned symbolism earlier, and that aspect of Chandler's writing has been, for me as least, its most remarkable aspect. Crime fiction is not your typical genre where, for example, the rain plays an overarching role of symbolism, such as it does in The Big Sleep. Or, to cite another one of Chandler's books, the fantastic Lady in the Lake, water once again plays a important role, along with the dark wilderness and mysterious lake of a northern lake house resort.

And while these fantastical elements of Chandler's novels justify their masterpiece standing, the one lasting impression that his works leave is that of true film noir, that of the road not taken. Film noir, true film noir, takes us through a merry-go-round of human nature, exposing the dark underbelly of our race and reducing our actions to nothing more than animals in a cage, owned by a bleak and sadistic creator. Chandler write unblinkingly of these truths, making us sadder, wiser, and more nuanced readers as a final result. And can we really ask any more of literature?

Why offshore drilling is utter bullshit

Offshore drilling has become the latest GOP talking point, with Dubya lifting the executive ban on the process, urging Congress to do the same, and parading in press conferences that the government has responded to the gas crises by "removing the bans on offshore drilling!" These statements are so engulfed in bullshit that it can be difficult to summarize why they are so, but I think I can boil it down to three reasons:

1. Supply and demand. Instead of researching alternate sources of energy--which will be the only realistic way to lower gas prices and prohibit global warming--our leaders beg Saudi Arabia to increase their supply of oil, hoping the increase in supply will quench the unquenchable demand now running rampant in the global market. Offshore drilling, allegedly, will add to this supply, therefore lowering prices. What GOP mouthpieces fail to mention, however, are the GLOBAL numbers that dictate oil prices. There are roughly 86 millions barrels of oil being produced around the world. 86 million! Even with the rosiest projections for offshore drilling--let's say, 3 million barrels are excavated--the supply, in relation to the global markets, will be so minute that American gas prices will hardly budge, if at all.

2. Oil companies. I'm going to let you in on a little secret--when demand is high, you keep supply low, especially if you are selling a product with insurmountable demand that is likely to continue into the unforeseeable future. Nintendo does it with the Wii. Apple does it with the iPhone. Oil companies do it with their oil supplies. Something that Dubya never says about offshore drilling is that oil companies already claim substantive resources in several offshore areas; yet, in those reserves, only 21% of the potential oil has been tapped by oil companies. That's right--79% of that oil is just sitting there, waiting to be processed. Why are the companies waiting? TO KEEP SUPPLY LOW AND DEMAND HIGH! Exxon Mobile, this last quarter, posted the highest profits of any corporation EVER. I'm talking billions. In profits. The last thing we need is more oil in the hands of profit-hungry corporations, but the best thing they need is more leases from the Dubya Fascist Regime.

3. Time. This is probably the most ludicrous reality of the entire offshore drilling phenomenon. Dubya and his GOP cronies crow about how lifting the ban on offshore drilling will effectively answer calls to end the gas crises. There is a little, irritating caveat to this idea--any action by the government to stall gas prices needs to go into effect NOW. Offshore drilling is such a complicated, costly exercise that, I shit you not, oil reserves from those offshore sites could not surface until 2030. 2030! 22 years and millions of dollars to answer a problem that needs drastic action NOW.

And that, really, is the crowning jewel of irony in this whole thing. Global demand, mainly coming out of India and China, will never stop. The population of potential car-buyers in those rapidly industrializing nations is simply too big to assume demand will decrease any time soon, meaning, gas prices will continue to rise.* We will have $5 a gallon gas. Maybe even $6. And the only REAL answer to these problems, ideas that REAL leaders will front, will involve alternate energy and a decrease in dependence on foreign oil.


*Footnote: the only feasible way that prices will lower in the future is by strengthening the dollar. A weak dollar buys less in the global market, so naturally a weak dollar will go far less of a distance with a resource as valuable as oil; still, this is short term, as exchange rates are not the long-term answer to gas prices nor climate change.

FISA and Obama--a disappointing calamity

The FISA "compromise," which passed in the Senate with an overwhelming majority yesterday, is an unabashed assault on the American constitution, a heinous disregard for personal rights, and a shameful free-pass to criminal activity--and it was all supported by our presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party.

The new FISA regulations effectively give the government free reign to scoop up and analyze any "intelligence" they see as beneficial to the War on Terror, meaning, any phone calls, emails, text messages, etc. that you may make. Say that a terrorist suspect arises whose name is coincidentally "Peter Ricci." All of my various methods of communication can be spied on at will with NO REPERCUSSIONS FOR THE WARRANT-LESS SEARCH (even this petty, meaningless ramble). With the Senate ruling yesterday and the president's signing today, the Fourth Amendment took an unprecedented blow, one that basically flushes our civil liberties down the toilet. So enjoy those freedoms while you still can, because the government now has access to each and every one of them.

To better understand how disgraceful this is, consider this historical analogy--Richard Nixon and Watergate. Prior to the current administration, Nixon and his Watergate spy scandal served as the precedent for abuse of presidential power, a shocking and demeaning exercise in paranoia and fascism. Nixon wiretapped the DNC and the homes of Woodward and Bernstein. Bush has wiretapped the entire country.

