Letters From America

A Simple Logic

2011-12-01T20:00:00.007-06:00

The following conversation was had between Presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann and an Iowan high school student:

BACHMANN: Well, No. 1, all of us as Americans have the same rights. The same civil rights. And so that’s really what government’s role is, to protect our civil rights. There shouldn’t be any special rights or special set of criteria based upon people’s preferences. We all have the same civil rights.

JANE SCHMIDT: Then, why can’t same-sex couples get married?

BACHMANN: They can get married, but they abide by the same law as everyone else. They can marry a man if they’re a woman. Or they can marry a woman if they’re a man.

JANE SCHMIDT: Why can’t a man marry a man?

BACHMANN: Because that’s not the law of the land.

Now, let's break this logic down. The beginning of this exchange is my favorite, mostly because I believe it is almost 100% correct.

The role of government is to ensure our civil rights. All full citizens should have the same civil rights without special exceptions. Therefore, in America, all citizens should be given the same civil rights despite belonging to certain groups, such as gender (i.e. being a man versus being a woman).

Alright, that was easy! Way to go Bachmann. We actually agree on the role of government. I was a bit surprised. Let's keep this ball rolling.

Civilly, marriage is when two citizens are joined together in legal union. A citizen has the civil right to get married.

Now, we can't say that a man's civil right is different than a woman's civil right, because that would be special treatment. No citizen should have different civil rights than the other. If a woman can marry a woman, for instance, then a man should be able to marry a woman as well. A woman should no be disallowed from having the same right to marry a specific gender because of her gender.

Usually it's best to simply say "citizen." That keeps us from tripping up on that pesky special groups thing. For instance, I would not want to say that Latino citizens have a right to vote on Tuesdays. Or that old citizens no longer have the right to free speech. By specifying a specific subgroup of citizenship one rhetorically excludes others. Instead, it is proper to say "American citizens have the right to vote for their elected officials," or, "American citizens have the right of free speech."

Ok, so, American citizens have the right to legally wed other American citizens. Excellent. We're on the same page here.

Now, as Bachmann then continues, since we all have the same civil rights as citizens, gays should not have the right to marry.

Huh? Please, explain.

"Ok, so, you're a guy," Bachmann might answer, "You have the same right as any other guy to get married to a woman."

"Correct, but as a guy, I should have the same rights as all citizens, including women, right?" I would probably inquire.

"Yes, because, as I said before, 'all of us as Americans have the same civil rights... There shouldn't be any special rights or special set of criteria...' While I intended this to be a gay thing, logically it would have to apply to women and men as well." She would be forced to reply.

Ok, let me get this straight. All American citizens should be given the same rights. I am a man. I, as an American citizen, should have the same rights as a woman despite being a man. Women have the right to marry men. Therefore...

Now, here is where Michelle Bachmann and I differ on our logic.

JOHN'S ANSWER: Therefore, I, as an American citizen, should have the right to marry a man. Legal and civil marriage is based on my status as a citizen, not my gender or status as a separate group.

MICHELLE'S ANSWER: Wait, can you repeat the question?

If faced with copying test answers from someone during a big final, I would put my money on the high school student rather than the presidential candidate from Minnesota. Well, actually I'd just use my own brain. I am getting my doctorate, you know. I'd hope those few extra years of schooling are good for something.

Now, for your next logic assignment, try to figure out the line of reasoning on this.

In case you want to see more about the exchange between Bachmann and Jane Schmidt, the Iowan high school student, check it out for yourself.

Regarding Expelled

2010-02-25T13:56:00.002-06:00

Someone recently suggested that I watch "Expelled: no intelligence allowed," the Ben Stein movie that supports creationism/intelligent design. This individual used this movie to support the dissolution of academic tenure. Here is my analysis and letter to this person:

Dear X,

I finally watched "Expelled." The movie was certainly a persuasive piece and not an in depth analysis. However, I'm quite surprised that the movie persuaded you on the evils of tenure. I have my doubts about tenure, but the movie really reinforced my desire to protect academic freedom by using job security! You may notice that the creationist scientists were all not-renewed except the one that had tenure (who was alternatively forced to remove a website). It's odd that we're on opposite sides of this issue, but I suppose we've imbibed our experience differently.

The best part of the movie was the comments about "hostile climate." I agree that popular evolutionists and creationists refuse to listen to one another. One of the interviewees made a very astute comment, a person who opposes any paradigm is met with hostility. By extension, any undue hostility is certainly problematic for science as a process. I really enjoyed this section of the movie. I cannot, however, follow Stein's implicit assumption that academicians (as a whole group) can be equated with the public response to creationism. Public understanding of science and the creation of scientific fact, while related, operate differently. The scientific community is NOT a democracy, as another interviewee commented. We can regulate the laws of our country, but we can't legislate scientific fact. We've seen what happens when that happens (look up the repercussions of Lysenkoism). One cannot equate public outcry at teaching creationism with "lack of free speech" in the academic community.

The academic community works off of rhetoric. We research new subjects and write papers (or give presentations) to convince others around us. The creationists have academic journals and are allowed to submit papers to any journal. Most people who submit to journals are denied. Most researchers fail to meet academic rhetorical standards. The creationist scientists are simply failing to convince other scientists. Perhaps they should consider why this happens. In fact, I think they are aware of this problem. I make my case with the birth of "intelligent design" as a rhetorical device for creationism.

Besides the faulty assumption that Stein makes, there are a few incorrect statements that he uses for evidence. Creationism is not a surpressed scientific theory that has never gotten its scientific moment. Creationism was the dominant theory until the turn of the 19th c. Both science and religion changed at this point. Biblical literalism reemerged as a prominent American/Western idea for the first time since the Middle Ages (with Aquinas). Science also gained new descriptionist ideologies. The religion and science conflict wasn't helped by the campaigns of T.H. Huxley, but research shows descriptionism was mostly started by the public reception of Maxwell's research. Creationism fell away in lieu of a differing ideology and set of evidence. One could almost make the comparison that creationism is much like the "flat earth" movement. Evidence supported another theory, but some members have decided to do a scientific move called "saving the theory." If the creationists cannot convince other scientists, perhaps they should examine their rhetorical structure instead of declaring a lack of freedom of speech. One has to remember that one is equally as free to believe something as to NOT believe something. Requesting that the academic process to go back to unpopular and reportedly disproven theories assumes the burden of proof. Circumventing this is infringing upon the academic freedom of others.

So, I'm left with a conclusion. The hostile environment towards creationism exists in tension with an unreasonable demand for "flat earther" groups to be heard. Frustration builds in unhealthy ways on both sides. I'll have to consider a plan of action over the next year, however, the dismissal of tenure is absolutely NOT the course that you would want to advocate, unless you want this controversy to disappear altogether (by eliminating the unpopular, untenured scientists). A little conflict and inefficiency is worth preserving freedom of thought.

Just some thoughts.

A New Sort of Question

2010-02-24T23:42:00.003-06:00

In physics, it is not possible to find both the position and velocity of an electron. When one pins the velocity down, the location disappears. This is the nature of how electrons exist.

I have studied science from a few angles over the past few years. One of my students accused me of having a scientific and literary mind. I don't know if I agree with that. I'm beginning to think that one cannot know both the velocity and sound of one hand clapping. By answering one the other necessarily disappears.

Perhaps the trick is to be able to switch between these two minds at all? I can suddenly see how neither and both answers are true.

A strange twist of fate

2009-12-09T15:46:00.002-06:00

I never stopped to consider one of life's little ironies. Just a few years ago, I was in last place for the "world's greatest writer" competition... out of everybody in the whole world. Illiterate little children in the unknown Amazon jungles could write better academic papers than I could.

Now I am teaching rhetoric to undergraduate students at a world-class institution. I'm not doing such a bad job at it according to my teaching evaluations, either.

It's funny how you'll never know where life will take you if you let it.

A Desert of Dust

2009-08-08T20:02:00.003-05:00

I'm still alive! I managed to survive my first year of academia and I feel like the next year will be so much better. I've finally narrowed down my research topics and I'm getting a firmer grasp of my subject. It's nice to be back on familiar ground, so to speak. So, my long career or scholarship begins with a firm foundation and a happy send-off.

So, obviously, this gets me thinking about the lives we create for ourselves. You know, the empires we build together, the knowledge we create, and the lives that we touch. I ran across two quotes while in this frame of mind. Well, technically, I ran across one quote and then I opened up an old book to find the second quote. The two quotes are related and I thought of the second one immediately after reading the first. I saw the first quote while reading A Continent Of Islands by Mark Kurlansky. The book is about Caribbean history; how the people of the islands have struggled against near insurmountable odds to craft nations out of slavery, poverty, genocide, and their colonial pasts. The quote is somewhat out of place, padding the end of the introduction and starting the first chapter, but there's a universal appeal about the quote; something about it speaks to so many things.

I was thinking about was what my life will mean one day, what it means to build a nation, and what role can I play in the grand scheme of things. Here is where I found the quote:

"And on the pedestal these words appear:
'My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of the colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away."

-Percy Bysshe Shelley

Those words still ring through my ears, "Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!" I imagine myself in the Imperial Sand Dunes of southeast California. The dunes are huge and expansive. You can't help but feel small compared to them. Not just small, but vulnerable. You check your gas gauge, twice. The heavy sands and the heat they trap could kill you if you don't keep moving.

And here, in the middle of this wasteland, you encounter a pedestal. One stone artifact in a mountainous terrain of sand, heat, and desolation. The stone object is a warning to the mighty, to you who believe that you can create something timeless. "Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair!" The warning is clear: nothing remains.

This reminded me of a second quote by one of my favorite authors, H.G. Wells. In this passage, the protagonist travels into the future where the remaining people had become like animals, simple and unintelligent. He explores the area and encounters an abandoned building here. It's old, but it is obviously some sort of museum or university. The flags that line the large room catch his eyes. That's when he sees the shelves:

"The brown and charred rags that hung from the sides of it, I presently recognized as the decaying vestiges of books. They had long since dropped to pieces, and every semblance of print had left them. But here and there were warped boards and cracked metallic clasps that told the tale well enough. Had I been a literary man I might, perhaps, have moralized upon the futility of all ambition. But as it was, the thing that struck me with keenest force was the enormous waste of labour to which this sombre wilderness or rotting paper testified. At the time I will confess that I thought cheifly of the Philosphical Transactions and my own seventeen papers upon physical optics."

Again, the warning is clear. So little remains from our massive efforts. Our great nations are sand and all the we know is dust. Our monuments break and our books crumble. Really, in the end, all we have are our individual life journies. My roommate once jokingly told me that he's after prestige in the scientific world. At first, that seems like a noble goal. In the end, however, that goal, like Ozymandias' great kingdom, will be like every other goal; a desert of dust. Suddenly, I'm glad that my journey is one I do out of love. We have so little time and so many steps to take in our lives. I can only pray that each of my steps takes me towards happiness and the things that truly are timeless in life.

What I study may not last forever, but it brings me true inner joy. On top of that, I think I may be able to touch a life or two in the process. Isn't that all that matters in the end?

2000-2010: A Growing Distinction

2009-06-01T00:25:00.005-05:00

I've been thinking about the first decade of the American 21st century. If you were to characterize it, what would you say were its most salient features? As we progress into a century to which we shall never see the conclusion, one can only wonder how historians will look back and summarize our lives. What is our context? While nobody can completely answer this question, I thought I'd take a shot:

I see a decade of growing separation.

This separation is unlike the socio-economic stratification that characterized the Victorian eras and industrializing England. We will no longer have Eloi and Morlocks coming from the same first-world nations. Poverty exists, we cannot deny that. However, the working underclass of industrialization and the service class of America are very different.

Instead, the American social divergence has more to do with perspectives than anything else. Let me explain. I have been reading a book on gender expression and the liberties afforded to modern Americans as opposed to Americans of the early 20th century. We have so many more ways to express ourselves now than we did then. Forget Foucault; we have freedoms! In fact, these freedoms have caused a huge shift in the fabric of our society. The post-modernist turn has caused us to question everything we know about classifications and absloute Truth. We have begun to ask questions like, "what do you mean by feminine," "what exactly is the difference between man and woman," and "are our traditional values even worth upholding?" An athiest, nonconformist, gender-fluid person of color can stand in front of a white, anglo-saxon housewife and the two can survey each other, akin to viewing through onself the looking-glass darkly. We can ask "who am I" by seeing those who are not like us. We have unrivaled access to people who are fundamentally like, and yet unlike, ourselves.

Where class barriers separated the working class worker from the aristocratic industrialist, we have astoundingly fewer barriers. Let's be honest. Further, now that we see the "other self," many odd things taking shape in that mirror. We have begun to question who we are even more as we gain more looking-glasses. It seems like we're going around in post-modern circles, coming back to the same annoying questions every time. Can we even say what our differences are, even though they are finally standing right in front of us?

This is the divide I see going into the 21st century. One person can be incredibly sexually and socially liberated. This person can live next door to (or at least interact with) the most conservative and repressed person in America. We don't even have our traditional ways of pretending the separation doesn't exist! Those barriers are slowly crumbling. We constantly face these problems head on. How do we create a vision of relationships that works as well for the queer couple as for the conservative WASP couple? Is such a middle ground even possible?

This separation continues into other walks of life, too. It's not just sexuality, but a whole range of ideologies and information. How do we deal with the education divide? What about traditional politics and a post-rationalist world? Money, social power, even the ability to distinguish "junk news" from "real information?" What about access to the internet? We live in an information and opinion society that will define the whole century the way the great wars defined the 20th. Here is where our divide distingiushes us.

Dire Post-Modernists

2009-04-16T17:14:00.009-05:00

As many of you may have guessed, I'm somewhat nerdy. Sure, what person doesn't love reading esoteric philosophy books? But it gets worse. If social standing ran on "cool points," I've already traded mine in for Victorian clothing, role playing game books, and graduate school. Let's be honest. My pockets are empty. My cool points are spent.

You need to comprehend the full extent of my nerdiness if you're going to understand how I felt when I came across Dresden Codak, a web comic. If you've never seen a role playing game, then this will make no sense to you. If you've never read Auguste Comte, this probably won't make much sense either. If you understand any of it... woe to you. You're just as nery as I am. Don't worry, I won't tell anybody.

Yes, the character is an 8th level positivist

Dresden Codak has two comic strips that depict philosophical role playing characters. Her companions are a 6th level Spinozan and a 5th level Epicurean. However, my favorite class is positivist, by far. In case you didn't know, positivists believe that the only authentic knowledge is that which can be seen, felt, touched, or otherwise gotten from our senses. Not surprisingly, scientists and engineers tend to be positivists.

Of course, not all people appreciate the positivist disregard for all other forms of knowledge. Also, positivists tend to have a love of strict logic and complicated machinery. Oh, and they look at their shoes a lot when speaking to others. While I'm not exactly a positivist, I feel a certain kinship with them... especially considering that I'm running in more humanitarian and activist groups nowadays.

Yes, I tend to be a little less playful when it comes to social constructivism and narrative. But, hey, I can mine bacteria for antibiotics, create vaccines, and write in a dense, unreadable fashion. All at the same time. I get the feeling that many gender scholars and social activists don't quite share my type of logic. Many plans and ideals sound great, but many of them sill simply not work.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't try... just don't be surprised when it nothing changes. Many of the people I hang around with don't agree with this viewpoint.

Anyway, I got to thinking what I would be and it came to me. I stayed up all night talking with someone about this before I decided on my character. I'd be a Half-Tao Empirimancer. Yes, I really am that nerdy. I know what philosophical role-playing character I would be.

Oh, and don't ask why I'd be that particular character... believe me.

Current Controversies and a Response to Ian Hacking

2009-04-04T02:12:00.003-05:00

I know I haven't posted in a while, but I thought of my gentle readers while replying to an academic blog today. The renowned Ian Hacking spoke at our university the last two days and we'll be having breakfast with him tomorrow morning. To prepare for this breakfast, Hacking posted a short blog entry for us to engage:

This entry can be found at the "OnTheHuman.org" website.

“What will commercial genome-reading – from cheap 23andMe to costly but complete Knome – do to middle-class conceptions of personal identity?”

Say the name Knome out loud, not in one syllable but as two:– “know-me.” The corporation unabashedly offers “Know thyself” at the masthead of its Home Page.

I accept the implied invitation to connect modern technology with the Delphic injunction. “It is a matter of placing the imperative to ‘know oneself” … back in a much broader context of questioning that is either implicit or explicit. What should one do with oneself? What work should be carried out on the self?” That is Michel Foucault, talking about the “techniques or procedures … that are suggested or prescribed to individuals in order to determine their identity, maintain it, transform it.”

Are the direct-to-consumer online genome services forging a new technology of the self? There are quite a few good companies that go beyond specific ancestry tracing or specific risk evaluation (say for breast cancer). The very name of the global-Icelandic deCODEme invites “decode me so that I can know me”, but I shall focus only on the two American firms mentioned. Note that in these names it’s “me-me-me” at the end: personal identity is only a stone’s throw away.

Knome differs from 23andMe in many ways, starting with the fact that it offers your complete genome, while 23andMe is partial, looking at particular sites. More important: 23andMe encourages sharing your genetic data, while Knome emphasizes privacy. Hence they bear on your identity, as a person, in different ways.

23andMe does health and ancestry, but creates, as a byproduct, new biosocial groups. That is a phrase I adapted from Paul Rabinow, and explained in my “Genetics, biosocial groups & the future of identity.” Families are biosocial groups in which the proportion of biology ranges from zero to 100% (from an always-single person with adopted children, to an idealized nuclear family). So are races. In both cases the biosocial group can be integral to the identity of members of the group. Start saying who you are and you will soon be referring to biosocial groups. To create new ones is to generate new possibilities for new biosocial identity.

A few weeks after you have paid your $400 and sent in your spit, 23andMe writes back with a link to your genetic profile. It does not say “Welcome” but welcome to you. It is “You”, that’s Me, all the way. The implication is clear, you are about to learn about the real you.

Next, we are urged to “explore, share and discuss” our DNA. It is like Facebook. I get to join groups of fellow subscribers with whom I share some DNA commonalities, be they connected with health or haplotype. For some, these will be support groups of those said to share a significant risk of something awful. For others it will be a new way to forge genealogical links. New groups are formed, almost a parody of the idea of biosocial identity that I envisaged in the piece at the link above.

At first glance this looks like a pretty thin type of identity, not deserving of a connection with the grander philosophical ideas of the self. Yet the ways in which people come to think of themselves in terms of their support groups or their extended families cannot be exaggerated. Don’t underestimate the Facebook mode. It should be recognized as a contemporary public forum in the same business as the confessional, a device, which, from the Church to the analytic couch, has played an integral role in forming the Western idea of the self. The story, it may be suggested, continues with the “sharing” of identities on online within the framework of the likes of 23andMe. Of course, the traditional confessional was a private, two-way street, so let us turn to the private.

Knome incarnates a far stronger impulse to self-knowledge than 23andMe. It is the first company to offer a complete sequencing of your genome for cash (now down to $99,500). One sales pitch is an unabashed appeal to narcissism. Four human genomes have been sequenced with public funds (Ventner, Watson, unknown Han, and an unknown Yoruba.) Now you can join with a few more individuals whom Knome is sequencing. For a short time only, this elite group will be less numerous than astronauts who have stood on the moon. That is temporary fluff. Costs will drop radically. Complete sequencing will become a middle class luxury option. What’ll it be, honey, that week in Paris or our genomes?

The week in Paris seldom leaves much of a trace, but the genome surely will. The picture is, that you have learned your essential you. That is why the small investment will be “suggested or prescribed to individuals in order to determine their identity, maintain it, and transform it.” To determine, in the sense of find out their identity, to maintain (first in the sense of prevention of disease), and finally to transform themselves, in manifold senses.

Today a vice-president of Knome will take you through the hoops, but in a few years, competitors will outsource phone consultations that will not much differ from the useful chat you had with the tech person last time your computer broke down. Incidentally, Knome already outsources its sequencing to Shenzen, where the Beijing Genomics Institute has outstanding facilities. Even it seems to have an eye on the “me” market. In February it had a training workshop whose theme, in awkward translation, was “BGI&Me—Innovation Development Guided by Scientific Concept of Development.”

I am a conservative reactionary. I know that although my genetic inheritance constrains my possibilities of action and choice, I do not believe it is my essence or constitutes my identity. My question could be put: how long will it take before this attitude becomes extinct? We know that the genomic revolution will radically change the material conditions of life for soon-to-be-born generations. My question is: what will be the conception of self for those people soon to come?

