A Slight Detour from the Normal Posts

So, as the title states, this post will be a little change of pace from my normal, mindless ranting about the goings on in the world. Instead, I'm going to use this post to talk about something personal that has been happening over the past few days. Boring, I know- who wants to hear about my life? But give it a chance, maybe it will make you take a second to think about things as well.

So on Monday night, I got the unfortunate news that my dad had three blocked arteries in his heart. The blockages weren't bad enough for bypass surgery, which I guess if there's a silver lining on the cloud, that would be it. However, he was going to have to undergo a procedure where doctors inserted what they call "stents" into the blocked arteries. These stents are then expanded, pushing the blockages against the wall of the arteries, thereby freeing them up for blood to pass through as it normally should. These stents are also coated with drugs to prevent the blockages from reforming, provided the patient takes their medication and sticks to a proper diet.

Now, this might not seem like a big deal to some people, but for me (and my family) it was. My dad has always been the rock of our family, and the strongest person I know. He served twice in Vietnam, seeing things that I couldn't possibly even begin to fathom, and has worked in the same job for the past 30+ years, countless hours to make sure that my mom, my sister and I always had everything we needed, went to the best schools we could, etc. , etc. My dad's also an intimidating guy, so I'd never want to be on his bad side- even though I have been a few times. Luckily, neither of my parents have ever been seriosuly sick, so up until now, I've pretty much seen my dad as immortal, so hearing this news was a little bit of a shocker for me.

It also made me take stock of my life a little as well. We all go through life, living every day as if it will never end. We never really think, or at least I don't think that much, about how what we do everyday or what we put into our bodies affects our overall health. My dad is a huge smoker, has been for over 40 years, so I thought if anything would get him it would be lung cancer. But he's always eaten whatever he wanted, worked tirelessly for how many years and always outwardly appeared healthy as an ox. And since I've got his genes, why shouldn't I be the same way?

When I go to the gym, or choose the salad over the hamburger, I find myself questioning a lot of the time, "why am I even doing this? what does it really matter?" I guess what I realize now more than ever is that it does matter, everything that I'm doing does have an effect on my overall health. It might not mean that I'll never get sick, but anything I can do to keep me out of a hospital, especially after waiting there today for close to 8 hours, is a good thing in my book.

The World is Just a Little Bit Darker Today...

Folks, it's a sad, sad day. The horse that captured America's hearts and fought for months has lost its battle. Yes, Barbaro has been put down as a result of the injury the thoroughbred suffered during last May's Preakness Stakes. Let's all take a collective moment of silence to reflect on what this means for us.

Nothing. It means absolutely nothing, other than the fact that we can now stop hearing about this horse and the countless hours and dollars that were put in to saving its life, despite the fact that any other horse would have had a shotgun stuck down its throat within minutes of leaving the track after being injured. Why has this been such an overpublicized story over the past 7, 8 months?? It's a horse who was unfortunatley injured. Do we need the huge "Get Well Soon Barbaro" cards and the bouquets of flowers? It's a horse!

There is one culprit in the sensationalizing of the trials and tribulations of Barbaro: ESPN. Hardly a day went by when we wouldn;t hear the name Barbaro at least once on the 24 hour sports network. But why? Why did they have to talk about a horse who suffered a career ending injury, likely life ending, so much??

And because ESPN covered the story so much, other news outlets who know nothing about sports see this, and think "Well, if ESPN is talking about it so much, it must be important," so they talk about it too. This leads to everyone in this country talking about this goddamn horse who shouldn't have even been alive anyway. It's just over the top, way too much.

State of the Union: Shitty

So the State of the Union address is tonight, and let me tell you I couldn't be more excited for it. And when I say excited, I mean I care about as much as I would if Montana were to leave the United State- not one bit. Does this mean American Idol is going to be preempted? That pisses me off. I should write a letter.