Except with Watergate, Nixon and his co-conspirators faced serious criminal allegations, with Nixon resigning and his numerous cronies receiving jail time. What the new FISA ruling details is an EXPANSION of surveillance power and a RE-WRITE of the rules governing those powers! So the president can now spy with more gluttony than before, and the rules have been changed to exempt the president, his cronies, and the telecoms corporations who cooperated with the criminal acts from any such allegations. It's beyond belief.

And then there is Barack Obama, who, with his support of the bill, offered his first fully disappointing decision of the primary season. Obama's stances on these issues has been patently obvious. A constitutional expert who lectured on the artifact at the University of Chicago, Obama clearly understands the rights entailed by the Fourth Amendment and the outright abuse the new FISA bill enacts on those rights. A believer in civil rights and justice, Obama has also promised to filibuster any bill that included telecoms immunity, which, um, this bill did.

No filibuster, no grand speech on the abuse of the Fourth Amendment. Just, "I don't like the bill but I must support it because we need to have a FISA legislation intact."

I understand that Senator Obama is under considerable pressure as the presumptive nominee, not only as the undeniable front runner in the race but also as the first viable black candidate in United States history, a glass ceiling of epic proportions. Nobody can put themselves in his shoes.

However, the proof is in the pudding. This new FISA bill is nothing short of fascism, or, corporatism if we're going to honor Mussolini. Look at it this way: the rights of the corporations exceed the rights of the citizens, and our government will go to great lengths to protect those certain inalienable rights of the CORPORATIONS, protecting them from criminal scandal at the sake of the very citizens that put them into power. Founding fathers, I can feel you rolling in your graves.

And these are fairly obvious transgressions of the bill. No hidden language, no tricks. Hell, the GOP has been practically boasting on how unconstitutional this bill is. So where in the bloody hell is Barack Obama?

I'll admit, I fell under the guy's spell. Politics is a dark, dreary game, and it can be especially maddening for anyone who attempts to follow it with any level of zeal. The hypocrisy, the back-scratching, the cronyism, it seems out of control and shameful while homeless Iraq War veterans starve under bridges, Ohio residents lose industrial jobs to China, and lower-class families see their tax rates rise while high income families see their tax rates fall.

He's charming, he's eloquent, and he's one helluva candidate. But, as John Elder correctly pointed out to me last weekend, he's "still a politician," one who will cut corners and sell-out stances to gain points in electability. It's just with this case, with this politician, it seems to hurt that much more.

Wall-E!

The one word review for Zachary:

Superb.

The extended review for everyone else:

Pixar continues its unbelievable winning-streak with "Wall-E," a film that is the studio's most daring, audacious project yet and one of the most flat-out entertaining films I have seen in quite some time.

The plot is simple: Wall-E, or, the last remaining Waste Allocation Load Lifter-Earth-Class on Earth, bides his time by compressing garbage into neat cubes and collecting the more valuable trinkets he comes across in a little museum he maintains outside of the city. This process is thrown out-of-whack by Eve, a sentry-robot sent to Earth to study its filthy environment and see if the planet is fertile to support life. I won't spoil any of the following plot points for those who have yet to see the film (and to those people: shame on you!).

The most remarkable aspect of "Wall-E," among the many remarkable aspects there are, is the almost-complete absence of dialogue from the film. The Wall-E character has no dialogue, as does Eve. All Pixar uses to advance the characters and plot is sound effects, actions, and subtle facial expressions from the robots. In fact, excluding the insertion of human characters 2/3 the way into the film, that's all there is. Beeps, groans, and physical comedy, yet that's the genius of Pixar--we can still feel for these rusty old machines like human characters, even if they haven't spoken a single word of English!

The animation, as expected, is flawless, but not perfect. Like the grimy, fuzzy visuals that "Finding Nemo" utilized for its water environments, "Wall-E" displays a dusty, garbage-infested earth, one piled sky high with trash and prone to violent sand storms. And the Wall-E character itself shows the same kind of detail, and the aged, slightly rusted exterior of his metal is juxtaposed by the shiny, sleek visual of the Eve design (for an example, just gaze at the picture I included at the top of this review, how Wall-E's fingers show such a subtle hint of dust and age, and how the edges of his body-frame show the beginning stages of rust).

One final note on the animation: Pixar continues to have the most sophisticated lighting seen in animated films today. The same gorgeous characteristics that struck me in "Rat." continue in "Wall-E," specifically in the scenes involving the museum of trash Wall-E lives in, where the source of lighting comes from strewn Christmas lights. The shot of the museum as the lights flicker on is among the prettiest images I've seen in a movie this year.

Just as Pixar is a studio of artists, it is also a haven of historians, like a Smithsonian of film history. Each Pixar film draws upon a wide range of films for inspiration, and "Wall-E" is no exception, using as its muse classic silent films from the golden era of Hollywood; as in, Buster Keaton, Charlie Chaplin, and even Jacques Tati. Basically, the Wall-E character IS Chaplin's Tramp. Dirty, mangy, yet with a heart like gold and an unquenchable spirit that holds universal appeal. Also, it is no coincidence that Wall-E, like the tramp, never speaks.