-Ian Hacking

Here is my reply to the above article, which was submitted after many other (more worthy) academics replied...

Would this make me the lone liberal anti-reactionary?

We can all agree that identity probably can not be reduced to a digital code, even if this code comes from every (nucleated) cell in our bodies. Yes, most of us have seen GATTACA and we don’t think a digital sequence is the end-all of self identity. Because of this, I’m going to avoid the “genomic reductivism” trap. However, as a historian, I cannot help but think that the genome testing doesn’t really do anything truly revolutionary. Instead of offering a novel concept of self, genome sequencing offers “updated” arrangements of old identity categories. The newer arrangements certainly create some interesting questions, but people have identified themselves through scientific and biological categories long before the “discovery” of genetics.

I’ll give one quick example. Just to shake it up, I’ll use an example where people found empowerment and validation through biological identity (for better or for worse). In the late Victorian period, sexologists formulated an evolutionary description of “homosexuality” and “sexual inversion.” These scientific and medical descriptions of “the homosexual,” complete with case studies, reached the masses through various books. Not long after, individuals replied to the sexologists (the most notable being Ellis, Krafft-Ebing, and Hirschfeld) via letters. These readers, in essence, were writing to tell the evolutionary scientists that they read the medical book and joyously decided to adopt the new identity as defined by the sexologist. For the first time, these people found a commonality (and a shared evolutionary identity) with others even though they did not know these other homosexuals in person.

When genetics overtook older evolutionary-biological categories, the biological homosexual identity didn’t disappear. Instead, this category eventually transferred into the hotly-contested Xq28 allele, also known as the gay gene. Before one jumps to say “of course the identities shifted,” I should point out that not all evolutionary identities survived the molecular genetic shift. For instance, poverty and class were almost completely abandoned as biological categories. However, the genetic category of homosexual (and, therefore, heterosexual) remains a bio-political group identity. Again, many individuals choose to identify with this newly-genetic identity, much like they did when it was an evolutionary identity around 1880.

I’m going to make a bit of a leap because I don’t want to make this post too long, so please bear with me. The adoption of genetic identities shows a dual aspect the image of the self. On one hand (one that is emphasized in white American culture), we have an internal source of the self. Identity is found within us somewhere, whether this is in our cells or within our psyches. On the other hand, we have the self that is external. Here, identity is found through social labels given to us by others. This happens in two ways: not only do we seek commonality with others, but others label us with or without our consent.

There is no way to avoid the Janus-faces of self. However, the two versions of self do not constitute an identity. Instead, identity is formed from the navigation between the external self and the internal self. Furthermore, genomic identity potentially changes both types of self. You are AT LEAST categorized by others when your sequence becomes public information. However, most of us would identify as Tay Sachs carriers if we were told that we were by a geneticist, so there is a great chance that genomic identity influences internal self as well.

Can this genetic information tell us everything about us? No. However, it does influence our identity in PROFOUND ways (the final “P” to genetic identity, to paraphrase an American GINA congressional hearing). Not only does the information tells us about ourselves, it also tells others about our children and our ancestors in a different way than evolutionary identities did in 1880. Like any type of identity, sometimes this can lead to discrimination. Other times, this can lead to empowerment and new ways of relating to others.

Perhaps we should talk about who establishes these identities (for instance, why is there only one gay gene? Could there not be multiple types of homosexuality?), scientific authority, genetic information confidentiality, and how we use these new identities to establish our conception of the state (or the citizen). Whether we like it or not, genetic identities are here to stay so long as we accept the genetic “central dogma.” Our genomes (and our bodies) give us a new form of self, one that’s, in some way, beyond the self we can create in our own psyches; our genotypes don’t change the same way our desires and fantasies do. I believe that genomic identity is more than a happ-ME-ness fad. Genomic identities are just one chapter in a historical and deeply-rooted human phenomenon.

We'll see if this rouses any interest. Oh, yes, and I was recognized by The National Academies for my work in science education recently. yay.

Feminized Society and "Bych" Propaganda

2008-12-31T13:51:00.003-06:00

My research into biology, gender, and genetics turns up some very interesting popular literature. Most recently, I read a post by an author that claims to not be racist or woman-hating. The post, entitled Bad Men Give Women AIDS, focuses on an article written by an AP Medical Writer, Maria Cheng. Before you read this article, I'd like to give a small litmus test on this author's perspective.

1. The blog is entitled "The Rantings of a Young Man in a Feminized Society."

2. After claiming that the only voice of reason is a male (vs. female) scientist, he ends the entry with "In case you're wondering, the author is named Maria Cheng. It all makes sense to now."

3. The young man's article has numerous biological inconsistencies, such as equating the medical terms HIV and AIDS and assuming they are interchangeable in his argument.

Now, I study "gendered science," or how certain scientific ideas gain an artificial gender component, as part of my project. I have to admit that I dislike a lot of feminist counter-history (and gay counter-history) and I think gender encroaches far too much in our current biological thinking. Still, I'm beginning to wonder if all gender-central thinking, especially anti-feminist, is highly destructive. I understand that feminist counter-history, or the purposeful inclusion of women into historical accounts, is good for the history discipline. Now that I've actually seen blatant anti-feminist writing, I'm quite disgusted by the whole gender-centered endeavor.

I stumbled across this blog by looking up popular references to "feminized" biological traits, specifically the way homosexual males are often depicted as being biologically feminine in some way. A good, if not extreme, example of this is David France's work on feminized traits, such as the counter-clockwise hair whorl. After some close analysis, I can't help but think that this science, much like the gender-focused anti-feminist entry I mentioned above, is simply junk... and I'm definitely not a fan of junk science (nor junk hate-speech, but what can you do?)

I've been pouring over the genetic statistics of gay behavior and I'm starting to question the basic assumptions of gay gene testing. After my entry and research on the history of biological homosexuality, I'm starting to wonder why scientists are looking for one gay gene. If, historically, there has been more than one type of homosexuality, would it not make sense that this particular trait would be genetically polymorphic? It's possible that many people are genetically predisposed to homosexuality, while some might choose to mimic same-sex behavior? It's likely that there is more than one gay gene, and even more likely that there is more than one morph, or form, of homosexuality.

Some statistical studies support this, including twin studies. If more than half of identical twins have the same sexuality as their sibling, then it strongly correlates homosexuality to a genetic marker. However, if not all siblings share the same orientation as their sibling, then there may be types of homosexuality (or complex factors for these other twins) that are not genetic.

Either way, I don't think "feminization" is a good, let alone universal, explanation for sexuality. The whole gender-centered science and language seems so ignorant to me, not to mention a little ethnocentric. Which culture's gender types should we use, anyway? They're all have a different set of assumptions of what makes someone a woman vs. a man; no gender-specific idea can be taken out of a cultural or ethnic context. Oh well.

Anyway, keep your eyes peeled for more crazy, "feminized" biological ideas. Post me if you have any good leads.

Self Efficacy and Thesis Writing

2008-12-12T15:13:00.004-06:00

I was wandering around the departmental building looking for a book on American history the other day. Professors and other grad students often discard books that they do not use anymore and leave the scraps for us enterprising and starving first-years. Under a panic over being a historian and not knowing anything about American history, I dug through every book in the pile. While I didn't find anything to help me with my upcoming Americanist history seminar, I did find a book called Writing and Publishing Your Thesis, Dissertation, and Research: A guide for students in the helping professions.

The Americanist seminar panic hasn't yet subsided, but my nascent fear of not-being-able-to-finish-a-thesis, or thesis-phobia, has already started to subside. I've realized that the project, while very large, can be broken down into smaller pieces. On top of that, I've been giving undergraduates advice on how to write more effectively for a whole quarter now and I feel like it's increased my confidece in my own ability to formulate a logical and persuasive idea. One of my now-graduated, doctoral friends came up to me right before he moved and thanked me, "I would have never built an effective time management system for writing my thesis if you hadn't introduced me to your egg-timer trick."

In fact, I have so many of the needed skills to tackle this whole thesis thing... well, except the knowledge required to actually write novel research and analysis. Still, I can work on that in the next couple years. I love what I study and I think it's incredibly important. I've got time, yo.

My growing feeling of self-efficacy is such a good thing. During my research on science students of color, someone pointed out that self-efficacy, or the firm knowledge that you are capable of completing a task, is what keeps endangered students from dropping out. I completely agree.

I just want to write this down for historical reasons. Perhaps, when I am close to crying because I'm not making progress on my thesis, I will see my youthful optimism and it will remind me to reduce my obstacles, cut the project into smaller pieces, and keep doing what you love... because you're capable. A person that I respect quite a bit told me to never turn something in that I wasn't proud of. What I research is definitely something worth doing and worth doing well.

On the Inside

2008-11-19T14:34:00.004-06:00

I'm totally traumatized right now; I feel like the worst person in the whole world. This is one of those instances that is only significant to you, even though it's small compared to other people. Looking at my last post, it seems quite insignificant. This doesn't change the fact that I want to crawl under a rock and shy away from the sun today.

I graded undergraduate papers for the first time.

It's emotionally hard for me to judge the efforts of other people. Many of these people have decent ideas, but they lack the ability to express them clearly. I can tell some people tried very hard to construct a good paper and failed in the process. I'm imagining people crying in their dorm rooms because they put in so much effort into their paper and feel helpless against my tyrannical grading style.

Of course, I tried to err on the side of generosity. Some fellow TAs grade harshly to an extreme. Also, my professor set a 'B' as a solid paper. If I had the option, I'd give everybody an 'A,' like we can do in graduate school. Despite all this, there's something unsettling about wielding my new-found academic privilege and having to give people harsh grades in the process. I'm on the inside of this process now and I don't like looking out.

I hold writing workshops throughout the quarter. One can only hope that people take advantage of the opportunity.

Drawing Blood: Proposition 8

2008-11-13T22:43:00.006-06:00

I've just come back from a lecture on the Francoist Spanish State at the University of California, San Diego. This project is meant to catalog and preserve the oral history of those who suffered under the fascist regime after the Spanish Civil War. The religious and conservative Francoist civil war toppled the elected government of Spain in a military strike fueled by Nazi and fascist Italian support. Europe escalated towards global war and many Spanish citizens paid the price.

The Francoist regime ordered the execution of countless civilians, including school teachers who were associated with a secular governmental enterprise: education. The first city bombings and use of mechanized warfare shocked the world with their brutality. After three years of pure destruction, the fascist government emerged as the central power in Spain. I sat there before big-screened, personal recount of this conflict. It was painful to hear the voices of those who opposed the regime and those who suffered under the loss of life and liberty. I sat there as an old man cried for his lost wife and child. Brutal slaying in the name of tradition and order. Those who fought for their freedom were met with death. Wholesale, unyielding death.

I'm sat in the lecture hall and thought about my own history. My grandmother recently told me about our family's migrant circuit: Texas for cotton, California for grapes, Wisconsin for cranberries. I've had a similar, yet more nuanced trail. Texas circumvented my civil rights as a gay man in 2005. Wisconsin halted my pursuit for equality in 2006. Now I am in California, the golden state. Days ago, I was finally a first-class citizen. My long searching for a place where I could be equal (in my own land) had come to a close.

Those same days ago, I was converted back into a second-class citizen as my civil rights were stripped away. This denial of personal liberty was written into the constitution, the very fabric of what makes this state. It's a profound message and I've received it as it was intended. To the Francoist regime, I would have been seen as a lion stalking the traditional, conservative view of society. In California, I must similarly be a horrible threat to challenge such a fundamental thing as a definition of "family" that has existed for only little more than 100 years.

On my side of this fight, I have seen the murder, psychological torture, and crucifixion of gay men and women like myself. People I have worked with have been brutally stabbed and died because of their sexuality. Countless more individuals suffer under the current governmental structure that rebukes them. Many of these young people would rather commit suicide than live with such violence and hatred. I speak about all of this from both scholarship and personal experience.

So, I have an imminent question to pose those who decided to purposefully create a government that strips my personal freedom. I have an honest question for those who voted yes on proposition 8: when is it alright to defend yourself and your loved ones with force? If an innocent person were to be threatened with brutal crusifiction, am I required to defend this person by whatever means necessary?

I'll let you in on my perspective on that question. Lean in close. I'm willing to die to defend my freedom. I can only wonder if those who voted yes hate so much that they are willing to die to take it. What does it cost them to give me liberty? Nothing. Yet, they cannot imagine what it costs for them to take it away.

Now, I'm not advocating assassination or violence. The system changes when blood is drawn; political force is converted into its true nature, violent force. However, we are the ones who have played nice. We are the ones who have loved our neighbors. Blood has already been spilled. That blood has been from people just like me. Believe me, I don't want to be next and I'll do whatever is in my power to make sure that doesn't happen.

Perhaps, one day, someone will record the countless voices who have suffered the brutal beatings by bigots. Someone will save the "yes on 8" hate speech that condones and indirectly promotes this violence. Our suffering may not be as overt as the Madrid bombing, but it's there. It's the same Death. Silent Death.

A sense of history

2008-07-14T15:26:00.008-05:00

So, if I'm going to spend the next six years of my life in devotion to one vocation, I should probably know something about what I study. Let's take my pursuit of a scientific career. I have always regretted the sequence of events related to my scientific development. I started out as a straight-A student in my first year of school. I transferred to the University of Wisconsin - Madison shorty after and became involved in research. The science, itself, was fascinating and challenging, yet I always remained frustrated at the classroom. I struggled through courses in which I was applying the material in a world-class scientific laboratory.

My long-standing fascination with leadership allowed me to broaden my academic interests by the end of my undergraduate career. I was lured into a profession that addressed three issues that I adored: science, social dynamics, and the passing on of information. I had the honor of working with the Wisconsin Program for Scientific Teaching doing research and programming in undergraduate science education. However, I gained something more than a paycheck and professional development through my employment.

After spending years reading about science education at large research universities, I have a firmer understand of the frustration I had as an undergraduate. While I appreciated the great research opportunities at this institution, the instruction had a lot of room for improvement, specifically for people from diverse learning styles and backgrounds. I also recognize the education of scientific ideas as a fundamental and essential element of the scientific process.

I wish I would have known the things I now know about scientific pedagogy when I entered university. In a similar spirit, I am determined to learn about history instruction before I re-start my graduate education. I'd like to know the nature of history and what it means to learn past events. I turned to the location that any research project begins, the library. While there are few books of the teaching of university-level history, what I found has changed my perception of scholarship.

I'll narrow my research down to my experience of one book, On Teaching History in Colleges and Universities by Earl Beck. In the section The Many Faces of Clio, Beck illustrates some of the fundamentally different ways that scholars view History. One way to view History is as an aesthetic pursuit, much like poetry or dance. I am finding that a masterful historian can move emotions and human understanding in a way that other art cannot. In fact, History has its own Muse, Clio, as mentioned in the title of this chapter.

The list goes on and on, but two sections have struck me as the way I view History. The first illustrates History as the pursuit of context and defines the field as a social science. This closely resembles how I have felt about History, since I view "current events" as being "current history." One cannot understand the present to a significant degree without understanding current developments in a larger context. History provides that context. As with any observation, one must observe the entire specimen before drawing any conclusions.

Yet, there was another vision of History that has struck me more than the others. This vision is best communicated through two quotes shared by Beck:

"Fortunately, the past never dies for man. Man may forget it, but he always preserves it within him. For, take him at any epoch, and he is the product, the epitome, of all the earlier epochs. Let him look into his own soul, and he can find and distinguish these different epochs by what each of them has left within him." (The Ancient City. A study on the religion, laws and institutions of Greece and Rome.)

-and-

"It is this which forces us to consider that the knowledge gained from the study of true history is the best of all educations for practical life. For it is history, and history alone, which without involving us in actual danger, will mature our judgment and prepare us to take right views, whatever may be the crisis or the posture of affairs." (The Histories of Polybius)

History is a way for us to look into ourselves and see something more than what we are as individuals. Without the danger and sacrifice inherent to experience, we can use the experiences that we have already gained, as individuals and through the lives of others, to cultivate wisdom in our own lives. This makes the study of History a higher vocation, a calling. As historians, we seek to understand the world around us in a way that no other pursuit can reveal.

I'm glad I feel this earlier in my career as a historian scientist rather than at the end. I cannot wait for my move in four weeks time and the changes it will bring.

Self-efficacy and my chosen career

2008-06-30T18:56:00.002-05:00

I think I'm going to drop the whole "I want a Ph.D. in the History of Science" thing and go into male belly dancing. While belly dancing, as a profession, doesn't afford me the luxury of using footnotes (1), I think I could do it really well.

Apparently, belly dancing is a social dance in many middle eastern countries, much like polka is for the middle western states. Many cultures belly dance at weddings, celebrations, and other functions. The exotification of the dance happened much later when Europe and North America underwent a period of "orientalization," in this case meaning becoming obsessed with exotic Asian cultures. Historically, there have been both male and female belly dancers. The field was "feminized" during the same period that brought it as an exotic entertainment.

So, given that I could definitely do belly dance, but the History of Science is a less-certain career goal, maybe I should drop this whole academia-nonsense and just stick to what I know would work. I mean, the little cymbals are pretty cool, but not nearly as cool as footnotes.

(1) Anybody who thinks footnotes are cooler than belly dancing cymbals obviously belongs in academia.

Responding to Cultural Insensitivity

2008-04-23T15:01:00.004-05:00

While I could certainly write on the need for underrepresented peoples to respond to culturally-insensitive comments or actions, this guide is actually for those who have privilege and who say that inevitable faux-pas.

We all have the potential of abusing our cultural power, of course, so I hope that everybody can find these short tips useful. As an educated, physically "non-handicapped" male, I recognize that I have privilege in certain situations. As a queer person of color from a socioeconomically disadvantaged background, I am vulnerable in other situations. The list could go on. However, my disadvantage never makes the oppression of other people acceptable. Privilege is privilege.

With this in mind, please accept these tips with the spirit in which they are given. I hope they can be of use in the future.

1. Cultural confrontation requires courage for the recipient of the comment

Recognize that people do not always respond to an insensitive comment or action when it offends them. Many people will not say anything and simply accept that the environment is unfriendly or just leave after the slight. By approaching you with, the "offended person" is extending a hope that the conflict can be resolved, which requires a sense of trust. The alternative is that the situation has gone on too long and that the other person is completely fed-up with it. Also, by approaching you on the comment, the person if implying that you are part of a similar community in which this person has investment (otherwise, the person would most likely just leave since confrontation is really awkward and makes many people feel guilty).

I have been truly affected by comments three times in my life. Each time, the response is very visceral. It's like walking down a dark alley and suddenly feeling like you're in physical danger. While rationally I have realized that I would probably not get attacked, the feeling is still the same. Consequently, I have been stunned during the event and didn't collect my thoughts enough to respond right away. It takes an amount of empowerment and courage to approach someone after feeling this way.

2. The recipient of the comment is usually responding to more than this one instance

As a continuation of my first point, many individuals will not respond until things start to make them feel very uncomfortable. Your one (and potentially multiple) comment is probably part of a larger history of events that can be frustrating and disempowering. Of course, this doesn't excuse the insensitive comment. However, recognize that the other individuals are responding to something larger that you are a part of, even if unwittingly.

3. Responding to the encounter takes courage on the part of the "offender"

Many people will have the initial reaction of feeling accused by having a comment pointed out. Overcoming this initial feeling is one of the most difficult, but most important, parts of growing your cultural sensitivity. Recognize that what you said affected someone else in a negative way and accept that the event occurred. It is only by admitting this that you can truly change the situation and make it less likely that it will happen in the future... and it's crucial to the process of mending the situation.

4. Approach the situation with genuine curiosity; don't ameliorate impact with intent

THE MOST COMMON RESPONSE that an affected person will receive after someone points out an insensitive comment is a rationalization. The email invariably sounds like the following: "I'm sorry that I offended you, but when I made the comment I was actually talking about BLAH BLAH BLAH." When people get this response, we recognize it as a clever way to take the blame off the "offender" and place it on the "offended." This reply is a natural defense mechanism, but it unwittingly places the blame on the affected person by having it be their fault for misinterpreting your "true" intent.

Instead, apologize and save the defense for later. If you have an honest curiosity to improve, ask the other person to help you understand the impact that your comment had. Often times, you'll learn something very helpful and interesting! However, this process is also very exposing to the affected person. It's not their job to explain or fix this situation, but many people will be willing to help. After you have understood the affect your comment had, you can use the conversation to explain the original intent, but make sure not to invalidate what you were just told. Affirm the feelings that the other person has or had.