In all seriousness though, I would wager that this will be one of the most watched State of the Union addresses in recent history. Not because people are rallying around our president, who I'll refer to from this point on as "moron," "idiot," "that dumbass" or some type of expletive (just so you know who I'm referring to for the rest of this post), but because people want to see what crazy shit comes out of his mouth next and then argue about it endlessly. Hooray!! More fodder for CNN, FoxNews and MSNBC pundits to entertain us with!! Can someone grab me a gun, please?

It's gotten to the point where if that dumbass were to say something along the lines of, "I'm sending the rest of our troops into Iran tomorrow," we really wouldn't be surprised. But in actuality, what would we do about it? We would argue over and over, just as we have with the "new" plan for redeployment in Iraq, and nothing would come of it. Why? Because this fuckhead is still the president! His approval rating, according to a CBS poll is at 28%, an all-time low; 65% of those surveyed in a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll said they disapprove of how Bush is handling his job as president, while only 33% approve. 71% of Americans said the country is on the wrong track, up from 46% in an April 2003 poll, the month after the invasion of Iraq. So if we have all these numbers in our hands, why haven't we done anything to rectify the situation? Bush's approval ratings are now the lowest for any president the day before a State of the Union speech since Richard Nixon in 1974. Nixon was a criminal!!!!!!!! (I guess Bush may be as well, depending on who you ask)

According to reports, Bush plans to address important plans for health care, education and other issues, while steering clear of the Iraq question. Now, these are important issues to address, and issues that we as a country desperately need to address. However, we're stuck in a quagmire that is not only affecting the American public's perception of their leader, but also the world's view of our country. Before we deal with anything else, we need to correct the mistakes we made in the Middle East, to instill confidence that the new plans our leader is constructing will actually work.

The Democrats swept to power in the House and Senate with lofty promises of helping to clean up this mess and improve the public's perception of the executive office. So far, they have failed. It's time to do the only thing left to do in order to stop the idiot at the top: introduce a motion calling for the impeachment of the president. We need to do something, and soon. Bush is drunk with power already, ignoring his closest advisors and sending American on a path for destruction not only abroad, but at home as well. We can't afford to wait any longer- the charade that all we need to do is continue to charge ahead with redrawn plans is ridiculous. Last week saw one of the deadliest days for American troops since the start of the war. Things are not improving and until our president accepts that, or until we do something to change who is leading us, things will only continue to get worse. Most of us look at the lives we are sacrificing and say "why? we shouldn't even be involved in this conflict." The view of death on the other side is far different. Insurgents who are killed are looked at as martyrs and praised for their sacrifice. This is not to say we do not appreciate our troops who are in battle. I think it's safe to say that every American fully supports our troops and is indebted to them for their courage. However, while we support our troops, I don't think we are willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of them for this cause, this fight to "preserve democracy." The other side, they are willing to do just that, to sacrifice as many as it takes, for as long as it takes. And it is that idealogical difference that our president either fails to see or just ignores, while continuing to pour billions of dollars of resources and manpower into this fight, and continuing to antagonize other unstable countries as well.

In all likelihood, even if impeachment is called for, it probably would not pass. But perhaps it would cause our president to reflect on the situation he has put this country in and start heeding the cries of even his own party members, those who are worried that his incessant obsession with winning this war will severly damaage his party's chances in the next election.

Even now, he has a chance to change things, even though we are in so deep. If he were to just get up in front of the country tonight and admit he was wrong, admit that his plan hasn't worked and vow to change his stance and start bringing our troops home immediately, I would even begin to have more respect for him. There's no shame in admitting you were wrong. 2/3 of the country would agree.

And if you're going to watch the State of the Union and can't bear to be sober for it, here's a link for a great drinking game you can play while watching it. Some pretty funny stuff: http://www.drinkinggame.us/

Feeling Sad Today?

It appears today is the most unhappy day of the year. How do I know this? Well, I was told it, so now I have to act unhappy in order to fit in with society. Nevermind that I could have won the lottery last night, making today fairly happy, or that someone close to me could have died last week, making that the unquestioned unhappiest day of the year, a scientist has said that today is the unhappiest day, so TODAY it is!