Pixar's Chaplin-influence also extends to the film making. Never one to overwhelm his audience with technological gimmickry, Chaplin shot his films in two styles--far away for comedy, and close up for tragedy. Far away angles would perfectly capture the tramp's zany, unpredictable physical comedy, and close up would record every nuance and emotion of the film's conclusion. "Wall-E" follows this like an honors student, watching Wall-E's escapades with careful, far away detachment and letting the chaos develop into sublime comedy, while allowing the intimate scenes between Wall-E and Eve mature in close, compassionate quarters. Brilliance, I tell ya!

(Spoiler Alert! The following segment refers to plot developments discovered later in the film, so if you haven't seen it, close yer bloody browser!)

There is a specific reason that I love Pixar films to such a degree, and for Zach's honor, I have one word that describes it perfectly: complexity. Yes, complexity. Pixar films offer me an astonishingly large assortment of angles to analyze, from the animation, to the references, to the perfectly executed plot, to the perfectly developed characters. Yet below even all these levels is the true rhetoric of the picture, the underlying themes that Pixar subtly states. With "Wall-E," they take on consumerism.

In the film, Wall-E encounters a space-age Royal Caribbean cruise, a getaway for humans that has become permanent due to the overwhelming filth on earth. Yet on these cruises, humans have finally succumbed to machines, allowing them to do EVERYTHING. Mature adults sit on lounge chairs like large babies, with fat bulging out of every part of their body, with their appendages nothing more than inoperable blogs of mass, their fingers fat little sausages, and their necks turducken size platters. In the universe of "Wall-E," we've become our own worst nightmare--fat, lazy, and complacent. We have no ambition, no drive, and we are content with it...as long as the robots keep doing their jobs. And, we left earth because of a preponderance of trash, meaning we didn't care to change our ways and stop the accumulation!

In addition to this uncomfortable bulls-eye, the entire space colony in which these cruises preside is run by autopilots under the control of the "Buy 'n Large" mega corporation, a store whose overwhelming influence has given them control of the government. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure this one out. Buy 'n Large is Walmart, and their takeover of the government is the kind of Corporate Fascism that liberal "loonies" like myself have been rallying against ever since the Reagan administration.

Now, this is painfully relevant satire, and it is important that these points be made; yet, "Wall-E" still works without this kind of examination. If you enter the film simply wanting to experience a flawlessly made animated film with big laughs, big heart, and memorable characters, "Wall-E" will suffice on an unlimited supply of levels. And that is Pixar's genius--films that offer something for everyone of every walk of life.

A clarification on 'This Land,' the PROTEST song

In light of today being the 4th of July, I feel that a special and important clarification should be made about the popular American Folk song "This Land is Your Land."

First, the obvious: "This Land is Your Land" by Woody Guthrie is, without a doubt, one of the greatest songs of 20th century popular music. A chief influence on the musical evolution of Bob Dylan, Guthrie brought a realism and sophistication to folk lyrics that had been all but absent from the art form.

Now the disappointing: "This Land is Your Land" by Woody Guthrie is, without a doubt, one of the most criminally misunderstood songs in the history of 20th century popular music.

It's a depressing, vile example of commercialism that must have Guthrie rolling in his tomb. "This Land." was originally written by Guthrie in 1940 as a protest song. Disillusioned with the Great Depression and the seemingly apathetic response from government and big business alike, Guthrie wrote the song as a protest of the powers that be. The song, therefore, is a declaration, a bold reassurance of the working-class Guthrie grew up in that this land, from California to the New York Island, was made for you and me, not Herbert Hoover and J.P. Morgan.

Additionally, "This Land." is a bitter satire, a savage parody of Irving Berlin's "God Bless America." Guthrie's original title to "This Land." was "God Blessed America for You and Me," as he saw such a hokey, unrealistic declaration as the one provided in Berlin's song as an insult. Why, Guthrie proposes, should we pay homage to a God for help to a Depression he apparently led us into? or, that he refused to help us avoid?

Yet, despite the clear indication of Guthrie's intentions, the song still prospers as an anthem of American Patriotism. CDs abound with disgraceful renditions of the number, all with happy melodies and sing-song, gee-whiz harmonies. What these popular versions cleverly do, however, is remove the more incendiary passages of Guthrie's original song.

Guthrie was a folk musician in the truest sense, and as such, he would frequently improvise his material on stage, resulting in dozens of different versions of his most popular songs. "This Land." is no exception, but based on original studio recordings and Guthrie's own writing, a definitive version of "This Land." has been assembled, one of six verses, two of which are bastard children of the popular, gut-wrenching popular versions.

And I can't blame them. Here are those two verses:

In the squares of the city, In the shadow of a steeple;

By the relief office, I'd seen my people.

As they stood there hungry, I stood there asking,

Is this land made for you and me?

There was a big high wall there that tried to stop me;

Sign was painted, it said private property;

But on the back side it didn't say nothing;

That side was made for you and me.

The context and tone is unmistakable. This is a protest song, one with anger and frustration on its mind and social change as its goal. And it's a disgrace to Guthrie's legacy, really, that it has become what it has.