The term for the incorrect response is often called "Intent before Impact." Trying to rationalize a response right away simply belittles the impact of the event, which can sometimes be quite large without your knowledge.

5. Whatever you do, don't do nothing

Inaction is the worst response to this situation. If needed, get an experienced and trusted mediator. However, not acting to remedy the situation only reaffirms that exclusion is acceptable. Later on, someone else will see the same behavior or the community will gain a reputation for being a hostile environment.

Underrepresented people share and compare stories! Personally, I am invested in making sure other people don't have the same bad experiences that I have had. Think about a bad experience that you have had at a place of business or a community of your own. You talk with your friends and if they have had similar experiences, you start warning your friends. After a while, inaction can build resentment. If you have no or few underrepresented people, chances are that multiple people have found the environment hostile at one point or another.

---

As someone trained in leadership and organizational development, I recognize that "diversity as inclusion" is an essential part of a healthy and innovative group. By keeping your organization open and utilizing/appreciating what diversity you have, it becomes easier to grow more diversity into your group instead of "tokenizing" individuals.

Good luck. It's worth it.

I've Found My Candidate

2008-03-19T23:41:00.004-05:00

I must admit that I was fairly ambivalent about the 2008 election to this point. I must admit that I voted for a republican candidate in the primaries because I am focused on moving this country towards the procurement of civil liberties. I must admit that I had no particular feeling for any of the candidates and had grown weary of political deceptiveness of a two-party system.

I've changed my mind. I have my candidate.

Please don't get me wrong. I am still firmly dedicated to the vision that government exists solely to transact the maximal safety and liberty of its citizens. I still think that a candidate working within the two-party system is inherently biased towards political device. Despite my VERY STUBBORN way of looking at politics, I recognize a great man when I see one.

I, as of today, support Obama for president of the United States of America.

Obama may not win the presidency. In fact, he is in close race with Clinton right now. When it may have benefited him to let a divisive comment about race relations fade away into the mulch of political battle, he made one of the most important speeches about modern politics that I may know while I am alive. President Bush can pose for as many pictures in front of rubble as he likes, but he will never make the impact on American culture as Obama did yesterday.

A speech like the one given today, and potentially the reasons for giving this speech, is what distinguishes a great man from a normal candidate.

I recognize my philosophy on leadership in his speech. I voted for someone else in the primary because, in the end, a president shouldn't be chosen because of his policy. A president shouldn't be chosen because he supports a detail of legislation, even if that detail excludes gay-rights. A president's job is not to create laws, but rather to lead the American people, whether this leadership is domestic or during times of war. Perhaps I should have paid closer attention before I cast my primary vote.

Obama is a leader. More important, I believe that Obama is capable of leading the American people in a time when some crucial decisions must be made.

I've found my candidate.

GRE - The Happy Eugenics

2007-11-01T13:45:00.000-05:00

As many of you know, I have a certain beef with the entrance exams for graduate school, or the GRE. Admissions committees use these scores to assess whether a college student is capable of continuing on to PhD or Master's level study. There's only one problem, the test is both horribly exclusionary to underrepresented students and they're completely misused in most instances.

Ok, so that's two problems.

I'll try to not go into too much detail, but I believe the GRE is the direct offspring of the Eugenic movement's search for the intellectual superiority of white people. You're first reaction to that statement might be surprise or defensiveness, but this search was a real occurrence that happened about one century ago. The search for racial intelligence differences could even be traced back to the 16th century. However, back then, the search for these intelligence differences seemed no more controversial than GRE scores appear to us today.

Francis Galton, a relative of Charlie Darwin, wrote about psychometrics and eugenics in the late nineteenth century. He began to observe that people of African descent knew so much less than the average, cultured, Victorian white person. Maybe it was the slavery, poor living conditions, and lack of access to "proper" education, but African people seemed down-right stupid to Galton. As the unity between biological heredity and intelligence strengthened, people devised new and more refined methods of detecting someone's intellectual stature. Read the wikipedia article on this if you ever get a chance.

I don't think I have to emphasize the direct relationship between the search for intelligence, the assignment of quantitative assessment of relative academic worth, and the GRE. Both the early eugenic concept to intellectual superiority and the GRE are based on the same principles. Yet, people still use this method knowing of this racist flaw.

Of course, mentioning this discrepancy provokes a very rote response: "there is simply no other standardized way to judge people's intelligence." While being still based on the same eugenics-born mentality, there are even more flaws to that logic, even if we simply ignore the deeper context to the response. Let's take the example of a History of Science department that still uses the GRE scores to judge students. Let's assume that they have chosen to accept someone who has excellent verbal scores, but sub-standard logical reasoning scores (read: math). While I haven't looked very closely at actual numbers of times this occurs, every person who has applied to graduate school that I've spoken to has told me "admission committees don't really care about your quantitative reasoning (read: math or logical abilities)." (If you're on a History of Science admission committee, I challenge you to tell me that you haven't accepted an application that had a low logical reasoning score in the last two years because the applicant's verbal score was higher.)

Ok, so this theoretical department just made a judgment that verbal scores are more important than logical reasoning, even though the GRE is a whole test that has been broken down into constituent, scored elements (ie, verbal, math, writing, etc). Now, as I've seen, logical and methodical thought is fairly important in academic work. Yet, a committee would completely disregard a whole aspect of this test because this aspect of the test doesn't resonate with the qualities that they were assessed on when they entered graduate school. Let's be even more generous and say that someone with high verbal skills and low logic skills is more likely to fit into a department than a person with high logic skills and low verbal.

Either way, let's just hang a big sign outside the department and say "we only accept people who are like us." Of course, the department might make an exception, if you're lucky, but the message still remains, "if you're like us, you get higher priority." Even if this might not be the case, in a very rare instance, the message still remains, and those messages have their own power to exclude.

So, yes, I'm bitter about having to take the GRE. No, I didn't do poorly, either. While my verbal wasn't in the top 10% like I had hoped, it's almost there. I'm just bitter because of being forced into taking a test that makes me feel dirty. There's an element of humiliation that I don't think mainstream people feel about taking the exam. In my GRE prep book, I was informed that having an "upbeat attitude" towards the GRE makes you more likely to succeed. People who are negative or "adversarial" towards the test tend to do poorly.

Does it ever alarm them that a big chunk of those people who feel negatively about the test are under-represented students?

Which came first, the chicken or the excluded student? You decide.

Monkeys With Guns

2007-09-29T17:36:00.000-05:00

I've been doing a lot of reading on the depiction on scientists and science in literature. What has originally started with a fascination regarding the mad scientist through history has illuminated a whole world of interactions and connections between society and the science that it creates. I've been particularly struck by two quotes:

"The plain message which physical science has for the world at large is this, that were our political and social and moral devices only as well contrived to their ends as the linotype machine, and antiseptic operating plant or an electric tramcar, there need now at the present moment be no appreciable toil in the world and only the smallest fraction of the pain, the fear and the anxiety that now make human life so doubtful in its value... Science stands, a too-competent servant behind her wrangling under-bred masters, holding out resources, devices and remedies they are too stupid to use."

- HG Wells, A Modern Utopia (1908)

the second passage, I quote

They made a myth of you, professor,
you of the gentle voice,
the books, the specs,
the furtive rabbit manners
in the mortar-board cap
and the medieval gown.

They didn't think of it, eh professor?
On account of your so absent-minded,
you bumping into the tree and saying,
"Excuse me, I thought you were a tree,"
passing on again blank and absent-minded

Now it's "Mr. Attila, how do you do?"
Do you pack wallops of wholesale death?
Are you the practical dynamite son-of-a-gun?
Have you come through with a few abstractions?
Is it you, Mr. Attila we hear saying,
"I beg your pardon but we believe we have made
some degree of progress on the residual
qualities of the atom"?

-Carl Sandburg, "Mr. Attila" (August 1945)

In case you didn't remember, on the sixth day of August 1945 the United States dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, killing approximately 70,000 fellow humans in the span of seconds.

I am constantly hit by the vast power and potential that science offers the world. Humanity and Nature reveal themselves to one another for brief moments. Nature reveals its terror and splendor, offering the ability to shape our destinies and possibly of molding the universe itself. Humanity, in return, shows her frightened state, that we are nothing more than startled lemurs cowering in the trees. We, as a race, have the potential to ascend to heaven, to remake the world as paradise. Instead, we satisfy ourselves by eating each other.

Even with this knowledge, or the privileged exposure to this perspective, scientists resign themselves to creating more industry, which may not even be science at all. We scientists, as an international community, compete for financial resources, power, and personal prestige. We are walking, thinking factories of technology by our own culture's social design. It is no wonder that some of the great social-scientific, reformist minds are relegated to the kiddy-table of science, Alfred Russell Wallace (the discoverer of natural selection), HG Wells (noted scientist and humanitarian), and many others. My respect for modern scientists that seriously dedicate themselves to societal improvement has increased a hundred-fold.

I can only hope to live up to their stature and wisdom. I would rather work on improving my world-community and prepare it for our scientific advances than hand guns to monkeys.

Tears of Social Justice

2007-09-23T00:54:00.001-05:00

I know I haven't posted in a while, but there was something I wanted to share with everyone else. For a while, I've been wondering about social justice and the culture that activists have created for themselves. Usually, at first, somebody gravitates towards social justice because of a moment in their lives, an experience, or an identity they have; for instance, I do LGBT social justice work because I was displaced when I was younger for my sexual orientation. I can only hope that my efforts contribute to the improvement of one person's life so that they do not have to have the same experience that I had growing up.

However, as time goes on, an identity is not enough to sustain social justice activity. Activism has a way of consuming people, as I've stated before. Being a leader stops being about an identity that you have and becomes an identity in itself. Many times, activists will attack each other over small things rather than work together to make society better. Social leadership becomes a type of intellectual masturbation, where people find making waves the only way to make themselves feel important. Instead of taking the effort to where it needs to go, they tear down the efforts of others to make themselves feel big.

And then something small happens.

While the occurrence itself was quite large in many ways, the action in the grand scheme of things seems tiny. A daughter comes out to her father. It happens all the time; I come out to people all the time. Still, you never know how your actions will affect other people. This one particular daughter happened to be the offspring of the Republican mayor of San Diego.

It's odd how such a small thing can make you feel like it's all worth while in the end. You really never know how you're changing things. I think that's the First Principle of Leadership... you have influence over your surroundings. Whether you choose to recognize it or not, you're creating change.

I can only hope my change has done what I set out to do. I feel good today.

Boundaries of the State

2007-06-11T17:39:00.000-05:00

So, I'm starting to get a dislike for a certain quote.

The Wisconsin Idea is the thought that civilization should be fueled by service-minded, thoughtful people. The University of Wisconsin has produced many well-informed government policies and scientific discoveries in past years. A lot of this was started by the university president "Charles Van Hise" in his speech to the campus body.

It is the educated person's duty to give what he can to the betterment of society. No matter what you study, you can help your fellow man by education, empowerment, and research.

All this was summarized into a short, vulgar phrase, "The boundaries of the University are the boundaries of the State." Mainly, I suspect this was a ploy to get increased funding from the Wisconsin government. While I'm all for supporting our educational system and economy by providing adequate university funding, it's not worth taking a good idea and turning it into a marketing scheme.

If the citizens of this state are not paying attention to the benefits a university brings to Wisconsin, then maybe our academic body has not been giving back the way we used to in the early twentieth century.

Oh, and research where your quotes come from before you use them. Why not use a quote from La Follete, Van Hise, or (the good) McCarthy? It's much better than a marketing flyer.

Virgina Tech Shooting

2007-04-18T18:52:00.000-05:00

Alright, I'll go into scholar mode in a second. First, I'd like to my support to those who have lost life, loved-ones, or faced the resulting racism from the Virginia Tech shooting. I've never been able to tell if people who are afraid become prejudiced, or if prejudiced people use fear as an excuse to expose their hatred. Regardless, nobody should live in fear of death threats.

I read some of the articles on the shooting. Some were very troubling. Others were very touching... especially the one about the professor who never made it out of the room because he was holding the door so his students could escape. We've suffered a tragic loss, as all needless loss of life is, but I suppose it hit me because I deal with academic community development. Along with beatings in libraries and whatnot, our higher educational institutions are no longer world-class places of freedom and safety.

I've begun to question my stance on gun control because of this incident. While I'm a firm believer in expanding citizen rights, we risk other rights by allowing such loose gun control in this country. I'm at a bit of a quandary. With crime, I think the solution is fair distribution of resources. With cold-blooded murder, besides creating good communities where people feel they have social support and environmental control... what else can you do besides take away ways they can hurt more people?

I'll go back to my community development and hope that it makes a difference... keep people in healthy social networks and teach others to create them. However, one person's efforts can only go so far.

Science Outeach

2007-04-03T16:29:00.000-05:00

Recently, I've been reading a lot about science outreach programs, especially towards socio-economically disadvantaged groups. I'm exposed to a lot of collegiate-level science education research through my job, which I don't mind at all. Every once in a while, I read articles on K-12 education as well because the articles often come in the same journals.

One article talked about science outreach and the benefits of higher education to visiting local K-12 classes. Grad students were trained on presenting hands-on science experiments to youth, then they would travel to different communities to give workshops to little kids. The workshops are often well-received by both teacher and students.

This brought back quite a few memories for me. While in elementary school, some university students came to visit us. They spoke about what they studied and why. I remember that I really liked the engineering guy. I went so far as to write him a letter asking more about college.

He wrote back explaining what it was like to be in college and what a great time he was having. That same week, I had "sex ed" where my teacher told me that women, during puberty, grew breasts. I pointed out that men also "grew breasts," of which I got snickers and disapproval from the teacher. I had to get out a book on hormonal regulation to show that men also grew breasts, but that they were simply anatomically different than men. I don't think that the teacher understood, but he conceded anyway. I was in desperate need for someone to talk with about science. The letter was a blessing in many ways.

I don't remember much more about the university student's reply, except one thing: the return note was written in all capital letters. Ever since that day, my handwriting is done in all capital letters, mainly due to the influence of that one student.

I suppose the visit had much more influence on me than I thought. I wonder if Madison has a program for visiting university students.

Civil Rights and the Gay Gene Debate

2007-03-27T00:56:00.000-05:00

So, I've spent some time reading about Genetics. By "some time," I mean six hard, grueling years of absorbing an undergraduate degree and years of biomedical labwork. Add to this a preparation for studying the history of Genetics and evolutionary theory, and you have one disgruntled academic.

Anyway, this weekend I will be giving two workshops for Building Unity, a student conference for organizers. This is the first time I've ever been able to give two workshops at anything besides the LGBT Leadership Institute at UW - Madison. My new found ability to give more workshops comes from a new inspiration. I'll be teaching my little fraternity brother how to empower others. We will be co-presenting one of the workshops together.

While the extra help in research will be useful, I'll probably spend more time guiding him through his first workshop design than I would spend just finishing it myself. In the end, I think it's the fact that he wants to learn more about something important that's driving me to do more than I have before. I might not have presented at all if he wouldn't have the opportunity to attend this conference and get exposed to new ideas.

The people I have "taught" have gone on to do some amazing things. Someties, seeing them go on and really make a difference in the world is what keeps me going. You know who ya'll are, and I'm proud of each of you.

Well, this new found energy has sprurred me to present something I've never presented before: material on the Gay Gene Debate and its implications for civil rights.

Another generously borrowed picture from a anti-gay website

I've been doing so much research, the extra material has started to overflow from my brain. I had to put it somewhere.

So, first, quite a few publications will state that research into the biological origins of homosexuality began with the recent publication by geneticist Dean Hamer. This is incorrect and misleading, in a way. "Modern" Biology has observed homosexuality since the late 1700s, beginning with animals and how the origins of animal homosexuality might explain human homosexuality. While the methods and instruments may have changed, the basic search for homosexuality in Biology has not altered much since then.

Later, in the 1870s, behavioral evolution started to change our concepts of the origin of human habits. Not long after, doctors began the process of medicalizing certain sexual behaviors, including homosexuality. I'm currently doing research on one such doctor who wrote in the 1880s. Many physicians asserted, in the late 1800s, that homosexuality should no longer be viewed as a moral vice, but rather a disease that might be treated. Eventually, homosexuality was declared a mental illness and, after due time, removed from that same list of diseases.

Even before Hamer's publication on possible linkage to genetics and homosexuality, research in fruit fly genetics showed a very simple mechanism for controlling insect 'sexual orientation.' Kulber Gill reported this discovery at the 1963 American Society of Zoologists, eventually leading to the mapping and characterization of this mutation by Jeffery Hall in the late 1970s. Dean Hamer's acticle on X-linked human homosexuality gene, Xq28, was not published until 1993. Since the early 1990s, there has been an explosion of genetic research in human and animal sexuality. However, this explosion wasn't because the material was new.

So, what does this mean for social justice and civil rights?

Well, first-off, the search for biological origins in homosexuality is complex and double-edged at best. While the religious faction grapples with the question, "dear lord, what if God made gays the way they are and we've been wrongfully hating them all this time?," the implications for gay activists are a little more complex.

Psychological and biological definitions seem to have a comforting nature about them to people who use them to construct their identities. For instance, when Krafft-Ebing (~1880s) wrote about the sexual perversions of men loving men, some homosexuals wrote him to express their gratitude at having someone publish a book that to which they related. Suddenly, these people realized that they were not alone in the world and other people suffered from homosexuality like they did. Now, with homosexuality no longer a disease, gay men and women gravitate toward a sense of identification. The gay gene offers a type of ownership over their own identity. It offers a common language to describe who and what they are.

However, with this, the gay gene also challenges a more general assumption about sexual identity. Suddenly, a doctor can tell you that you are gay with a prick of your finger. This is important because we have also found out recently that some of the most beautiful women are actually genetically-male, even though they had never doubted their own femininity (to my knowledge.) This is a major change in the role of science in our personal lives. A portion of our identity can be changed by a quick examination under the microscope.

Also, with all this rhetoric and enthusiasm for utilizing scientific authority, have we fogotten the real issues at hand? I mean, originally, the gay gene was compelling because it meant that homosexuals could not be "cured." However, I'd like to think we've moved beyond this. I mean, nobody deserves to be murdered, psychologically tortured, or yes, even discriminated against based on what's hanging (or not hanging) between their loved-one's legs.

Even if they prove that homosexuality has no biological component whatsoever, which I doubt, we shouldn't lose any moral ground on our fight against discrimination and murder. People die; whether they are gay men crucified in Montana, straight people beaten to death for holding a blind man's hand, the numberless transpeople who are slaughtered, or the one-in-three gay teens that end their lives rather than live with the hatred people have towards them, it's not ok.

No gay gene or biological origin can give us back their lives. A fight for rights deserves more than biorhetoric.

Less Than Recent Developments in Progressivism

2007-03-18T23:30:00.000-05:00

Firstly, I'd like to thank people for their generous comments, both online and in person. A few people were curious as to my "political background," since it's been a while since I've really appeared on the Madison political scene.

There are quite a few issues that certain parties love to see as being two-sided. One of the great things about being a crazy libertarian is that I know my party issues will never be huge on the political agenda, not that they're always big on my agenda either. Still, things stop being black and white and I'm less likely to vote on only one controversial issue.

Funny to think that being a foaming-at-the-mouth third party member has made me somewhat more receptive to various opinions. However, I've already covered that in an older post, so I digress.

If possible, I prefer to observe. Maybe it's my scientific background or the fact that I had systems dynamics beat into me for four years at UW, but I can't help but think that paying close attention is half of the battle. However, observation every so often brings someone to action. I've had my fair share of involvement, but I prefer to pick and choose my battles wisely. I've been around long enough to see a few Dean of Students come and go. I still remember being a Junior when Austin King ran for alderperson. He seemed almost sane then. However, things change, including the subject of my academic studies.

While I began in the rough-and-tough biological sciences, I grew tired of living in fear. I just couldn't bear the murderous looks I'd get in Biochem 501 when the person sitting next to me suspected I might have a higher class grade than her or him. I think a few very intelligent people disappeared that semester, and each time that happened the course curve bumped up a curious amount. Needless to say, after graduation, I switched to a more social subject.

Now I study the history of social interactions with science. A lot of this revolves around the progressive movement(s) and the idea of political change. Progress and its later political incarnation, Progressivism, have two different but related stories. One of the stories has a huge part of Wisconsin's development.