Dr. Cliff Arnall, a psychologist at Cardiff University with apparently no other scientific curiosity other than to figure out when people are most depressed, devised a formula combining six factors - weather, debt, time since Christmas, time since failing our new year's resolutions, low motivational levels and the feeling of a need to take action - into an equation which calculates today as the most depressing day of the year. "Blue Monday," he's called it- simply genius.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but according to my calculations...now I'm not a scientist, so I might be a little off here...WE STILL HAVE NO CURES FOR CANCER, AIDS, BIRD FLU OR COUNTLESS OTHER DISEASES THAT HAVE KILLED HOW MANY PEOPLE?? I realize this man is just a psychologist, but can he not put any effort into something that might be a little worthwhile? Something that we could use for the common good of mankind?

Well, Dr. Arnall probably thought someone would ask this question, so he formulated an answer to somehow justify this "equation," which has probably consumed the last 15 years of his professional life. Regarding January 22, Arnall says: "Use the day as a springboard for a higher quality life. For example keeping Christmas spending to a strict budget next year will make you less depressed in the last week of January. Also, decide on changing behaviour, such as giving up smoking, eating better, exercising more and getting that new job." Wow, truly inspiring advice. Thank God someone came up with this equation, because I would never have thought of bettering my life otherwise.

People, I mean really, can we use some common sense from now on? Do we need people like Dr. Arnall telling us to do things that should be commonplace in our lives? And while we're at it, can we pump more of our dollars into scientific research that we might actually benefit from? Who was the genius who decided to fund Arnall's research, thinking "you know what, this is great. Screw throwing our money into cancer research or AIDS research- this is where it's at!" That person should be removed from whatever position of pwer they have for being completely moronic.

This also reminds me of one of those silly studies that research firms do, with headlines such as "STUDY REVEALS THAT MARIJUANA USE CAN AFFECT CHILDREN'S GRADES" or "STUDY FINDS THAT EATING TOO MUCH WILL CAUSE WEIGHT GAIN." Really? You think? Two words: common sense. If more people used it, this world would be a much more peaceful and enjoyable place to live.

Rosie: Just Shut Up

First it was Donald Trump, now Rosie O'Donnell feels the need to flaunt her opinions on hit television show American Idol. Let me preface this by saying I am completely on the Donald's side when he refers to Rosie as a "terrible, disgusting human being." Not only cannot I not stand the sight of her, even reading about her makes me feel sick. Additionally, I must admit, I am a fan of American Idol as well. So this commentary might be a little biased. Just a little.

Rosie again used her television show, The View, as a platform for discussing her opinions and trying to convince others that she is right. In reference to the previous episode of American Idol, which showcased auditions from the city of Seattle, Rosie took the moral high ground in a six minute bashing of the number 1 show in America. "It's terribly sad to me," O'Donnell said . "I don't think America likes to watch people be ridiculed, made fun of, and called ugly monkeys, or that they're too fat or they're a degenerate... it's an absurd concept that this is what's tolerable now as consumption in America for mass media."

No, Rosie, you know what's an absurd concept? That YOU are tolerable as comsumption for mass media. Not only are you fat, you are hideously ugly and have a huge mouth, which most of the time is spewing crap that is wrong, yet you represent it as being reality. You want to have a talk show, fine, no one can stop you from doing that. But as a talk show host, you at least have the responsibility of properly informing the American public, not giving your blowhard opinion and pretending like you speak the truth.

Let's look at the facts. The American Idol premiere on Tuesday night drew 37.3 million viewers and a 15.7 rating/36 share in the adults 18-49 demographic, according to data from Nielsen Media Research. 37.3 million! I don't even think The View has that many viewers in a year! It was rated highest at 18.0 rating/40 share, which meant that 40% of of the U.S. homes using television were tuned to "Idol" at that point. Ridiculous. This represented a 5% ratings increase in viewers and 3% increase in adults 18-49 compared with last year's premiere. Even more impressive, it was the second-biggest telecast for American Idol since it debuted in summer 2002. You got it right Rosie, I don't think this is what the American public likes to watch.

