September 30, 2005
"I personally have nothing against him," said Terry Drake, a prominent local businessman who owns a hardware store on the main street of this busy old market town. "But a convicted criminal shouldn't be in a position to do something that children are supposed to look up to."
I have a problem with this line of reasoning. If Mr. Drake has nothing against this criminal, then why does he object to children seeing him turn on the Christmas lights? If his status as a criminal is offensive to the eyes of children, why does it not offend adults?
Frankly, I'm offended by the criminal being invited to turn on the lights. So there. I don't like it, personally, professionally, frankly, intractibly, flatly, philosophically, morally, or just at all. I don't like criminals and I would not let them turn on my Christmas lights.
Why isn't that a good enough reason to just not let him?
Oh but, noooo, it's for the children! Bah!
September 29, 2005
The virus which causes Aids may be getting less powerful, researchers say.
A team at the Institute of Tropical Medicine, in Antwerp, compared HIV-1 samples from 1986-89 and 2002-03.
They found the newer samples appeared not to multiply as well, and were more sensitive to drugs - some other studies argue they are becoming more resistant.
Researcher Dr Eric Artz said: "This was a very preliminary study, but we did find a pretty striking observation in that the viruses from the 2000s are much weaker than the viruses from the eighties.
"Obviously this virus is still causing death, although it may be causing death at a slower rate of progression now. Maybe in another 50 to 60 years we might see this virus not causing death."
Keith Alcorn, senior editor at the HIV information charity NAM, said it had been thought that HIV would increase in virulence as it passed through more and more human hosts.
But the latest study suggested the opposite is actually true.
"What appears to be happening is that by the time HIV passes from one person to another, it has already toned down some of its most pathogenic effects in response to its host's immune system," he said.
"So the virus that is passed on is less 'fit' each time.
"This would suggest that over several generations, HIV could become less harmful to its human hosts.
"However, we are still far from that point - HIV is still a life-threatening infection.
I am caused to pause and reflect on the history of the many of today's common diseases, which have toned down over the years in order to survive. Instead of killing people on the spot, they let you linger giving you more time and opportunity to infect others. Apparently, even in the microbe world, it doesn't pay to simply strike people dead.
This may explain God's recent reticence to use rain of fire and plagues. Ostensibly, if you have locusts eating the flesh of would-be worshippers, you decrease the chances of winning over converts in the aftermath. Now, far be it from me to blaspheme, but it seems like Our Heavenly Father might be subject to the pressures of natural selection like the rest of us.
September 18, 2005
Why in the hell would you vote for that illiterate s.o.b.? Honestly! You seem to be a person of relatively high intelligence. Why lower yourself like that? And why help screw the rest of the country?
If you think I'm intelligent, why do you assume that I'd make a decision with the intention of lowering myself and screwing the rest of the country?
Also, Bush isn't illiterate. He has written his name on several bad laws in this two terms so far, so I know he is at least functionally literate.
All kidding aside, the reason I voted for Bush is because I assessed him to be the lesser of the two evils.
If we follow the logical path of either of the major parties, we end in some form of totalitarianism, so I wouldn't even attempt to say that I think either are headed in the right direction. However, I think either could be headed in the right direction.
The reason I chose Bush is because I think it's more likely that the Conservatives will get more liberal in their social policies than it is that the Liberals will get more conservative in their economic policies. For some reason, it's easier to pursuade people to make "feel good" decisions than it is to make rational ones.
A "feel good" decision that the Republicans could make would be to allow gays into the military. The arguments against it are silly on their face and the arguments for it tend to go like, "But gays have a right to serve their country" or some such. Few people are pursuaded by the sound arguments for allowing gays into the military like "gays can shoot people just as well as straights." So, people are usually pursuaded to allow gays into the military because they don't want to be seen as harsh, uncaring, or judgmental.
Slowly, I think the Republicans will come around to the right policies. They may get there by the right or the wrong reasons and I think the wrong reasons tend to serve rhetoricians better in most cases.
The Democrats, however, are very unlikely to change economic policies because the "feel good" reasons argue against it. What on earth feels good about free market economics? Nothing. It means people have to either sink or swim. But every rational reason in the world supports free markets, but none of the feel good reasons do. So, the Democrats are that much less likely to turn from the error of their ways.
So, why did I vote for Bush over Kerry when I think they're both morons? Because even though I think either moron can make the right decision for the right reasons, it's more likely that they will make right and wrong decisions for the wrong reasons and given that Kerry uses the wrong reasons against right decisions and Bush uses the wrong reasons for the right decisions, I chose Bush.
I do not agree with Bush's wrong decisions or his wrong reasons for right decisions. I don't think it is helpful that any decisions are made for the wrong reasons. I think both candidates are wrong, wrong, wrong. But given that I had to choose, I chose the one most likely to make the right decisions but for wrong reasons.
An interesting turn of events in the form of the national budget shows why you can't count on either party BECAUSE they both use the wrong reasons to make decisions. Just as the Democrats are pursuaded against free markets because it feels good, so are the Republicans. This doesn't show that voting for Bush was bad any more than if Kerry had been elected and made mistakes that it would have shown that it was a bad decision to vote for Kerry. What it does show is that Bush is making bad decisions and probably for the wrong reasons. We knew THAT going into the discussion, though. It was bound to happen.
The other reason I voted for Bush is because Democrats often make me throw up in my mouth.
So, that's why.
Now, don't come on my website and insult me again or I will ban you. I'm not even kidding.
September 09, 2005
Sunday, Sept 18th from 12pm-6pm.
Haircuts* - $20 donation
Blow dry/Style - $15 donation
*No coloring or highlights.
100% of donations to go to the Red Cross to aide the victims of hurricane Katrina. First come, first served.
There will be a raffle for fabulous salon and spa services. We will also be offering refreshments and tasty grill treats. Join us for a day of beauty and charity.
City Salon and Spa is located on Atlanta Hwy in Athens, GA. near Panera Bread.
Questions? Call 552-1515.
September 05, 2005
Of course this is not such a great thing, but I find it difficult to imagine the alternatives. Like, who else might Bush have nominated? What if Kerry were president; who would he have nominated?
Suffice it to say that the current situation leaves much to be desired and there is little point in spending time contemplating alternatives.
I have my doubts that John Roberts or George Bush woke up this morning suddenly empowered with rational ideas, so I take it that our only course is to continue to examine arguments and throw out the bad ones for the sake of better ones. That might not help Bush or Roberts, but it sure helps me sleep at night.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.