Now this might seem like a 'yay, I love Progressive politics' rant, but that would be a bit misleading. The problem with knowing about something is the realization that it has flaws. While my opinions are slowly becoming more liberal as the conservatives are becoming more insane, I can't say "Progressive" politics in Madison are all that sane either. In fact, many times the "Progressive" politics in Madison aren't progressive at all.

Call it a hunch, but there's a lot of real progressive ideas coming back, and a lot of things are more connected than people realize. The Wisconsin Idea Project, while originally a song and dance to get funding from the state, has had the happy occasion to actually get people searching for these progressive ideas. Funny enough, this relates to the Union South renovation and the introduction of social space on campus... which sounds a lot like the "Science Discovery Center" that's boiling right now. Furthermore, there were rumors of 'light-rail' stations that conflicted with these sites. State, City, and University politics are converging on one location at one particularly sensitive time.

Sound confusing? Well, it is. However, I'm hoping that in the next few years, the Progressive Dane party will stop being an unwitting pawn of a few, and let's admit it, not very progressive or liberal people, and will start being influenced by some of the larger issues at hand. There are quite a few truly excellent people in the party. Now, far be it from me to tell another party what to do, but it seems like the Dems and Danes would do a lot better to stop the infighting, get rid of the bad apples, and remember the things they have in common.

I know egos are on the line, but things are seriously going down and people should keep their eyes on the road rather than at their "opponent's" jugulars. If not, a seriously important time will simply fly by... and where is the progressive or Democratic value in that?

Madison Politics, April 2007 Race

2007-03-16T23:56:00.000-05:00

Normally, I don't like to get too involved in politics. For Madison, this is doubly so. Politics are weird, way too serious, and often humorous in that really-scary-sort-of-way.

I almost always vote absentee, even though I don't travel. I dislike having to research a ballot the day that I have to vote, then having to make a decision based on limited information. Inevitably, there's someone on the ballot that I don't even know. I'm scared that I'm voting for some crazy conservative, an unpredictable liberal, or (God-Forbid) someone from my own party... the dreaded Libertarian.

So, here I sit with my ballot in front of me thinking about the future of my community. I want to make a good decision without spending too much time. Typical American mind-set... except I have that added 'do the right thing' mentality. Regardless, I honestly don't know who I'd like to vote for. The races seem so dramatic for the candidates that we have. Especially given the Lauren Woods/Eli Judge race. Woods really needs to reel her lackeys in, because I've heard people from her corner saying some fairly racist things. I'm tired of Madison politics coming down to "oh, she/he is a person of color, so each issue revolves around race." I hate it when people abuse the race card to suggest ludicrous statements or empty solutions. I'd rather have my race card saved for issues that are a little more important.

Specifically, I'm referring to some of the recent publications in the Daily Cardinal. Kumar, a very minor political player in Madison, made the assertion that a policy change made by the Democratic party in Madison was keeping people of color votes from counting. *Ahem* Alright, so first, thank you for speaking for me, Kumar, as the head person of color. You might not have meant it that way, but it's certainly how it came across, not only to me, but to quite a few people in Madison. Secondly, you just pointed out that your candidate isn't even keeping track of the political changes that are going on during her own campaign! I'm not sure that was the best move, either for people of color or your personal alliance with Lauren Woods and Ald. Austin King.

Critical Badger has a great article on this. The guy has amazing insight into the eccentricities of the major players in Madison.

Oh, and Ald. King, I'm glad you were there to tell me who a "real Democrat" was at the Democratic party meeting by putting down other politicians in your own party. You're the champion of all people who can't think for themselves. For a while, I actually bought into your campaign. I'm having serious second thoughts.

Lauren, it's become apparent that you had no idea what you were getting yourself into by allying yourself with Kumar and King. I think you'd make a great candidate one day... but not given the current situation. Sorry.

On to one of the bigger moments in Wisconsin politics, the supreme court position between Clifford and Ziegler.

My vote is definitely going to Linda Clifford for Supreme Court Justice. Hands down. Good record, I think we can trust her neutrality, plus she opened a gay hockey game, nearly killing herself on the ice to do it. Nice touch, I admire a person who can handle her/himself while 'walking on thin ice.' I like a justice who's in touch with the community. It shows the good, open-minded quality that's required for true neutrality and legal interpretation.

Alright, now on to the mayoral race. I think we all know who is going to win, which is a bit sad. I've been pondering the opposition, Allen. He gives the appearance of having experience and has a well-thought-through position on a lot of current issues. Most of these positions are city-focused, logical, and almost-reasonable. I was shocked... certainly this can't be happening in Madison!

So, I looked for the same issues on Dave's site. Lots of fluff, wishy-washy answers to real questions. Suddenly, I got to thinking... what has mayor Dave actually done during his term? Crime is rising and Madison either needs new leadership or a scapegoat. I'm running dangerously close to throwing your vote the other way.

Only problem is that Allen voted down a proposition for domestic partner benefits in the Madison school board. I tried to look up his stance on that decision. Nothing. I tried to look up his stance for civil rights. Nothing on LGBT issues.

I'm on the fence. Maybe one of the candidates will email me back with information on, not only their positions, but reasoning behind their positions.

Dear lord, reasoning in politics. Shun the day.

Chalkboard Dreamer

2007-02-20T18:22:00.000-06:00

I usually don't think to tell people about my dreams. Some people know that I'm a lucid dreamer, which means I usually know I'm dreaming when I sleep. People who lucid dream have a degree of control over what happens in their mind as they slumber. Fewer people know that I have recurring lucid dreams.

While this isn't news for me, since I've had them for a while, I realize that quite a few people don't know this about me. I just never think to discuss something that is mundane, in my eyes. I bring this up because I had the dream again, recently.

In the dream, I find myself standing in a classroom. The camera pans around me as I'm holding a piece of thick white chalk. Ok, there actually are no camera angles in my dreams, but I'll be dramatic anyway. The classroom seems a lot like the one in Raiders of the Lost Ark; the room is mostly wood paneling with old, fixed seating. Each panel is a raised, beveled square within a larger wooden backing. Bright light enters the rooms from large, tall windows in the front of the class.

I'm standing up on the small raised stage. It has a green floor. There's an old, wooden chalkboard between myself and the windows. You know, the chalkboard that flip around to another side. In fact, the chalkboard is the main reason this dream is interesting.

Nothing too fancy and just a dream

If I choose to do so, I can write on this chalkboard with the white chalk in my hand. However, whatever I start will finish itself. For instance, if I write out the beginning of a phrase, the phrase will start to finish itself. This works for everything I have tried so far, except mathematical equations. The chalk even finishes itself for theoretical questions. I have done some of my best work on this chalkboard.

One memorable time in my first semester of college, I was doing moderately extensive reading into HIV vaccine research. I especially liked the theoretical questions of how to 'out-smart' viruses, considering the disease kills the immune cells that are most important to vaccine operation. I posed this problem to the board... and it gave me a solution. I wrote up this solution and contacted a researcher at my current university.

I got the best compliment I'd ever gotten in my life from that correspondence. For a brief while, I did HIV vaccine research with monkeys here. I know I got that position because of the thoughts I got from that chalkboard.

I keep on hearing that we should all "dream big." Funny that my big dreams come from a dream that's pretty small and simple.

A Mother's Ambition

2007-01-30T10:30:00.000-06:00

Every once in a while, someone does something so brave that it makes you stop and admire. People like this make you remember that there are no limitations. Some people are worth following in their footsteps.

My mother has had an amazing journey. A few months ago, she agreed to read through a collection of books on being the parent of an LGBT child. I had a friend who could use her wisdom and insight when dealing with his own parents. My mother wanted to help somehow.

While at Barnes and Nobles, she had to special order one of the books. While telling the agent at the counter what book she wanted, the lady leaned over and whispered "I know how you feel."

My mother asked what she meant. The lady told her that she had not spoken to her gay son in some time. She had always regretted the things that they had gone through. My mother shared her story with her. "Your son hasn't changed, just your perception of him. Think about it, he's gone through so much. He could really use you right now. What else are parents for?"

After an hour of sharing, the lady was in tears. She wanted to reconnect with her son and make up for all that lost time. I think my mother not only changed someone else's life, but also her own.

She decided to go back to school. She says she wants to make a difference. It's been tough, as she's currently taking Math, but I know she'll persevere. She's decided to alter her entire life by going to college. That's something that takes an immense amount of courage and dedication.

She shared this video with me. Life has not always been kind to her, but she has shown a lot of courage in the face of adversity.

This is for you, moms.

The Membrane Universe

2007-01-05T23:01:00.001-06:00

Alright, just a thought.

Let's suppose that the universe is expanding. Not too big of an assumption, given that it's the popular view at the moment. Let us also suppose that there is a law of equilibrium, so that nature tends towards uniformity. Also not a huge leap of faith.

So, in the big bang, energy suddenly forms in one moment in time in one singular space. Gotcha. What if the big bang isn't the only big bang, though?

The universe is flying apart pretty rapidly. This leaves a lot of space inbetween objects as we spiral towards uniformity, both in terms of heat-death and in terms of expanding outwards to infinity. This would create a sort of "reverse pressure" to pull more energy into the equation.

Only one leap of faith is required. What if there is a type of energy that we haven't identified yet? Let's say this "energy" is on the opposite side of a membrane from the universe that we can observe. When this expansive "pressure" reaches a certain level, a certain amount of energy could be pulled through into our universe at one particular point at one particular time.

Why, this would be a lot like a big bang.

Locally, this still means that energy operates in a consistent fashion. The equilibrium of energy remains, to our purposes, very constant. In our eyes, it can never be created or destroyed because we cannot create enough expansive pressure, or reverse pressure, in order to make energy appear or disappear across the membrane. However, it makes absolute zero an interesting proposition. Absolute zero might allow for small amounts of energy to enter into our system, or perhaps a lot of energy all at the same time if we can ever achieve it.

Or, let's say that the universe doesn't pull energy from some unobservable place. It's conceivable that black holes, with the amount of pressure and speed they generate, could throw something back in space and time. Well, as the universe tends towards uniformity, given infinite time, all things would fall through black holes. Perhaps these black holes simply throw everything back to the same point and time within our universe.

Well, then you'd have another big bang... well, technically, the SAME big bang, but who's keeping track?

Hmmm, just a thought.

UCLA Library Incident

2006-12-13T16:29:00.000-06:00

I'm appalled.

Recently a California student entered into Powell Library, one of the UCLA university libraries, but did not (or was not able to) show his student ID. After a bit of commotion, the university police stepped in and used unnecessary violent force to remove the student from his own facility. The police repeatedly shocked him with tasers as they alternatively dragged him to the exit and dropped him in order to shock him. While the student is pissed at first, after being tased multiple times he becomes hysterical, stating that he would leave, and then going limp after they repeatedly attack him.

I've included the video so you can see for yourself. Watch the entire thing. I've got to warn you, though, it's definately above PG-13 for violence and brutality.

The police obviously have no reason to use such violent force to remove someone. After the repeated shocking, the police are able to simply pick the student up and remove him. The authorities should have removed him sooner, rather than use the force they did. The victim shows no signs of struggle and poses no armed threat to the university police. I see no reason, whatsoever, to use ANY FORCE AT ALL in a situation such as this.

Of course, the policemen deserve due process before judgment, as UCLA chancellor
Norman Abrams is so keen to state. However, the cold manner in which UCLA has dealt with this incident has lowered their standing as an academic institution in my eyes.

After years of studying academic leadership, one gains insight into methods of transferring empowerment and information within institutions. Still, it doesn't take a great level of knowledge to know that students don't learn if they do not feel safe. This goes for everything ranging from reports of physical brutality to fear caused by social violence, such as that fear experienced by LGBT students during school. It's hard to empower someone who is afraid to say anything or express themselves for fear of being beaten or tased.

Regardless of whether this display of brutal force in Powell Library is right or not, UCLA will be affected by the attitude now growing within their campus. The perception of freedom is so easily lost when it comes to academic communities. Once something like this happens, it's incredibly difficult to reinstate the confidence that fosters empowerment and learning.

Funny enough, I was looking at UCLA's website just as someone informed me of what had happened. I've been thinking of Graduate Schools to apply to and I had heard wonderful things about the program at UCLA. However, I guarantee you that UCLA won't be the same after this incident and the way the university responded to the shocking news.

If I had invested so much in a UCLA degree, I would be pissed that this had happened. Not only is this a horrible thing to happen at any university, but the value of that diploma just dropped dramatically. I'm sad that UCLA doesn't have better leadership than it does. It could be such a great university.

Mad About Science

2006-12-08T16:02:00.000-06:00

The Mad Scientist is one of the most recognizable figures in our culture. In many ways, he represents the growing inhumanity in science after rapid industrialization in Europe and America. Huge academic and government laboratories replaced the individual scientist's salon, where he explored the nature of the universe. Not only did industrialization make science about production, rather than exploration, it also boosted the rate at which science was conducted. Our rapid rate of discovery led to an astounding mastery over nature.

Of course, this frightened us. For the first time, a single individual, with the proper education and access to resources, could create atomic bombs. If science held this sort of power, what else could someone do with that sort of knowledge.

The Mad Scientist was born. He (always he) pursues scientific understanding without regards to morality or consequence. Then, the Evil Mad Scientist used this information to control and manipulate others... or just plain ol' destruction and devastation.

With this level of cultural representation in mind, how is it that I cannot think of ONE major Mad Scientist character that isn't white? I mean, we people of color can threaten you with a gun or steal your children, but we can't seem to use nuclear power to destroy the world.

Take the growing stereotype of terrorists, for example. They can build bombs and weapons, grow pathogens and get them safely into envelopes, even manage to lick the stamps without dying... but are they Mad Scientists?

NO!

Perhaps black Mad Scientists blend in with their nocturnal surrounding? Maybe this is why we never see them!

Of course, the problem is historical. Science has always been taught as originating from brilliant white men in England and Germany, Isaac Newton, Francis Galton, Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, and maybe a French Louis Pasteur or two... However, science has become a mass enterprise. Yes, research laboratories are still like medieval feudal states, but overall, it's a cooperative endeavor.

Regardless of this shift in science, women and people of color are continually disregarded as candidates for Evil Mad Scientist-hood. Historically, science has been a white male enterprise and it follows through to modern times.

I tell you, the Mad Science community needs some affirmative action, quick!

Organozational Information Retention

2006-12-06T12:06:00.000-06:00

Recently, I've been thinking a lot about social organization. I'm trying to do that stereotypical post-collegiate project. That's right, I'm going to attempt to write a book. Don't know if I'll succeed, but I think it will be a fun process nonetheless.

However, I'm not exactly a fiction type of guy. I'm pretty sure all my characters would be just like me and the plot would be too complicated to understand. So, something other than personal fame and glory is prompting me to do this writing. That thing, my friends, is impatience. There's a specific book I've been waiting to come out, but nobody has written it yet.

No worries, then I'll do it. I know the old saying about ideas who's time has come.

Regardless, social organization plays a major role in the book. I've teamed up with an amazing guy who loves this sort of stuff, but I'm having trouble communicating my thoughts. You see, I'm sort of stuck behind years of biological training, so most things I know about organizing are related to very technical biological processes. I'm really glad I have someone to start this journey with.

Anyway, I have been reading up on DNA as information storage. At the same time, I have been having concerns about turn-over in an organization I'm in. Turn-over, where people graduate and move on to other things, takes the experiences these individuals have and removes them from the group. I like to think of people as retaining organizational memory, they remember ways to do things more efficiently and hold social connections with others inside and outside the group. When these experienced people leave, the group loses an immense amount of information.

Of course, it's necessary that people move on, but how does one retain the good changes in retained information?

... That's when it hit me. Changes in retained information are the same things as mutations. In a way, people act as the informational storage for social organizing. They retain the social capital and the knowledge it takes to run a group. In order to keep this new information, it has to be passed in some way. If it is not passed on before these individuals leave, then you get a sort of organismal death. The group, almost literally, has to start over from scratch, being exposed to the same environmental factors that it had to go through before.

Even bacteria think information transference is sexy

By golly, well that means that empowerment is a fundamental life function of an organization. Without it, you're just starting over every time someone leaves. The only trouble is how to institute mechanisms in an organization to transfer this information. A type of breeding of ideas, each transmission changes it in some way, but the ones that work well are retained.

I have lots of suggestion on how to do that, but it will have to wait for another blog...

or perhaps a later book?
I can only hope.

The Scientist's Stone

2006-11-22T22:43:00.000-06:00

For some time, individuals searched for a substance that would turn lead into gold.

In our new world, the fame and glory will go to the individual who can turn vegetable matter into oil.

Some say the world revolves around the sun. I say the world revolves around resources.

I wonder what the world would look like if our sun's energy, through natural photosynthesis, could be stored into high density chemical energy such as oil or other fuel. What resource would we fight over next? How could we justify the starving people of the world and our human organization that allows it?

I must say, the greatest danger had by taking a course on utopian literature is the intense dissatisfaction towards civilization one feels afterwards.

I highly recommend the dissatisfaction.

Priceless

2006-11-07T02:09:00.000-06:00

It takes a lot of effort to chalk for an event. In case you didn't know, chalking is when you write some political or informative message on the sidewalk. Believe me, one doesn't chalk for a message or campaign that you don't believe in because you're inevitably sore from the effort the next day.

Anyway, today is November 7th. Today, the state of Wisconsin decides whether or not to put discrimination into its state constitution. There are chalkings everywhere you look here at the University of Wisconsin - Madison. It's evident a lot of people care about this constitutional issue. Twenty "A Fair Wisconsin Votes No" chalkings stand beside each "A Moral Wisconsin Votes Yes." However, not everybody appreciates the hard work it takes to place political messages on a sidewalk.

Recently, various individuals had taken to nocturnal sabotagings of the "Vote No" chalkings. These dubious individuals crossed out the "No" and replaced it with their own more homophobic "Yes," intending to confuse voters on which voting box to fill on voting day. So, obviously, I was concerned when I saw someone urinating on the chalkings on Library Mall.

I stood for a moment in utter silence. All that hard work and years of first amendment protections were being flushed down the toilet, all pun intended. Being the conscious and polite citizen that I am, I did the only thing I could think of at the moment. I slowly raised my camera, charged the flash, and took a picture of the man holding his greatest embarrassment in his hands. The picture is priceless... very 'deer-in-headlights.' My friend takes my cue and grabs the camera out of my hands in order to chase the two individuals down an alleyway. He takes more pictures of them as they call out creative terms to describe his sexual orientation.

"We'll make a political statement if we want to, fa&&ot," they shout as they run away.

Did I mention the picture is priceless? Anyway, to further complicate things, a police car pulls up besides me. I inform the slightly-Sapphic police officer of the recent events. She says she'll look into it and pulls after the culprits.

I sigh and look down at all the hard work the bigots had erased. Yet, for a moment, I was confused. I could barely make out the words... "Moral"... "Yes." The culprits had urinated on their own chalking, most likely due to the confusion created from the earlier sabotaging. The only anti-gay message on library mall had washed away as the two culprits cat-called back down the alley with harassing comments.

Ah, it's these moments that give me hope for the world.

Never Never

2006-11-01T21:40:00.000-06:00

Have you ever had one of those moments when you grow up a bit? You think to yourself, "Wow, I think, from now on, things will be just a bit different than they were before. Yet, this difference isn't action or denial, it's due to a different way of looking at the world. The ways things were just were not good enough."

I had one of those moments. It wasn't life altering or anything. I was simply taking fresh sheets back from the laundry room, passing down my pink hallway in my purple dress socks. Suddenly, I realized that I knew too much about a recent situation. I mean, I had been unhappy for the last few days just because I knew too much. The world is really pretty damn messed up, a lot of it's due to people not stopping to think. I had recently caught wind of a series of disturbing events which would eventually turn back and cause quite a few problems. Unethical decisions, lack of competence, self-serving machinations... all going on without the other people knowing. They just went on their unhappy way, creating a mess.

Damn me, being an ENTP, forced into putting together the big picture. I couldn't help but take a moment and trying to figure out why things were going so... horribly, even though people weren't even talking to eachother about the problems. They just stayed in their little space and wondered why things kept getting progressively worse. After hearing a bit of the story, I knew what was coming around the corner, and it wasn't pretty.

...And for the first time, I used the early warning to run for cover. I'm tired of 'kicking the world and breaking my foot,' as a wise-person once said. I think it's time to use my leadership skills for my own benefit for a couple years. I should focus on becoming a better person, rather than focusing on making the world around me conform to my visions.

At least for a while (hopefully longer) I'm focusing on the simple things in life. I once heard a valuable piece of advice that I only half-understood before: 'If you're searching for that special someone, you have to be proactive. Make a list of all the traits you like in a person... then start doing them yourself. You shouldn't have to search far for that person you like. That person should be right there in the mirror.' I think I could deal with improving the lives of myself and those around me. I think one can lead an exemplary life just by being a good, honest individual.

It's more than many people can say.
I think wisdom is the slow process of getting tired of things.

Zombies And The Non-Profit World

2006-10-05T12:22:00.000-05:00

If you've ever worked in the non-profit sector, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

It always surprises you when you encounter it. You enter into a social welfare program thinking that you're going to make the world better. Ya know, the important thing is helping others. You expand the program, take in as many ideas as you can, so long as your helping the community. The people you serve are the most important aspect of what you do.

However, that's not the only type of person you meet in the non-profit world. Every once in a while you meet someone who participates in these project to fill some nameless void in their life. They see themselves as the saviors of humanity. The project becomes their sole life and love. Any threat to their control on the project is a threat to themselves.

Alright, so it happens more than 'every once in a while.' The non-profit sector is filled with psychological, self-serving, egotists. While this wouldn't normally be a problem, they have the annoying tendency to suffocate the very programs they love.

Upon closer examination, you realize you really DON'T fit in at the local non-profit.

To me, it seems awfully logical to search for ways to improve your program. Search through scientific journals, people who have experience, new people who have fresh ideas, the community, whatever it takes to help people more efficiently or effectively. Somehow, I cannot imagine that ideas from one individual, or even a small group of individuals, can compare to the ideas gained by a larger group of empowered and passionate people who really want to better their world.

Even such, I'm not willing to sit by as a group of psychologically-impaired people ruin perfectly good programs to make themselves feel better. If you decide to do community action, please remember that we all have limits. Recognize the fact that we work better together than as single units and that more ideas are a good thing. Don't overwork yourself, it only leads to burnout and (again) failed programming. Invest in the people around you and listen to the opinions of those who disagree with you. They usually have good points and, even if you don't concede to their every wish, at least you can put your program in perspective and use their skepticism to improve your project.

Respect is necessary, but don't become so psychologically attached to your program that your personal feelings turn something (namely a program that people rely on) into a political game. The world needs too much work to not keep things in perspective.

Rice and Beans

2006-09-28T12:02:00.000-05:00

So, as I've already stated, it can be a problem for people of color to find suitable role models in mainstream society. We are often portrayed in a biased way by movies, news, and other media. For most of my life, I have compared myself to individuals who are so unlike me that it's hard to connect with them. The only things we have in common, sometimes, is the cultural struggle as a person of color.

Yet, the absence of minority public figures is changing. More often, we see influential individuals who are not married white men. Still, Maria from Sesame Street and a handful of social rights activists don't cut it for me. I don't think that people of color should only be role models because they're sticking up for themselves. It's a sad process, that we must make our mark by participating in our own society because we're denied rights and civil liberties. Don't get me wrong, it's admirable, but that doesn't mean it's not sad. It's still rare to find people of color in the media that are not visible only because they're activists or because they're tokenized.

Despite this, I've managed to finally connect with an role model in the people of color community. Not only is the person African American, but this individual is female, which is quite the accomplishment. On top of all this, she is a woman in power. While this isn't exactly the reason I identify with her, since I'm not exactly a powerful black woman, I can definitely respect the effort it takes to be in the media so much and defending yourself constantly. The person is, of course, our own Condoleezza Rice.

The obviously ecstatic Condoleezza Rice

Not only is Condoleezza Rice in a powerful governmental position, but she is extremely dedicated to her job. I mean, it takes a lot to tell the American people that Bush didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction. There's a woman with integrity and dedication, I tell you! Still, many ask me why I don't go for a different role model, like Martin Luther King. Well, there's a problem. You see, one has to connect with a role model that reflects aspects of your own personality. As an evil genius, I can't really get into the whole "helping humanity" aspect of King's efforts. I'd rather defend an institution that I know to be corrupt because it brings me personal benefit and garners more power each day. Yes, Condi, you are my evil person of color role model.

Unparalleled public speaking, plus a bag of chips

Hats off to the woman for pure nerve. I only hope I can be as focused and single-minded as she is when I grow up.

Eccentric Orbit

2006-08-28T18:39:00.000-05:00

Recently, the International Astronomical Union convened to decide what a celestial body had to do in order to be considered an upstanding member of our solar system. Since the discovery of Pluto, someone had identified another celestial body that was larger than our distant neighbor. Was this new find a planet, or was it not?

For a while there, many people thought we were going to open our arms to another planet. The tenth planet.

So, what was this new candidate's codename?

Xena, which came complete with its very own moon, Gabrielle. Here is where the trouble starts. Do we really want lesbians in our sector of the Milky Way? I mean, with a solar system filled with Roman gods, would Xena and Gabrielle really fit in? Would they get along with Venus, goddess of love and sensuality? What sort of objections would Saturn have, being the goddess of households and good-little-wives? Something tells me that Xena might not be approved for residency.

Did the International astronomical Union stop there? Was it enough to not allow Xena into our solar system?

No. Their eyes turned to our most beloved planet, Pluto. I mean, if Xena was smaller than Pluto, everything would be ok... but Pluto is somewhat deficient in size. Sure, it's a little small, but it was smaller than Xena. Obviously, according to the International Astronomical Union, being smaller than a lesbian planet isn't ok. Pluto isn't allowed to be a major planetary body anymore.

Sure, they made up some nonsense about being able to "clear the neighborhood." However, I don't buy that they're interested in clearing any other neighborhood than their own solar system. Man, Pluto was my favorite planet. Why do they have to be so... emotionally (not thermally) cold?

nothing less than the coolest planet ever

So, here is my tribute to you, Pluto. They had it out for you from the start, but you continued on with your eccentric orbit. I mean, who else showed me that you don't have to be all nice and circular-elliptical to be a planet? You always plotted your own course, even if it got in the way of Neptune at times. They say you might be too small, but I don't buy that either. I mean, you even have your own moon... which is almost as big as you are! You balance it with creative style by not even having its rotational center fall under your surface, and instead, they complain about how unconventional you made your satellite policy.

Plus, nobody pulled off "Mysterious Planet X" like you did. I mean, you were named after the god of the underworld by some eleven-year-old. If she could spot your ultra-smoothness, it had to be something special.

Well, I disagree with their arbitrary decision to not "include" you in our little solar system community. However, you'll always be a planet to me.

They were just jealous of your orbit, I bet.

Here's to you, Pluto. You'll always be my favorite planet, even if you're not a planet anymore.

A Creation-Destruction Story

2006-07-29T20:00:00.000-05:00

As exhausted and humorous as it might sound, I had a revelation on the dance floor.

Recently, I've been doing research into different religions, as I'm sometimes apt to do. I had done a study on Buddhism and was looking for the next thing I wanted to explore. I was about to open the books on Islam when I ran across something that sparked my interest even more.

The article was about the Natraja, the dancing Shiva. The icon is highly recognizable, though I had never actually stopped to explore its meaning.

Shiva is one of, if not the, primary figure in Hinduism. Shiva represents one element of a divine trinity. This aspect symbolizes destruction, but not in a bad way. A useful way of thinking about this destruction is that he destroys evil, or destroys during the act of creation. This concept of destruction as the act of creation is quite interesting, and we'll come back to it. The figure of Shiva supposedly dances the world into and out of existence, while standing upon the vanquished demon of ignorance. He holds each of his hands in a gesture that exclaims a message to the universe. I totally recommend researching the hand gestures.

Anyway, I was speaking of destruction as being the act of creation... while it might seem counter-intuitive, when I read about this, I recognized why this action is represented by dance. While engaged with the music, I feel this spiritual connection with something larger than myself. This musical force fills the room, and literally moves within the air as the beat sounds. This beat represents a form of message from the musician... unless it's Puff Daddy, in which it then represents a message that some other musician created.

However, a dancer creates a message through her movements by using the music created by the musician. In this sense, with only one movement, the dancer destroys the original message and creates her own. The new message can be similar to the intended message from the musician, but it is now colored, or completely altered, by the dancers interpretation. One instance of this is taking a song about purity or abstinence and dancing in a very sexual way. The song suddenly resembles something totally unintended by the musician.

All this is done within one movement and is actually two aspects of the same action. Creation as destruction. Dancing the world into, and out of, existence.

Probably dancing to Brittany Spears

This duality is common in many Eastern spiritual systems, such as the ying-yang in Taoism. Personally, I think that this thread of thought leads down some very insightful paths. One of which, funny enough, has lead me to a decorating idea for my new apartment.

How gay is that?!?

I've decided to take my hard-learned insights to the working of reality and use them to coordinate my bedroom. I've decided to go with an 'origins of inspiration' theme for the bedroom, which takes a tropical-colonial style. The artwork is all inspiration themed, and I have a few artifacts from my travels to various ruins plus France (which I consider a ruin... but in a different context.)

All these put together, I hope to create a new sort of space. I hope that I can really use this space to reflect and recuperate from the stresses of the world... and maybe I'll get into meditation... and maybe start eating more humus... or join Earth-First and raise organic crops...

You've Been Approved

2006-07-03T21:22:00.000-05:00

Every week, I approach my mailbox in horror. No matter how silently I creep, or how diligently I pray, when I open the box I am attacked by an enthusiastic mound of paper, each of them shouting 'You've Been Approved!"

Now, normally, I don't mind having a credit limit that I shouldn't touch; APR doesn't scare me and my finances tend to keep themselves under control. My real concern is two-fold.

1. I'm afraid of suffocating under a pile of envelopes that have the labels 'or current resident.'

and

2. I realize that almost all of these comapnies are evil, blood-sucking, right-wing nut-houses.

That's right. A huge portion of the APR you pay goes to putting candidates into office, whether or not you agree with their politics. The same goes for cigarettes, too.

You spend, he spends, WE ALL SPEND! YAY! Go F*%k yourself, Econ 101!

I wonder if the Republican Party realizes that gays, with their faboulous shopping habits and nasty chain-smoking tendencies, keep their political toadies in power. We give them all that support, and we get nothing but contempt and Senator Frists in return. No sense of gratitude, I tell you!

Seriously, MBNA Bank is one of the largest supporters of the Republican Party in the nation with their donations reaching above 5 MILLION in the last five years. If that isn't scary enough, your credit card is probably backed by that, or a similar, powerhouse, one way or another. You might as well write a check to some random, conservative candidate. Throw a dart, flip a coin, it really doesn't matter... especially when it comes to your political opinions. Everybody deserves to know who their supporting. Your money should go to people who represent you in your government.

If you're already conservative, good for you. Keep paying outrageous APR. I'm sure that money will trickle back down some day. If you're not, then do some research on your card. Make an informed decision. If you're really Left-wing, maybe you can stomach the buyblue website. At least it shows another side of the argument, even if it has article titles like "Vegetables of Mass Destruction: too many bushes, not enough weed." *gag*

All that, but there are still a few issues to solve:
What to do about those envelopes...

Well, if they want me to send them back so much (enough to pay for my postage,) then I'll send them back.

Empty.
See how they like getting their own junkmail.

2006-06-23T19:54:00.000-05:00

I had one of those conversations.

The conversation started as a review of biodiversity in various aquatic environments. I was mislead into thinking that the mid-Pacific Ocean was teeming with different types of organisms. While the region does teem with biomass, the variety of fishes, plankton, and critters can be lacking. Apparently, the key species can be mapped out with little complexity.

There is a interesting relationship between nutrient flow and the amount of biomass in an aquatic area. The fishies die, and instead of providing nummies for lower organisms, they fall way down to the ocean floor. These nutrients get wisked away on currents to provide for growth in other areas.

However, some of the places with the most biodiversity are actually nutrient-poor. Coral reefs can respond negatively to an influx of nutrients from external sources, which makes runoff and chemical dumping dangerous for various coastal areas. Despite the lack of fishey treats, the coral areas teem with life... and with notable techniques, you can create the same effect in a mid-Pacific area.

This transformation can be achieved by simply placing a large floating block of wood on the surface of the water. This object creates spatial heterogeneity, which means that the environment consists of different places to visit, hide, or look for food. The tiny space under the object will create a place for fish to hang out. These fish attract other fish. The numerous fish attract predators. These predators, in turn, bring even more complexity to the little spot.

The same thing happens in coral reefs, except there are even more nooks and corners to explore. With all these different areas, life thrives, and mother nature provides us with some of her most beautiful artwork. If I was a fish, I'd much rather live in a reef than the open ocean. Apparently, many fish agree and share my sentiment.

This got my friend and me thinking. Human settlement seems to be based on nutrient flow rather than spatial heterogeneity. Think about it. Cities, in the Western sense, are mostly about commerce. We lace our homes with concrete road to export goods and wreath ourselves in industry to ensure our ability to gather resources and utilize them efficiently. While this might seem like a natural thing to do, I am haunted by an alternative. Reefs, simply by their complex nature, are able to support a vast array of life. Is there a way to emulate this for humanity?

I think so. I also know that people are trying. People have been trying the 'ideal community' thing for a while now. So far I haven't heard of any overwhelming success. Usually, the results are self-limiting. That, or the smell of pachouli and marijuana choke the inhabitants to death, forcing them to giggle uncontrollably as their crops wilt and die. While I appreciate different lifestyles, a city of nothing but metaphysical, co-op stoners is not my idea of paradise. This also doesn't provide the diversity needed for proper complex community development. One would need a way to blend scientific, corporate yuppies with their more smelly counterparts.

It might be difficult, but if it could be done, nothing would keep me from living there... short of a plague outbreak and general famine. It would be a city of greatness to rival the Rome and Babylon we imagined as children. On top of all this, we've worked out a general guideline for this wonderful 'reef'-city.

The details are a bit complex, but they generally go as such:

Start out with a university. Why? Well, because that's what we, the creators, are used to. That, and it would bring in initial resources needed to start up the city. Besides money, it would also bring in a diverse population of people from different schools of thought. It also sets the groundwork for drawing in technology industry.

We imagined the city as almost completely car-free. We can take our obsession for producing as much as possible, and turn it into social capital. Use the space for more public buildings and programs for the residents. This would form more inter-personal complexity, if done correctly, which helps to utilize resources more efficiently. Reduce the waste, minimize the large corporations that just take your money and take it to Switzerland.

This increase of social capital would also be nice leverage to encourage community engagement. We can pair this capital with an eclectic variety of spaces to work and live. Sections of the city would being to reflect the melange of denizens that inhabit it, and people would feel like they actually have an influence over their environment. This empowerment could lead to more feeling of community and willingness to engage with your neighbors. Studies show this increases community stability, not to mention more participation in community projects and improvements.

Ensure that the city does not rely on conventional building types. Some communities encourage spaces that represent different cultures of backgrounds. Make the ideal city one of them. Not only does this help reflect the diversity inherent to the community, but it gives a larger palate to meet the needs of your populace. We can break the need for cultural similarity in a region and use whatever space that would best meet the needs of the area. After a while, the city would develop totally new spaces altogether. It would be a culture unto itself.

There's more, but the list will have to stop here.

Maybe the ideal city, which is rooted in both science and fancy, will exist in more places than my imagination. I know it could be done, and the experiment alone would be worth the effort. How bad could it be? If noting else, you'd have created one more institution of higher learning, and that is an expense I could live with.

Until then, I can only hope to live my next life as a wrasse... or maybe one of those lionfish. That would be cool.

2006-06-12T03:15:00.000-05:00

If I said I was bound to it forever,

Would you match me word for word?

If my heart didn't know it was over,

Would you understand the circumstance?

If I said I remember our love,

Would you seek me out?

If I could feel you enter the room,

Would you say you ache the same for me?

If I couldn't turn back,

Would I ever find that heart again?

If I said I had one regret,

Would time stop?

2006-06-11T03:18:00.000-05:00

Although the question has never crossed my mind before, I have recently been forced to ponder the question:

Is it better to have NO art, rather than BAD art?

They've invaded Madison, Wisconsin!!! AHHHHH! The cows have landed!!!

...

Leave it to Wisconsin to mix Dadaism, Drugs, and Dairy.

I'll never understand this place.

2006-05-29T22:58:00.000-05:00

I sometimes wonder if that's what it was like before we had civilization, when we were barely more than monkeys, yet we understood what mortality was and that we are transient creatures.

Would two individuals meet in a huge, scary world that went far beyond their ability to comprehend... wandering through life as one would stumble through a dark cavern? Would these individuals then hold hands and suddenly understand that we do not have to brave this world alone? Although we cannot hope to solve the existential dilemma, at least one person would wander in the dark with us.

I hear people ask, 'Is my companion attractive? How socially acceptable will it be for me to hold this person's hand? Will other people think less of me if I love this individual? If I dated someone of greater beauty, would I be worth more?'

I wander through life, and though told I have the light of reason, I understand that we are still in that same dark cave. Of what importance are these questions... for, in the end, we have little sight. I shall love my partner for his or her voice. I shall love my partner for the light he brings into my life. For, in essence, I am blind. Why should one let that which you cannot see keep you from that which brings you joy... especially when this joyous thing has been holding your hand all along?

2006-05-10T10:01:00.000-05:00

I had a dream, recently.

I sailed across a vast ocean to a foreign land. At the blessed sight of shore, we disembarked. I held my flag up high in triumph. I dug the flagpole deep into the earth, claiming the new territory for the glory of the Americas.

An older man in a grey suit and with an English accent came forward.

"Aye, Aye! You can't claim us... We live here! Scores of us!"

Obviously, they were not a civilized lot, so I continued.

"From this point forward, your people shall be called 'Native British Islanders.'"

A land unspoiled by human advancement.

An unruly lot, they were. They had this archaic system of government, where the tribal elders would walk into a cave through one of a set of wooden doors to show their political beliefs.

I think they worshiped an ent with a tiara on it. I couldn't tell with all the vines holding it steadfastly to the throne.

I only have to say that I was terribly amused when I awoke.

2006-05-04T22:04:00.000-05:00

Wow, this is amazing.

FOX news had an interview with Shirley Phelps Roper, the daughter of Fred Phelps. Besides the fact that is woman is completely OFF HER ROCKER, it's almost more amazing that FOX news sided on what is traditionally thought of as 'our side.'

By 'our side,' I mean the gay one. However, maybe it's not so surprising. I mean, in this case, our side is also the SANE side. Fred Phelps has danced on Matthew shepherd's grave every year since he died, to celebrate his 'going to Hell.' In case you didn't know, Shepard was brutally beaten and crucified for being gay years ago. Phelps continues to celebrate his death and preaches that God hates 'gays.' However, Phelps is keeping his stock diverse... and no I don't mean the genetics of his children, I mean his endeavors. Phelps has recently begun to protest the burial of American soldiers because they show the wrath of God for them defending a country that loves us homosexuals.

But, that's not the only wierd sister in the bunch. FOX doesn't have the greatest history of being open-minded, either. FOX seems to court the Republican, and less gay-friendly populace of America, and during many interviews, they take the conservative or even religious side of an argument. So, after watching this interview, I find myself somewhat destabilized by two rather extreme occurrences:

1. Shirley Phelps' insane ramblings

I wonder what HER bedtime prayers are like...

2. ...and the fact that FOX news seems to be almost on our side (for once.)

It's too much to handle at the same time. It almost makes me want to thank God for Shirley Phelps Roper, who does a fantastic job of reminding me why I do activist work. The world simply isn't right until this goes away. I'd love to know how many people just hit rock bottom after watching that video, and turned to 'our side.'

and in case you haven't seen it yet, the video is available online.

Don't eat before you watch it... I warned you.

2006-04-29T16:13:00.000-05:00

These bits and ends
fit together
like a Dadaist jigsaw puzzle
no bauble to fix
or whole to piece together from broken ends
or that beginning
that I have burned a candle for
some moment of temptation
a window to the outside world
with bright sun and percussive beaches
gone dark
tidal waves and hot tubs
a skinny dip in that promiscuous ink jar
to code my heart in texts
coat my hurt in symbols
break my bread
drop a crumb
in case I want to come home again

Social Justice And System Improvement

2006-04-22T10:11:00.000-05:00

So, I've had this thought about the formation of social systems.

It could be argued that my assumption is incorrect, but I believe that we place the sculpting of our social organizations to a few trained people; we elect a representative body, we have an exectutive board, the experienced one creates the program. While this is very efficient, small groups of people are relatively limited. We both see and miss problems based on our personal experience. If we have never been hungry, then our ways of stopping hunger are limited since we have little experience in that area. If we are not a minority, it is hard to imagine or understand the plights of that group of people.

I also believe that we are capable of carrying more burden in large groups than alone. This works in carrying large stones, science, and even structuring political bodies and issues. We have made the process efficient by putting into the hands of specialists, however, this does not make the system effective. It is imperative that there is some form of information feedback for this structure or, chances are, the limited experiences of these specialists will not be able to form lasting structures for large groups of people.

Social justice organizations act as this conduit for information. Groups of people will, of their own free will and momentum, report feedback into policy and social structure so that it is effective in what it sets out to do. Over time, if the system works for more people and still achieves its goals, then there needs to be less revision.

And we all know how resource-consuming revision can be!

Social justice organizations also increase the involvement and ownership in a political/social body. This increases the de facto effectiveness of a program by facilitating the implementation of the change. People tend to participate in things that they feel they helped to create.

Social justice organizations actually save tremedous resources over time by acting as feedback mechanisms in policy-making. I have begun to notice this as time goes by, and I wonder how the ban of civil unions will effect the future of this feedback process. I have a feeling that we're looking at a huge expenditure in the future to fix this slide backwards in state inclusion.

2006-03-23T19:06:00.000-06:00

Ok, I have to let off some steam. I have always been frustrated with the divide that forms between organizations that are investing and those that are destructive. I like to think of them as anvils and fire. Both are VERY needed to create positive social change, but they never seem to work well together. It's the burden of liberal activism to battle itself, as well as its enemies.

Let's look at the first step towards creating change, pushing comfortability limits. The status quo MUST be challenged before people are receptive to the idea that things should be different. That's where the fire groups come in. They are usually reckless and impassioned. They storm up to administration every time they feel that something is wrong. People sometimes get hurt in the process, but what are a few toes in the name of progress, right?

ummm, well, no. It's not alright. There are times that these groups work against their own interests and set back the positive change wrought by the other side of the equation... not to mention the unethical nature of hurting people to impose your viewpoints on them.

I should know, I tend to fall on the fire side of things.

There is the other group, the anvils. Despite their ideals, this group tends to be more conservative. They are usually filled with people whom the system works towards their advantage. This allows them to understand how it works and set about affecting LASTING institutional change. However, being a part of this system can alter your perspective. Working from within a system has its limitations. One tends to believe in the system that we work inside. We begin to adopt the very ideas that we sought to change. But stability is better and more long-lasting than the fire models, right?

Once again, and you probably guessed it... NO! It's no justification to berate the efforts of others working towards the same thing. Their projects and programs are just as valid as yours. On top of that, you need them to facilitate the changes that you try to institutionalize.

I wish some people would stop and think about what they're doing every once in a while before they go and burn buildings down, challenge every other program on the face of the planet, or smother a fiery group with limits and condescension.

Maybe I'm just mad because the, for the first time I'm playing the anvil and trying to create lasting change for social justice, and my own fiery brethren are trying to burn my efforts to the ground.

We are all drunk men, seeking truth with flashlights we refuse to turn on.

It's frustrating.

Oh, I'm reminding myself to write about the function of social justice groups and their place building social capital and increasing the efficiency of institutions. It'll be good. I promise.

2006-03-07T15:28:00.000-06:00

I was on the bus today, on my way back home. I've been kind of tired with spring break preparation. It seems as though my professors are bent on exhausting me before spring break so I can properly enjoy my vacation.

Professors and logic... I tell you.

Anyway, the back doors of the bus start acting up. Once they're open, they would stay open, and occasionally try to close with no success. Of course, we were all stopped until somebody got the doors closed, and the guy standing next to the doors was just staring at them.

Perhaps he was on the wrong bus

So, the rear doors are opening and closing, and I'm not getting any closer to home. I sigh, as Leos tend to do when they have to do the work themselves, and get up. The guy dumbly staring at the door steps aside; I firmly grasp the door handle... and force the doors back into place.

Hard.

The doors snap, as in seriously emit a loud metallic breaking sound. I solemnly go back to my seat aware that the whole bus is staring at me. I continue to read my newspaper.

A couple stops go by and someone rings the bell to get off at the next corner. The bus stops and he pushes on the rear door. Lo and behold, the doors won't open, no matter how hard he pushes. Suddenly, I am aware that I have effectively welded the doors together. I continue reading my paper feeling much more like a severe and no-nonsense type of guy. 'Damn doors won't shut, and nobody'll fix'em... then I'll do it.'

After a while, I start feeling a little guilty. I mean, the people are kinda looking at me whenever someone tries to exit through the rear door. Eventually, I go to the front and talk to the bus driver. I tell her that I'd be willing to put up an 'out of order' sign on the back door if she had paper and a marker. I had run out of paper just earlier in Statistics class. She says 'no, but thanks for the offer.' Ends up, the back door had been giving her trouble for a while and she was glad that was just closed. Someone was already going to meet her at a stop to fix it.

I rolled up my newspaper and got off the bus, telling her to have a nice day.

2006-02-14T12:20:00.000-06:00

Sorry that most of my recent posts have been responsive, rather than reflective. I haven't been taking the time to actually think things through, recently, and it shows in my writing. If you're a recent reader, my earlier writings are much different.

Anyway, since I've decided to focus on different things than reflection recently, I thought I'd think about the actual way I think (as confusing as that might sound.) As most of you know, a major factor of my spirituality focuses on Taoist philosophy. A major tenent I follow is to "unlearn my learning."

...and no, "unlearning my learning" this is not an excuse for me to not do my homework. The basic thought, for me, is that I am probably wrong. Keeping this in mind, we can observe the world and attempt to see its basic nature without our stubborn, human way of establishing things as TRUE when we don't have enough information. When we free ourselves of prejudice and dogma, in all of their forms, we begin to see the world as it exists. If divinity exists, its presence would be visible in everything, and it is probably arrogance to come to definite conclusions based on our limited information. We're just not smart enough to understand things for what they really are.

However, and perhaps paradoxically, after assuming this humility it becomes easier to see the fundamental ways the world works, which is the point of this article.

I'd like to start with a quote that took me quite a while to understand in a new light:

To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour...

--W. Blake

This thought of being able to gain information about one subject by studying another is not a new concept. In fact, it's been a principle of Taoist thought for some time. With enough insight and wisdom, I believe that it could be possible to understand the universe by simply pondering a single grain of sand, even though it is only a small component of the larger picture. Similarly, I believe it's possible to use a grain of sand, and project what a desert might be like, and so on.

Enlightenment is like the moon reflected on the water. The moon does not get wet, nor is the water broken. Although its light is wide and great, the moon is reflected even in a puddle an inch wide. The whole moon and the entire sky are reflected in dewdrops on the grass, or even in one drop of water.

Enlightenment does not divide you, just as the moon does not break the water. You cannot hinder enlightenment, just as a drop of water does not hinder the moon in the sky. The depth of the drop is the height of the moon. Each reflection, however long or short its duration, manifests the vastness of the dewdrop, and realizes the limitlessness of the moonlight in the sky.

--D. Zengi

I enjoy exposing myself to new subjects, so I can reflect on how they relate to what I already understand. I apply my Genetics knowledge to my group leadership interactions, but only by understanding the principles of why things are the way they are and not relying on simple information. By this, we begin to realize that small things can be infinitely expansive. By relating diversity in groups to diversity principles in Genetics, I feel that I gain much insight to the way diversity works. These principles can then be turned into information again by its application. During application, the information can be related to other principles and subjects, thereby recycling our previous understanding.

I don't think I could ever limit myself to one field of study. Though I believe that knowledge is power, I have agreed with the Yaqui brujo, Don Juan, in his statement that 'useless knowledge yields useless power.'

Hmm...

Does it follow that some forms of understanding are more powerful than other?

2006-02-01T21:02:00.000-06:00

So, I have to justify something. Recently, someone pointed out a discrepancy in my opinions.

I am a self-proclaimed libertarian, yet I feel that smoking should be regulated more heavily. "How can you hold these two opinions at the same time?" they ask me.

Well, this question is a matter of public ownership. Along with a dislike for governmental over-regulation, a fundamental principle of my beliefs is that one person should not be given the right to take away the liberty of another without very good justification. Government is the process of forgoing certain rights in order to gain more in return. The moment others use this enforcement power to take liberties away from others without equal representation or consent, the civic process transforms into tyranny. Nobody can tell me who I can love, whether or not I have privilege over my own body, or what I cannot do so long as it does not take away from the liberties of others.

The key to this is taking away liberty from others. When we do this, the whole civic system needs to step in and ensure the rights of its constituents. If we are not giving up a few rights to gain more overall, then why are we doing it? I don't steal because I don't wish to live in fear of my belongings being taken without my consent. I drive on the legal side of the road because I'd like to be able to get to where I am going. I don't smoke because I feel that it endangers my health and wellbeing.

Now, it used to be acceptable to smoke in lecture halls. Student and professor alike would light up without regard to the comfort of the other students. Quite a few students smoked back then, but most of them died of cancer, so that doesn't count. Once people recognized that smoking was deadly, they didn't light up in classrooms anymore.

It's my right to not be exposed to something which could endanger my health, as long as it's feasible. It isn't my responsibility to put up with someone else's chemical dependencies at the risk of my own health. Sorry, but if you'd like to kill yourself, please don't inconvenience me in the process.

We don't allow you to go around shooting people in public places, so please keep your lethal activities to yourself. I don't think my desire for the right to have control over my own health interferes with my libertarian views.

2006-01-19T16:03:00.000-06:00

The concept of marriage as the union between two people who love eachother in the eyes of God is a relatively new idea. If you have ever been married, in the legal or unrecognized way, you'll know that living with you partner brings great economic benefit: twice the income and half the rent.

This economic version of marriage has been the most common until the emergence of 'romantic love,' which is the idea that people could marry eachother for more than their dowry, or political integration of family lines. Traditionally, marriage is the recognition of a man owning a woman, with the father giving her away. Also note that this is the tradition of one particular American Mainstream culture, as there are many other binding ceremonies practiced throughout the world and within the United States.

However, I have heard the argument that the 'sanctity of marriage' is at risk, especially with these gays running around challenging everything.

What I don't understand is how a group of people showing up, saying, 'wow, we'd really like to limit our relationship practices to conform your ideology' constitutes a horrible challenge to the sanctity of a practice...

Unless they're talking about the traditional definition of man owning a woman. Can't have two individuals of the same social standing engaged in a tradition that sells one person to another, now can we? Who with own who in this new type of relationship?

As I see it, 'traditional' marriage is really in jeopardy, just not a jeopardy cause by gays. In fact, should the 'traditional' definition of marriage continue, I'm pretty convinced that the concept of marriage will become outdated. It's just not suited to our new, indiviualistic, emancipated society.

Wouldn't that mean that gays are actually offering to help preserve a conservative fundamentalist Christian tradition. Why, yes, it would indicate that we're doing this. Even though gay marriage happens around the country, even though it's not recognized by law, the rights can be partially compensated for by miles of paperwork and legal filings, we still seek equality, but an equality that conforms to a particular religious viewpoint.

So my question still remains, why all the horror by the conservative, Christian right? You'd think they'd be all about this, but alas, the day has come when gays are defending the conservative agenda while the Christians are working against their own cultural survival. And might I say, it's an odd day indeed.

2006-01-06T09:51:00.000-06:00

There are stories of my people leaving central Texas, the land of our birth.

In these strange lands, the Earth does not want us, because we are not where we belong.

The Earth shakes and trembles, making us weak and homesick. Crops die in memory of a place where we did not hunger and had no disease. Water turns sloid in an attempt to make us thirsty. Yet, we travel.

Away from the place that we were created to inhabit.

One day, I shall return, but today is not that day.

Though I may cough. Though I may shed tears. I know where my home is. One day, the land will guide me safely back.

There are more stories. Stories hear by a little child, many years ago.

Now I read these stories in a book, where I did not expect to find them. They are from an antiquated people who I fear I shall never know. Stuffed between two hard covers, in numberless leaves of paper. The stories are from a people back in central Texas.

The Earth shakes as water turns solid. The little boy cannot help but wonder what makes the distant land his home. The stories? The people? Or perhaps it is a simple as 'because you were created there, and there was created for you.'

Laughing Buddha

2005-12-24T00:15:00.000-06:00

Guess what I just got as a gift?

Yes, that's right, a laughing buddha! (ok, well maybe the picture gave it away a little early)

I'm so excited about my little happy buddha. I was feeling kind of down the previous days... mainly due to little set-backs and petty dramatics going on around me. I was packing for my trip back to Austin, half-sulking, when I remembered that I had gotten a small package the day before. I hadn't had time to open it yet. I had been studying for finals and worrying my life away.

So I opened my little box, and this guy was just grinning back at me from the get-go.

I think I finally understood Buddhism at that moment. I mean, I had read theological literature and memorized a brief history of Buddha(s) but it wasn't until I saw this little guy grinning back at me that I understood.

I claim to be Taoist, though not a very good one. I try to simplify my life and recognize the universal nature of my environment... but I get caught up in the ado of living and sometimes don't get the chance to reflect. I think one of my missing keys is letting go. I had been thinking some negative thoughts recently, knowing fully that these thoughts were keeping me down. Not anymore. Thank you laughing buddha (and friend, you know who you are) for showing me that everything's going to be alright.

So, I think I'm going to carry a little pouch around with me to symbolize buddha's sack, which is one common theme in buddha statues. Laughing buddha supposedly carries a bag around with him to collect the world's suffering. Whenever someone is down, all they need do is rub buddha's belly to remind theirself that, through his teachings, we need not dwell in this suffering. In this action, he takes our suffering, stuffs it in his little bag, and carries it away...

Smiling as he goes.

Why? Well, it's because he's doing what he loves the most, helping others and spreading happiness in the world.

I think that's something I can bear.

2005-12-21T17:51:00.000-06:00

Major Histocompatibility Complex Abounds

the unsung song of antigen presenting cells

You put your life on the line
to present these foreign signs
calling out the truth to cells
through MHC confines
attacking substances that invade our lives
you shout victory to the world
when you help activate the dormant
your importance becomes unfurled
so faithful regardless of the infection
or what an immunologist injects
you don't judge, you just display
on major histocompatibility complex

So, don't let these peptides you ingest
lead you far astray
you do things I don't even do
like recycle every day!
There's no need to feel alone
how you process is not arcane
any cell worth its nucleus presents except
with an added beta-microglobulin chain
so, don't let them call you snitch
because you know it isn't true
proper antigen response is something
important we owe to you!

2005-12-18T11:41:00.000-06:00

John: Ocelots can lick their noses.

Nick: I can't lick my nose...
John: *look of incredulity*
John: That's because you're not an ocelot.

2005-12-15T22:36:00.000-06:00

Alright, so I know I haven't posted in a while. Given that it's final exams time, most of you won't be checking out this site anytime soon anyway. To the rest of you, heh, I haven't been in any position to think anything through anyway.

However, I'm taking a quick break from studying Advanced Organic Chemistry to write about something that was published in our university newspaper.

Apparently, someone thought that it would be a bright idea to bring biological superiority into the argument against gay-marriage. The article appeared in the Dec. 13th issue of the Daily Cardinal. The title ran something like "Biology, Family Values Mandate Same-Sex Marriage Ban." A title like that reminds me how NOT above writing letters to the editor I can be sometimes.

So I did... write a letter to the editor, that is. A damn good one at that. I made the point of my letter about using charged language in such a destructive way. I don't mind if people don't want gay marriage, but there's no need to resurrect the eugenic movement to justify your fear.

...and of course, I couldn't help throwing in a few thoughts I had about giving rights to committed individuals.... and took a stab at the 'scientific' support in his argument, among other things. Yet, I needn't stop there. There are so many other things wrong with the use of Genetic Philosophy in our society. This quasi-eugenic misused Darwinism is everywhere nowadays, as illustrated by the article. So, yours truly, has dedicated himself to being a socially-conscious scientist. I'm forsaking my neutrality in order to make sure nobody comes to grievous harm because of ignorant uses of Genetic Philosophy.

Stand Up for Family Values!

Biology says 'NO' to Homosexuals!
Keep Gays Single!

Might I emphasize that this is not prompted by the civil union amendment currently blazing across Wisconsin. Honestly, I don't think we're going to win this one. The state of Wisconsin will inevitably use it's power to ensure there is no longer a separation between Church and State. Oh well, do your best and regroup for a long war...

But such petty things as civil-union-recognition-debates are no reason to propagate Nazi ideals. Oh, it makes me so frustrated! Did I mention the author of the article is an accounting major? *sigh*

Maybe I should study the use of Genetic Philosophy in society? There's a life calling if I ever heard one.

Ph.D, here I come.

*oh, as a note, the picture comes from the publicly posted Aryan Nations 2004 Congress website... yay*

2005-12-05T23:19:00.000-06:00

So, previously, I stated my belief that there is no difference between men and women.

Now, I'm beginning to feel the same way about race and culture.

I've been told that I speak like a white person... which has baffled me to no end. I simply can't delineate the factors which create "white speech pattern." However, people seem to be able to tell the difference. I just think that it indicates that I've had more schooling than I care to mention... or perhaps it's "white" to be educated?

Furthermore, what does it mean to "lose your culture?" I first heard this term in my Mayan Civilization textbook, which I took to Mexico with me while visiting Palenque. The textbook claimed that the Mayan civilization was ruined after years of war and that the inhabitants lost their culture. However, when I visited them, they seemed to have a culture. It wasn't the same as it was centuries ago, but all things change with time. The Mayan cultures live on in new forms that reflect the rich history of the indigenous population.

Even more confusing is when I hear someone say that a person, rather than a civilization, has lost their culture. Mostly, I hear this from other people of color. Sometimes, people feel that I fit this category, othertimes people say I don't. However, I can't fathom what they mean. It's obviously different than the term used in my textbook.

Saying that another has 'lost their culture' seems to suggest that there was a specific way this person should have had to begin with. What would this look like: The ideal Native American. The epitome of Black Woman. The true form of Hispanic Man. What would it mean to "have" your culture? Is this definition based solely on how 'not-white' I am? Then, how does one define 'white?' Is it how well educated you are, as insinuated above, or simply the fluctuation of melanin in your skin?

The racial divide

It starts to become very complex after a very short time. Once again, we seem to try and justify an archaic term with new concepts. It would be so much easier to phase the old language out.

Now, I must follow this with an important statement. Though race may be completely a social construction, discrimination and prejudice remain very real problems. It's far too common to associate certain traits with negative stereotypes. There is far too much variation to ever believe that you can judge someone based on one or two characteristics. Stereotyping this way only indicates that you haven't seen enough of the world.

So, it might take me a while to figure out who I am, now... though who I am hasn't changed. I'm still proud of my family and my heritage, but I refuse to fight over how "white" or "not-white" I am anymore. It's just not justifiable or worth it.

I have better things to fight over, heh.

2005-12-01T19:25:00.000-06:00

I've never really enjoyed snow before. Not until today.

I mean it can be a fascinating thing at times, and I don't think I've taken it for granted. However, it's kind of cold with a twist of deadly at times. Snow has always been something of a nuisance to me.

Earlier today, I was forced to park at the top of the State Street parking ramp in town. The whole top of the ramp was covered in snow, but it had the last parking spot available, so I took it before anybody else could. It was a clear and sunny day when I left my car there, but by the evening, It had begun to snow.

My car hadn't been covered enough so I would have to brush it off, but I got a chance to watch the light snowflakes as the car warmed up. I turned on my stereo and Enya's Caribbean Blue was playing. It's an alright song, but it's a bit soft for me. After a few Enya songs, I feel like the singer Enya should collapse from hyperventilation.

Yet, when Caribbean Blue and light snow are combined, they have an almost magical effect.

I had the most amazing vision of tiny magical creatures clothed in white fur and lace dancing along the wind, spinning and holding hands as they sped along Winter's breath. At that moment, I think that snow became something more than something to be brushed aside or avoided al together. I saw the small workings of something greater... from the warm safety of my car interior.

I'll post a picture of my vision after finals... and my leadership projects... and after I get some writing done. *sigh*

2005-11-20T23:38:00.000-06:00

She looks so young for her age
the pretty one
oh so wise
with the silver heart
only big enough for one

Which you can tell, because
she'd rather give her love away
than keep any for herself

She, who left a trail of injured lovers
to find her way back home
looked into a reflecting pool
to see a girl unknown to her
a missionary
with a familiar grin
but with no more faith to spread

Shore or not, she'll dive right in
because she's heard tales of hot tubs
somewhere on the southern beach
where she'll raise her hands defiantly
to stop tidal waves

And although I see her cry
with her stoic pretenses
she'd better keep swimming
because she'll get none of my sympathies

2005-11-17T11:08:00.000-06:00

I have always been confused as to why some people feel that homosexual relationships are going to bring about the end of civilization. A couple nights ago, I think I found my answer.

Krafft-Ebing began to spread this thing called 'degeneration theory' in his work Psychopathia Sexualis [1886], which was set in the context of other contemporary theories that emphasized the relationship between evolution and civilization. This thought that a society evolves has not always been popular, nor is it completely incorrect in my opinion. However, Krafft-Ebing, as many other citizens of America, tend to see evolution through colored lenses.

Krafft-Ebing establishes that order and sexual morality are the "basis upon which social advancement is developed."

This extrapolates, of course, that sex is free and wild in 'primitive' cultures, while the order that 'civilized' peoples impose creates the opportunity for culture and sociological evolution to occur.

Now, I do agree that sex is related to evolution, but in terms of cultural evolution, things become more complex. DNA has no moral quandary; cultures do.

But all that aside, let's focus on this idea that homosexuals are the end of civilization. Krafft-Ebing's ideas became dominant for a while and began to shape the way that people viewed sexuality and moral-cultural evolution. For further context, T Roosevelt had established a sort of rugged vision for American superiority in 1901. The vision was that our American masculinity was what made our nation culturally superior to the 'over-civilized' weak nations or the 'savage' uncivilized nations. Should we lose this masculinity, our great nation would eventually fall into ruin.

A model showing French socio-political 'overcivilization'

Ok, I've set it up, now. Sexual morality is key for cultural evolution. American masculinity is the key to our superiority. Homosexuals are a threat to the cultural viability in our civilization.

So, I'm not saying that this progression of thought was conscious, but scientific thought is filtered through the biases of society, and society influences the biases of science. Over time, I feel that homosexuals have unjustly been blamed for the degeneration of civilization, but in an unconscious sort of way.

Way to go eugenics... slapped on the wrist for placing us in concentration camps, but still alive and kicking in the cultural fabric of our 'great nation.' Well played indeed.

2005-11-06T22:35:00.000-06:00

Speaking of Carmen Sandiego, I had a chance to dress up as my childhood hero for Halloween!

Carmen Sandiego has fled to the city most known for police overreaction during Halloween celebrations.

I was surprised that there wasn't more violence on State Street, as opposed to previous Halloween nights in Madison. Only a few accounts of police violence, as usual, when they gas the peaceful population of celebration-minded citizens and harass the women-folk.

However, the use of riot control was probably necessary to maintain order against the lone assailant who fought back against the police.

Oh, and great job of almost fencing in an area you fear may erupt into riots, Mr./Mrs. Madison Official. My respect for you is, as always, substandard.

My respect began to wane during another Halloween celebration three years ago. I dressed as a swashbuckler, pointy weapon included. When approached by the police, an officer told me I wasn't allowed to have objects like that in the celebration. He asked me if the sword was sharp...

Then gripped the sword and pulled along the potentially razor sharp edge.

Obviously, his fingers remained intact, but it doesn't make someone to appear smart if you ask if an object is dangerous, then proceed to use the object on yourself to find out.

Dearest Madison, I wonder if I'll miss you when I'm gone.

Carmen Sandiego

2005-10-23T21:26:00.000-05:00

I am in marvel of the awesomeness that is Carmen Sandiego.

While I was growing up, it was tough not having Hispanic role models in the media. I mean, there was Maria from Sesame Street... God, I hated her. She'd say, "Si means yes in Spanish!" then they'd cut to the next scene. She was a good little wife to Carlos and was always terribly well-behaved.

Sensitive, subservient, sickeningly sweet.

'Hmmm, if that's what Hispanic is, I'm certainly not it,' I used to think to myself. I searched for somebody to tell me that I could be someone in the world. There were all these programs on prime time about people-who-didn't-look-like-me doing all this cool stuff... and I got Maria.

The not-awesomeness that is Maria

Major let down, I tell you.

Dark clouds were on the horizon. Most people who looked like me on tv couldn't speak English, were being beaten by the cops, or lived in poor neighborhoods that seemed like they were made more of chain-link fence than houses.

Until she came along.

Carmen Sandiego just stole your underpants

That's right, suddenly there was a Hispanic woman that not only spoke perfect English, but she could get away with wearing a huge red trenchcoat and wide-brim fedora without looking like she was about to undergo nuclear combustion. Now that takes style.

She was amazing. She laughed at the racist system that had oppressed her for so long, walked right up to the Eiffel Tower, put it in her briefcase, and walked away like nothing had ever happened. Man, that was so much better than all the other Hispanic people on tv that couldn't even steal hubcaps properly!

And best of all... she was smart. She was so smart, she created these cunning plans to steal major landmarks and left clues for the helplessly white detectives, who simply had no chance of matching her criminal mastermind. She had no fear. I was in love.

In all honesty, I totally related to Carmen Sandiego as a kid. I'm not sure if you know the story behind Carmen, but I would never forget. She was an orphan that eventually joined the Acme Detective Agency in hopes of making the world a better place. However, after realizing that the system was corrupt, she took matters into her own hands by stealing the treasures of civilization. It was almost like she was telling mankind to not use overly-large obelisks to validate our civility, which is too often strained in our modern world. She became the most feared evil genius ever known to man.

I mean, last time I played the game, she was hiding in New Deli with Antarctica. That takes talent, I tell you.

She even seems to have transcended to different levels of existence. I mean, now there's 'Where in Time is Carmen Sandiego' and 'Where in Math is Carmen Sandiego.'

I think 'Where in Existential Philosophy is Carmen Sandiego' should be next.

"Do you even exist anymore, Carmen?"

"Define 'exist,' Gumshoe."

Now there's a character I can be proud to call my childhood role model.

2005-10-14T16:39:00.000-05:00

Dear Bed:

I realize that we haven't spent as much time together as we used to. We used to be so close. You used to keep me warm on cold winter nights. I miss your soft embrace.

It's for this reason that I write this letter. I need to make myself clear; I still love you. Even if I am not there, you are always in the back of my mind. When I grow tired of the things life throws across my path, my first thoughts are of you.

Recently, with so many tests, projects, and general menial life taking up my time, I have not gotten around to expressing how much you mean to me. I am sorry. I did not mean to leave you cold and empty. Since I cannot bear our estrangement, I assure you that I shall make time for us to be together.

Someone wise once told me that you should always make time for something you love.

I'll clear my schedule. I promise.

2005-10-11T15:16:00.000-05:00

I am astonished at how much Genetics has affected my basic philosophy.

In my Women Studies class, we are required to read articles meant to establish a historical context for 'masculinity.' One article is about how Theodore Roosevelt linked gender and masculinity to race. He supposedly did this by establishing American white supremacy by means of taking the masculinity from other cultures. The article mentions that he might have justified this cowboy novel attitude with Darwinian logic.

I though to myself, 'How naive to let Genetics affect your philosophy in such a way without stopping to think about it.'

Then it struck me.

I believe that the best model for establishing a model for truth is to create an idea, then take this idea and smash it to the ground. Whatever part of the idea survives is probably more right, what is left should be adapted. Smash, rebuild, repeat. I know we'll never reach a perfect model of truth, but it's fun to try.

But... but, isn't that survival of the fittest except taken out of context and used toward Truth!?! Wow. Unwittingly, I have allowed myself to be indoctrinated and then have been spreading my personal view as a philosophy. I have used this philosophy in action many times. It has affected my own and other's lives through my activism and readiness to 'test' another's ideas in order to test its validity.

A Girl Genius representation of me unwittingly affecting others with my Darwinist philosophy

So, it's time to think about how I impose my world-view on others again... and it makes sense as to why I'm sometimes viewed as being a bit aggressive when it comes to making positive change.

I'd probably be kind of irked if someone came and hole-punched my personal philosophy looking for bits and pieces to apply to someone else's Darwinian theory.

Ooops.

2005-10-10T21:52:00.000-05:00

I've noticed that many people get caught up trying to justify why they are right, as opposed to attempting to reach their goals. I mean this specifically in the context of organizations, but it could hold true for quite a few situations

So many organizations initially form to create positive change. They know what change they would like to see in the world. Let's feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, create equality...

After not too long, the group (or individual) creates an action plan... their specific vision of how they will make this change manifest. After a while, people gain experience; they develop their theories and their opinions based on their own observations.

However, many fall into the trap of defending these new opinions and theories because it's the action plan they think will work best. In arrogance, they seem to stop admitting their own ignorance and cease to evaluate their methods. The group begin to break apart because, instead of focusing on the goal of making the world better, they are too busy defending the opinions and methods they have formulated.

I've seen many good groups fracture due to this lack of evaluation. Even the most liberal group can get caught in the conservation of their own beliefs. I've been guilty of this before, but I'd like to think that reality smacks me around afterwards. I'd like to think I know my ignorance.

In my opinion, any good scientist will tell you that whatever we think will be wrong one day. They would approach the world knowing that they will never understand how anything truly works, but what is most important is that we refine ourselves and our tools in the attempt to understand. True exploration embraces ignorance, because it is our ignorance that allows us to explore anything in the first place.

Here's a scary thought... statistically speaking, you are wrong in any particular thing you say, despite the research or validation you find in books or other people.

Take jars of jelly beans, for instance.

A completely unassuming jar of jellybeans

If I ask you to guess the number of jellybeans in the jar, whatever quantity you give as your guess is very likely to not be the correct answer.

However, if you take many people's guesses as to the number of jellybeans in the jar and average them, the number is usually quite close to the actual quantity. Sometimes, the number is only off by fractions. Try it yourself sometime.

Anyway, I think that realizing our own ignorance is one of the most important qualities of exploration and learning. Once we embrace our limitations, we begin to focus on how our methods are flawed and how we can improve them to achieve our goals.

Whether the subject is an organization or a person, we must always take a moment to adapt and reevaluate why we are doing the things we are doing. Asking ourselves how we can do better is infinitely more important than declaring why we are right.

Girl Genius

2005-10-03T20:33:00.000-05:00

Comic books feature these amazing characters with earth-shattering, cosmic powers.

And, yet, they expect the average comic book reader to identify with the protagonist's struggle against evil. Most comic book readers I know have a hard time struggling with their shoelaces. Obviously, this is a diabolical plot in the name of evil.

So, my ex was into comic books. He told me that I simply had not read enough comic books to find a hero that inspired me.

I went to the comic book store and tried a few of the story-lines out. This is what I found:

Subject One-

Laser vision, super strength, and the ability to fly... not things I do on a regular basis. I can't even think of what good super strength would be nowadays. I mean, I could move that red sportscar that keeps parking in my assigned spot, but then the alarm would go off and it just wouldn't be worth it... No, I am not able to leap tall buildings with a single bound. I can't even bring myself to leap more than one stair-step at a time.

I'll wait for the elevator, thank you.

Subject Two-

Yes, I'd like to be a whiny spider... that's my idea of heroism. I'll climb buildings and fling sticky stuff from my fingers. Not to mention, I'm terrified of spiders.

I just don't think I'm creepy enough to pull that one off.

Subject Three-

I'm far too brainwashed by my Genetics major to buy into the whole mutant-powers thing. I keep trying to figure out how they get recessive traits like that to stay dormant so long, then pop up in only one person. The equations must be nightmarish... like the ones in Population Genetics that are so horrid they incorporate surprise (!) into the calculations.

No, that won't work either.

What is a boy to do without a hero? So, I gave it one more shot.

And what I found was intriguing...

1. The main character is a female. While this is not, in itself, astounding... the fact that she wears tweed is. Well, the fact that she wears clothing at all is pretty amazing. What is it with comic heroines and spandex?

2. The heroes and the villains have the same power. At least this is a little more believable... but it gets better!

3. The power is the coolest thing ever. It's called The Spark.

Ok, The Spark can be identified by three main qualities. Firstly, a person with this gift is highly predisposed to blowing up laboratories.

Something I can go with... though that last explosion wasn't entirely my fault.

Secondly, The Spark grants the hero or villain the ability to analyze and understand any complex system they are interested in.

Finally, a power that doesn't lead me towards bludgeoning the enemy to death with my fists! Evil-Death-Rays are so much more chic.

Thirdly, whenever a Spark comes across a situation where they can't figure something out, or when something could be improved upon by means of Mad Science, they go crazy.

Now you're talking! Adventure, Romance, MAD SCIENCE!!! The name of the comic?

How much better can it get? A whole comic book about the adventures of a female mad scientist in a world besieged by other mad scientists! It's drawn with astounding beauty and the humor is undeniably quirky, yet clever.

So, I'm going to have to put a link to the comic, which is available online, in the sidebar of my blog.

And... and maybe I could add a few graphics into the sidebar... and some words for the day... and and Subliminal Messages! Yes! Subliminal Messages encoded into the...

A Biochemically Better Gay

2005-09-30T11:17:00.000-05:00

I had this crazy thought while sitting in Biochemistry class.

The teacher was doing an excellent job confusing me regarding Gibbs Free Energy and biological processes when I realized something. All processes that do not have input tend towards equilibrium. Let's take the example of a perfume bottle being opened in a room. All of the perfume is in the bottle, while none of it is in the room... and because of this difference, called a gradient, the perfume begins to spread.

Ok, well this isn't a new scientific concept; let's add another concept to it:

It takes more energy to make similar pairings than different pairings, as systems tend towards heterogeneity. This is related in part to the above concept, but it can best be shown with magnets or Adenosine Tri-Phosphate, called ATP.

ATP is a molecule that our bodies create to drive biological reactions. There are little magnetic phosphate groups that our body will force together, even though they have the natural inclination to fly apart. Imagine you placing two north ends of a magnets together. They fly away from eachother once you stop holding them together. If you want them to touch, it requires extra energy in the form of you physically pushing them next to one another.

A generously borrowed graph of ATP function

Our bodies stores energy by pushing these ATP 'magnets' together, then using the stored energy to make our bodies work. Life will go through great lengths to create these similar-magnet pairings... but only because they are very important.

Let's pull this to traits and populations. Given ideal settings, traits in a population will favor heterogenous, or non-similar, pairing as a function of statistics. It takes great energy or selective pressure to change this equilibrium.

Alright, throw in one more concept, and you'll see where I'm going.

Homosexual pairing, given ideal settings, is a trait that has 100% fatality. This trait ensures that our pairings will not produce offspring.

Without cause, a trait with this type of fatality tends towards equilibrium. Without cause, homosexuality wouldn't exist. It's just not physically possible to keep us around otherwise. Why spend all this energy to make similar pairings when the state with greatest free energy is heterogeneity?

Well, that's an interesting question. Why do homosexuals exist? Biology must have some damn good reason for creating us, since we require so much just to have around! It can't be unique to human interaction, since homosexuality is common in a huge number of animals. It has to be some basic function to the survival of the species.

Well, don't I feel special today?

2005-09-28T23:09:00.000-05:00

Metrosexual.

It's an interesting word, and I must admit that I've never really known its definition. I know what it means, but that's something completely different.

I keep wondering what identity 'metrosexual' is based off. It's so nebulous. However, there are a few hints about The Metrosexual's identifying traits which may help us pin down a definition.

1. The Metrosexual is not gay.

I'm not sure why this is important, but it seems as though The Homosexual gets his own grouping. This is rather interesting, as it either says something about the assumptions we have about homosexuals

-or-

the metrosexual identity is actually based off of homosexual identity itself.

2. The Metrosexual is well spoken and usually very educated.

This is also usually coupled with liberal beliefs and, if not an open mind, then trying to seem like they are exposed to things-that-make-them-cool.

3. The Metrosexual is always in touch with the latest trends and fashion.

They will go to great lengths to look well-dressed and spend great resources on the same things-that-make-them-look-cool.

4. The Metrosexual has a softer side.

A major identifying factor, for me, if that metrosexuals never seem to have a need to establish their macho superiority over other people... unless it's about being the most fashionable or best dressed. Old gender norms seem to be more flexible for them, sometimes more so than compared to their homosexual brethren.

5. And yet, The Metrosexual is never a woman.

Official 'The Metrosexual' Logo

I see a trend here. Dress me in pink if I'm wrong...

Throughout history, those with privilege have had the greatest freedom in breaking gender norms. Being in a higher class than those around you allows you to take on feminine traits while not seeming weak. It's almost saying, "I have so much privilege, I don't even have to use my macho power to prove my superiority."

Metrosexual seems to be about class... and the stereotype that straight men are dirty while gay men are dapper and neat!

Don't get me wrong, The Metrosexual is usually a great ally for equal rights and an excellent individual at the same time, but I've always gotten that sense of careless displays of privilege from 'self-proclaimed' metrosexuals.

Perhaps I'm wrong. I guess you'll know if you ever see me in pink...

<like I'd be caught dead in pink, anyway>

2005-09-22T19:46:00.000-05:00

Here at the great University of Wisconsin at Madison, we seem to have developed two different campuses.

First, I have to describe the basic lay out of our university:
On the north side, we are bordered by a beautiful lake
To our south lays a corridor of dense off-campus housing

Naturally, our campus has developed in a very linear, east-west fashion. The East side of campus has our Humanities Building, Education, Business, and the Memorial Union. The West side of campus has the Biochemistry, Engineering, Genetics and Microbial Sciences. Let's not mention Union South... our union.

It might help to mention that Memorial Union is infinitely prettier and holds most of the campus' activism, while Union South has a study program and a lounge for reading textbooks... and in its current form, Union South seems to be made from one solid piece of poured concrete. Never say Madison doesn't have its communist side.

Needless to say, East is Humanities... West is Science.

So, as I strolled down the major streets in our university, I kept wondering why it had developed this polarized fashion... most likely because similar classes should be close to one another to reduce travel time. However, before I could complete my thoughts, something caught my eye.

It wasn't anything new to me, as I have grown accustomed to the three looming buildings that lay in the middle of our campus. Yet, suddenly, it all made sense. They stood there, like sentinels guarding the science-side of campus from the humanities.

Math, Physics, and Chemistry

How fitting, I couldn't help but think. That would certainly keep me out of the science side of campus... I wish I had thought of that BEFORE declaring my major!

I can't imagine three greater giants that could separate our two schools of thought.

That's such a better explanation for why UW developed the way it did. It's almost convincing enough to make me think that some city planning happened in Madison, even if it's obvious that previous city planning in this once-swampy strip of land is pretty improbable.

Heh, I love Madison.

2005-09-18T19:53:00.000-05:00

So, what is the difference between analysis and reflection anyway?

I've known people who are incredible analysts. They can look at any system or situation and gather impressive amounts of information. Their ability to remember relevant things is astounding and they invariably have the ability to recall incredible amounts of data. They wield equations as a martial artist would hold a sword.

I have great respect for analysis. My scientific background has trained me in a social philosophy geared towards coming closer to 'truth.' We know we'll never gain it, but we understand the basic human need to explore the world in a structured way. Science teaches one to share information with one another to push our human endeavor forward.

However, analysis alone does not create knowledge and information by itself is not power.

An obvious attempt to seem deep

I also have friends who contemplate the nature of the universe. They wander through life looking at flowers, trying to discern the Ultimate Truth from the color of their petals.

Which isn't as silly as it sounds.

I've often felt that if there is an underlying, governing force to the universe, that it will lay in waiting beneath every rock you turn and every rose you smell. The ability to derive meaning and interconnections from things fosters the expansion of the human mind. These friends are often wise and intuitive. I respect their reflections.

Yet, it is impossible to gain great wisdom from little experience. A reflection only appears when there is something before the mirror.

Another obvious attempt to seem deep

So, how does on get this elusive 'knowledge?' Where does it come from?

Well, my wise friends have it right, in my mind. You can see the universe in a grain of sand. Yet, I also believe that the search for information drives the human spirit to explore their world and gain the experience we need.

I've been thinking... wouldn't it be better to pursue the refinement of both these skills so we can fulfill both halves of this process? It seems like it's important to explore the world and be efficient in squeezing the most amount of information from our experiences, then stop and understand what it is that we have gotten. It requires the wisdom of a reflective mind to truly gain the most insight from what information we have.

Too bad wisdom conflicts with my science major and philosophy isn't conducive to gathering anything but debt. Oh well.

2005-09-14T19:09:00.000-05:00

In my opinion, spontaneous dance is the purest form of art.

Now, I'm not an artist by trade or formal education, but I think about this a great deal. Spontaneous dance exists only as long as you will it to exist... and it is truly transient. It is never reinterpreted and it never loses the matrix in which it was created.

The form of spontaneous dance is best understood when compared to painting. Don't get me wrong, it's not that I disrespect painting at all. In fact, I paint every once in a while... and while I am not the greatest painter, I enjoy it a great deal.

However, once something is painted, it becomes a permanent representation of something that is in a constant state of change. Whether the object of change is societal context of the painting or the actual subject itself, this representation must be reinterpreted right after the art is completed. Of course, this can be useful, but it creates a secondary variable to the artistic representation... reducing it from a primary expression from the artist to the viewer.

Let us also look at static dance, or dance that is predetermined. Though the two types of dance are similar, there is the problem of constraint. In static dance, the representations, or predetermined movements, are created... and from that point onward, there is a right and wrong way to represent that expression through movement. This constraint also creates a secondary variable in the artistic expression's conveyance.

A dancer looking into the purity of spontaneous dance
she observes grace of movement, creativity of expression...
and the polish of her fingernail

There is no such removal of context or constraint in spontaneous dance. This lack of constraint creates something entirely different in form and gives me a completely different feeling during its creation. I'm always amazed at how spontaneous dance can be simultaneously larger than the dancer, but at the command of her interpretation.

The dancer becomes immersed in a field of music that is grander than herself and is swept away as the music moves her body. However, by the very allowance of this action, she becomes the master of the music. She forms it and changes its interpretation, both in her own eyes and the eyes of the observer.

It almost reflects a very spiritual side to us in relation to the world. So, I guess the premise of the whole entry is how moving pure art can be...

pun intended, of course.

2005-09-10T17:09:00.000-05:00

Don't drink copious amounts of alcohol when you're sick.

It may seem like a wise idea at the time... but it's not. Trust me.

A medical diagram of the effect of alcohol when you're already sick

2005-09-09T13:47:00.000-05:00

I have been contemplating the nature of 'leadership' recently. This is mainly due to it being time to start planning our yearly gay leadership conference here at the University of Wisconsin - Madison. Last year's conference was an amazing event and I'm looking for an encore.

However, I've managed to deconstruct 'leadership' in my mind to the point that it would be hard to teach right now. So, I'm pouring through manuals and texts looking for a good way to teach a subject I'm having to relearn. Along the way, I've stumbled across some interesting things that I had never thought before.

Relearning something can bring new light in ways that simple forward motion can't illuminate.

One section of my book is talking about empowerment of group participants. A 'follower' or 'co-creator' of social change will generally stick around if they feel that they are being heard and appreciated by the leader. At the core of leadership is the fundamental belief that we, as social beings, can do better in collaboration than we can independently.

Still, there are people who chose to not be part of the civil system. Most people agree that multiple people are capable of much more than the individual, yet there exist segments of society that reject this premise altogether, often to the detriment of others.

There can be two solutions as to why this happens:

1. I am wrong in my assumption that people are capable of more in association than alone.

-or-

2. These people reject this idea because they feel that they can do better fending for themselves. Most likely, this is caused by the civic system not working for them, or actively making their lives worse. This would result in crime, disregard for others, and the breakdown of society at times.

So, my next question is, does everybody have the right to fend for themselves if society isn't working for them? Do we actually cause crime by tolerating injustice and pain?

I don't know the answer to these questions, but I can't help but wonder if society can ever progress so long as we leave people behind. I imagine a utopian society where we all look out for the welfare of each citizen as a fellow. This makes each of us responsible for the leadership process... and makes us the true foundations of civilization.

At the risk of sounding a bit less-libertarian than I'm comfortable with, how do we reach this happy medium between social progress and social progressivism?

2005-09-07T13:40:00.000-05:00

New Orleans lay in ruins, while so many people go wanting. Looting and violence continue... times are hard. What is it that makes a tragedy in New Orleans unlike a tragedy anywhere else in the US?

A fellow leader once turned to me and mentioned that no true leadership has emerged to face the hard times brought on by wind and rain. I have this romantic image of humanity standing before a storm, enduring hardship. We are amazing in our form and association... yet all of that has been abandoned for looting and quick acquisition. Why forsake civility so soon?

Honestly, I think it's the long years of unending oppression thick in the Louisiana air. New Orleans has always been a symbol of poverty and hopelessness to me. The people of the area know they don't have an influence over their environment. Life is hard, and one has to face hardship alone in the end. This oppression can make one too weak to stand up against adversity, which is what happened in New Orleans. Living in the murder capital of the world can make you guarded after a fashion, and distrust of the person next to you makes it hard to be a citizen.

New Orleans has reminded me that lack of compassion kills. Should disaster strike me and those around me, I would like to think that I would not abide people to suffer. This need and faith that humanity deserves better lays at the foundation of civilization and leadership.

So, I ask you:

What are you doing to make your world better today?

Libertarians

2005-08-29T16:50:00.000-05:00

Why is it that all Libertarians are foaming at the mouth crazies?

First, I have to say that I am a Libertarian. I uphold the political ideals of Social Justice, Equality, Peace, and Simple Government. Yet, it would be politically irresponsible for me to vote for any Libertarian candidate.

Tragic, I say. Absolutely tragic.

Well, not all is lost. One still has to admire third parties, as they're much more influential than you'd expect. Political cohesiveness is terribly important in a state like Wisconsin, where a few votes can swing the color of the state. However, in my native state of Texas, the color isn't likely to change anytime soon.

This does not mean that you can't influence the politics of the dominant party. Being a libertarian, besides eventually making you hear voices in your head, sends a message to party leaders. This message helps to shift party lines, eventually.

This sort of system can work very well, especially in a multi-party system where representation is by percentage vote and not by political majority. It doesn't make sense to have 100% of political influence go to a party that has 51% support. A system like this tends to simplify causes and create a lot tension between people who should be dedicated towards making our society better... not fighting eachother.

Why not have 51% of the political power go towards the party that got 51% support?

Not that you have to agree with me on this obvious choice, of course. The beauty of democracy is within the expression of different beliefs and ideas... which means you're not allowed to beat me up next time you see me for being Libertarian. Right?

... right?

Public Library Documentaries

2005-08-26T15:00:00.000-05:00

Am I the only one that's noticed something rather peculiar?

Often, I borrow documentaries from the Madison Public Library, which I do to avoid spending my time reading books that I'm not really interested in. I simply watch the nicely-packaged, informative tape and, should I find the subject intriguing, I subsequently borrow a book to find out more.

I realize this makes me very dorky, but I find it pleasing to know random facts about the fall of communism, Lithuanian history, and the mating habits of bonobo monkeys.

However, every time I borrow these videos I have to air out my room. Why? Well, it so happens they smell strongly of HIPPY! That earthy, 'I haven't had a bath in fourteen days' odor that is so common in the campus humanities building, cooperative living houses, and Earth First meetings.

My question is: How does one purposefully get a video to smell like a hippy? Is it some plastic that emits a terrible stench? Couldn't they find a 'cleaner' plastic to use? Is the other person who rents documentaries so bad smelling that the odor clings to the video permanently? Would I recognize this person by passing out in public from coming too close to him/her?

Or perhaps the person simply smears the video across their skin, in obvious elation to learn more about the Mesopotamian civilization.

I'm not sure, but they are all disturbing thoughts nonetheless.

2005-08-25T00:08:00.000-05:00

We stand before your threshold
With memories of lazy embrace
Two feet firm upon the ground
I watch you fly away
Envious of your affair
with the shadowy and distant moon
Yet afraid to do more than whisper
my need for you
Lest you finally look into my eyes

I shall miss you.

2005-08-24T14:08:00.000-05:00

At last, the terrible days of moving and readjusting are over. Now I get to start my University Routine so I can subsequently break it with too much partying and slacking off. So with university and moving day in mind, I'm reminded of a yearly ritual.

Every summer I swear two things:

1. I'll never move again. It's way too much hassle and this apartment is so cool! I should just stay here until I finish (insert endeavor I am in the city for).

2. I'm actually going to study this year. My education is so important and I'm doing myself a disservice by not doing homework and constantly skipping class. I'm turning over a new leaf! Scholarly lifestyle, here I come!

Well... here I go again, making those pledges.

I won't mention that this year will be my hardest so far. Good thing I forgot that dropping all my hard courses and saving them for later would eventually come to bite me in the end. Ug.

And moving! I love actually being in a new place, but the process itself is pretty sucktastic. The worst aspect of any transition is my least favorite of all the materials, glass. Yes, Glass. It not only has the audacity to 'shatter,' exploding into a million pieces, but it taunts you with injury and danger. I'm under a distinct impression that glass is rather malicious and vain.

Well, for one, I'm not putting up with it anymore. No more wrapping everything transparent in my life up in newspaper every time I want to be free to roam around and live where I like.

So, I'm off to replace everything with good old fashioned plastic. Hurray for yuppie society.

2005-08-16T12:19:00.000-05:00

I don't have internet right now. Currently, I'm going through internet withdrawls.

When someone asks you if you have a computer, they don't mean do you have a monitor, CPU, and keyboard. They mean internet access.

I am totally addicted to information access.

Besides that, things have been relatively constant in their flux. My boyfriend has moved out of Madison in preparation to move across the nation, so I find myself suddenly single and without anybody worthy of cuddling with. Add to this my final move from my old apartment and my roommate going back to Europe... permanently. Things are under constant construction downtown just in time for all twentysomethings in Madison to move on the same day.

Yet, moving day has passed and I am left typing in a public library.

Hurray for me. I think I'll count the minutes until I get my cable net installed.

2005-07-31T02:56:00.000-05:00

I suddenly remember a phrase.

This phrase was uttered by a friend of mine as we were discussing a non-profit program I felt very strongly about. I got caught up in how important I felt the project was; we could change people's lives. We could do our civic duty.

How grand to be able to actually leave this world a better place than when we arrive!

Knowing he had valuable skills, I turned to him and said, "You know, a program like this could really make a difference. It could really use a marketing perspective. Any advice?"

He stared off into the distance, "I really don't need any more advertising experience on my resume."

Is it strange that I've never forgotten this?

Men And Women

2005-07-26T20:39:00.000-05:00

I don't think there is any difference between men and women. Literally.

I know you'll look at that statement and wonder, but think about it for just a moment:

As I've noticed, people try two methods of distinguishing between men and women. The first is based on anatomy and the other is based on genetics. I'm convinced that the rest is simply societal reinforcement of how we should act as a particular sex.

This leads me to create a distinction between gender and sex. Gender is a complex social and psychological state that varies between every individual.

Sex is... well, sex is kind of vague. There's no real definition, and there's a sneaking suspicion that sex was created solely to enforce gender norms. 'How can this be,' you ask.

1. Genitalia doesn't determine sex to me. This would imply that a man with a large penis is more of a man than someone not so well-endowed... which is ridiculous. Not only is this macho-crap, but it excludes many of the alternative genital expressions.

Many people are born with androgynized genitalia, creating a spectrum of 'manhood' and 'womanhood,' which doesn't bode well for having traditional categories of sex.

2. I used to think chromosomes determined sex until I became a geneticist. In the same manner that the complex process of genital development can vary, so can different chromosomal patterns.

Funny enough, the X and Y chromosome are some of the only chromosomes that nature allows us to play with. This spectrum of sex chromosome expression kind of kills the genetic determinism for 'male' and 'female.' Can't have a polar system when more than two conditions exist.

So, rather than aimlessly searching for another excuse to recreate sex, I'm going to abandon it all together. 'Male' and 'Female' are obsolete terms in my opinion.

This runs contrary to quite a few religious and social dogma sets, but they can be flimsy at times. Almost all religions believe that a human is more than just the collected biochemical processes in their body. We have a human spirit that transcends physical form.

However, there are people who quote dogma that love cannot exist between two people having insufficient anatomical differences. Hmmm, this makes me think that these religious people don't believe in the human soul. That, or they equate 'love' with a horizontal thrusting motion. Love is a bond that transcends physical barriers. To bring it down to what is hanging between another person's legs is basal, don't you think?

There is also the Western-religious argument that woman was created from man, therefore they belong together... Fun, but wasn't man created from a being that had no sexual differentiation? Supposedly, humanity was the first to be split into two sexes... IF you read it literally.

A white Adam and Eve obviously ashamed of their archaic sexual identities

So, I guess this means I can't be bisexual anymore... or gay. I'm kinda stuck with just being me, which is alright in my book.

I'm ok with ambiguity.

Weapons Of Less-Lethal Destruction

2005-07-21T02:22:00.000-05:00

Dear God, run!
In the Pentagon's need to prove it's ability to create very expensive versions of older technology, we have reached a new level in riot control. Yes, world, our American penis is, indeed, larger than yours. We can prove it, too.

I kid you not. This is in fact a raygun.

The so-called-less-lethal weapon, shown above, is intended to microwave rioting people causing extreme heat and "intolerable pain" within five seconds of activation, according to Reuters.

Microwave. Intolerable Pain.

I ask you, what ever happened to the good old days of billy clubs and water hoses?

'So, what does this mean for ME, your average rioter,' you might ask. Well, for one, State Street on Halloween will probably never be the same. Our sleepy, 'progressive' city has the pleasure of hosting a yearly riot every October 31st. But this year, leave your glasses, contacts, and small metal objects at home. Engineers asked test subjects to remove these items from their person to avoid serious damage during weapons testing.

Cause God knows I always remember to remove these items before getting swept away in political demonstrations!

I just don't know how I feel about microwaving people... and I certainly know how I feel about getting microwaved. I'll have to rethink any of my revolutionary plans to avoid getting a very quick tan.

...and who volunteers to get microwaved, anyway?!?

"Excuse me, sir, but may we microwave you?"
"I don't think that I should..."
"In the name of American Patriotism, of course!"
"Oh, in that case, microwave away, my good man!"

And how will we adjust the pain settings for people of different ethnicity than our own? Too many complicated questions to answer, in my opinion. However, we are once again safe from any rioters that were not susceptible to rubber bullets, tear gas, tasers, high pressure water, and physical barriers. Thanks to a multi-million dollar investment, I can sleep soundly again.

I'll worry about affording universal health care tomorrow.

Even Stranger in a Strange Land

2005-07-15T12:54:00.000-05:00

Most of the time, provincialism is just a minor nuisance to me. The Provincials walk around and buzz like insects, spouting ideals they were handed down like some heirloom, never be questioned. Normally, I would say that Conservatives make the worst kind of Provincials...

But I live in Madison, Wisconsin.

The progressives in Madison can be so immature and myopic at times that I could just scream. Usually, I'm a very tolerant person... but they've defiled my car. My car! The most likely case is that some drunk progressive walked down the street and saw my Texas license plates. I can see the liberal thoughts running through his/her head right now:

"oh, look... someone from Texas..."
"Bush comes from Texas, and I hate Bush."

"Therefore, this person must be different than me. I hate things that are different than myself."
"I must assure that this one individual suffers for the actions of his people!"

The person then decides that it's a good idea to bend my plates inward and de-case my side-view mirror. Oh my God, I could murder this person.

I have just a few items to complain about. My highly trained scientific mind has a few problems with his f**ked up logic!

1. I'm not conservative.
2. I didn't vote for Bush.

3. Yes, I'm from Texas. In fact, all my family is from Texas. We've been in Texas since before people came over on boats. It's my Homeland! I can't help but get slight traces of racism from his anti-Texas sentiment. How provincial to see Texas in only a hundred year's light, when American settlers began to invade... whereas my people have been there for millennia.

4. How dare you call yourself progressive and have such hatred of things that are not like yourself. Don't you ever speak to me of 'tolerance' or 'diversity' or 'democracy' or 'peace' again! If you can't help but deface my damn car because you dislike my Homeland, how can you possibly think that we can stop war abroad. You can't even keep your hands off my property.

Ok. *Deep Breath* My brakes also shrill, but that problem was there to begin with. Alright, I feel better now.

So, let's think positive and proactive. Instead of hunting down the person and murdering them, I thought of a more peaceful way to deal with this issue.

I've decided to go out and purchase a gay sticker for my car. Since I'm gay, this seems like a logical choice... except I hate rainbows and cringe at the color pink. No wonder why so many people are afraid to come out. They fear being doused in pink and rainbows. If I would have known, I would have stayed in the closet.

Either way, I'll affix the sticker to my car in a visible spot. This will act as an anti-progressive shield, allowing me to park my car in peace... Until now, it never occurred to me to place gay symbols on my person and property in order to feel safe.

My, how the times change. Welcome to Madison.

Stumble Rocks My Onions

2005-07-13T13:53:00.000-05:00

Recently, I have been a big fan of 'StumbleUpon.'
Some of you have probably already heard of this program.

It's available through a variety of browsers, if I'm correct (but I'm an avid fan of Firefox, myself.)
As a side note: If you haven't already downloaded Firefox, you should look into it.

StumbleUpon manifests itself as a short series of buttons on your browser, the most important being the 'Stumble!' button. Once clicked, the button will take you to a random site it assumes you will find interesting. At first, it just throws out random stuff.

Well, almost random.

You select certain interests when you sign up. However, as you respond to sites, the program learns what type of stuff you're more likely to find hip, weird, or groovy. This is where the interesting patterns emerge.

Firstly, you recommend sites to other members, which is cool of it's own nature. However, the fascinating part of this whole ordeal is when the browser begins to learn what you unconsciously think is interesting. It becomes a reflecting pool of sorts, showing you what you think is worthy of attention. The program is useful for any avid wanderer, but it's even more interesting to view someone else's 'random' stumblings.

This reminds me of a story I vaguely remember from a childhood book, 'Sideways Stories from Wayside School.' In the story, a student, Maurice, is given 'Maurice-flavored-icecream.' She doesn't notice any flavor, but when other kids taste it, they think it's awesome. Maurice can't understand why everyone else is so fascinated by a 'her-flavored' icecream when she can't taste anything at all.

Admittedly, my own crazy stumblings are fascinating to observe. I tend to range from intense condensations of the great philosophers to clips of reinterpreted Halloween music, which happens to be the favored part of my favorite Halloday. Great program.

However, the true fascination is looking into someone else's reflecting pool.
Kind of reminds you of all the little ways we unconsciously express ourselves; how much of ourselves we just leave open to air, for others to observe, or more likely, not notice.

I'll have to remember to look for the little things that make people hip, weird, or groovy more often.

Try the program out. At least it'll save you hours of aimless wandering on the internet by instantly thowing you hours of curious things to read instead. Thank God for time saving devices.

It All Starts Here

2005-07-10T22:40:00.000-05:00

So, about this blog thing: I remain skeptical.

In my mind, blogs are oddities. They are electronic pulpits. Blogs allow one to connect with other people in an age of distance.

However, after I was given some advice on what not to do on a blog, I have been forced to re-evaluate my reasoning behind them. Apparently, the blog is a powerful tool that must be wielded appropriately.

Well, that's if anybody actually reads it, first off.

But rules are rules... and here they are:

1. I cannot mention people's actual names or write about them unless they are already on the news or such. This is to avoid upsetting someone and having my thoughts bring dire consequences to my person in real life.

Ok, so am I the only one who thinks that your thoughts should affect your life? This brings me back to a bad dream; the one where everybody walks around with a bright smile or apathetic face and hopes that they will never have to suffer the consequences that their own opinions create. But, hey, I can not take responsibility for my person. Right on, one down.

2. I shall not, under any circumstance, say anything too personal in a public blog. There could be crazy people reading your innermost thoughts or you could give away your identity.

I am Superman (TM). Now that you know my identity, you have to promise to keep it a secret.
Honestly, I don't think anybody will read my blog, but I never wanted you to know anything about me anyway. I mean, why would anyone post something on the web about themselves in order to get attention or express oneself?
Plus, I have no illusion to being important enough to hunt down and kill. It would be way too much trouble to find parking around here anyway. Sorry.
One more down.

3. I must keep my writing original and captivating, as to not lose people's interests. Also, grammar and punctuation are a critical part of a blog which you should pay close attention to.

In honor of that last suggestion, I will write my reply in only punctuation:

... ?????, ^^^**/?\% ==!!!!!!, @**:::::. --^^* + ;;~& > = $$$. \\|>>>.

You will eventually become bored of this blog. I understand this and encourage it with time.
However, there is a remote chance that our opinions may challenge eachother... so stick around for a while, and enjoy it while you can, because one day I, too, shall become bored with this blog.

but until then, happy blogging.