Are you kidding me? This is the sole reason WHY we watch! I actually watched the Seattle episode that Rosie is referring to (which I'd be willing to bet that Rosie did not- yet she still comments on it...hmmm). I can't tell you how many times during that episode I uttered the words "I can't believe I live in the same country as these people." Maybe it's harsh, but it's true. We love to watch these idiots, who think they have talent (I really can't even believe some of these people think they can sing...are they deaf? Do they have friends who sit them down and are like "Listen...I know you want to sing and be famous and all...and I'm sorry to be the one to break the news to you...but honestly you're really terrible...it's just not going to happen." I mean, where do these people come from?) get up in front of judges with the honest, 100% belief that they will win this show, just to get absolutely crushed when we all see how terrible they are. How can you not laugh??

Like I said, I watched the Seattle episode, and the one part that really caused Rosie's wrath was the audition of Kenneth Briggs, who sang N Sync's "Tearing Up My Heart." Now, not only was the audition awful, but Simon commented on Briggs' appearance, saying "you look like one of those creatures that live in the jungle with those massive eyes. What are they called? Bush babies?" Now again, maybe this was a little harsh, but honestly, this guy did look like a monkey. He was short, really thin and had the biggest bug eyes ever, and he was singing "Tearing Up My Heart" horribly and attempting showcase some dance moves as well. Truly priceless. However, Rosie's opinion, despite the fact that she probably didn't watch the show, was "That's compassion for you. Isn't that what America thinks is entertainment -- to make fun of someone's physical appearance and then when they leave the room, laugh hysterically at them?" Yes, Rosie, it is. And a lot of people laugh and make fun of your physical appearance as well.

At the gym last night, I happened to see that Forbes Magazine (great name) had released their list of the top 20 richest women in entertainment. Topping the list was Oprah, of course, worth a whopping $1.5 billion dollars, which is just a ridiculous amount of money. Now, I'm not the biggest fan of Oprah, but I don't hate her, because I can see why people like her. She seems like she could be a nice person, she gives away cars and other gifts to her audience members, she does other charitable things with her wealth- she genuinely seems to care about doing right by other people. On the other hand, we have Rosie. What does she do besides rail against other people and act like a genuine ass most of the time? She's boisterous, ugly and a pain in the ass. What is it about her that people like? I can't seem to figure it out. I wish she would just never talk again.

UPDATE: As the World Warms

Interestingly, after posting my blog this morning, news emerged that newly appointed Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) as created a Global Warming Committee, intended to "achieve energy independence ... and to stop global warming." The committee will hold hearings and recommend legislation on how to reduce greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide generated by fossil fuels. Pelosi also set a goal of July 4th to finish a global warming bill that would declare the US's energy independence.

From my last post, you can already probably deduce how I feel about pouring hundred of millions of dollars into figuring out a phenomenon that we're not even really sure is caused by humans, especially when there are countless other avenues where our money could be spent more wisely. On top of that, now we are forming about worthless House Committee which will debate endlessly about this option or that option, and no option will ever really be decided on because of partisan bickering. Why even waste time doing this? What is the point?

Honestly, even if some type of law does come out of this committee, will it really have any impact of the "problem" we define as global warming? Laws have been instituted for recycling, incentives are offered for driving hybrid cars, yet does everyone heed them? No. Should be interesting to see what happens next. Stay tuned...

As the World Warms

It appears that the crusade to brainwash people into believing that global warming is an occurring phenomenon caused by people's refusal to do anything about it has reached new lows. Yesterday, The Weather Channel's most prominent meteorologist, Heidi Cullen, came out and said that other meteorolgists should be stripped of their American Meteorological Society "Seal of Approval" if they express doubt that global warming is a manmade catastrophe. This after a year in which Al Gore released his "shocking" expose "An Inconvenient Truth" and 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley compared non-believers to Holocaust deniers. On top of this, Cullen has advocated Nuremburg-style trials for those skeptics as well.

Cullen claims that having skeptical meteorlogists is like "allowing [them] to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It's not a political statement...it's just an incorrect statement," Cullen added. Nevermind that hurricanes in the Southern Hemisphere do in fact rotate clockwise, Cullen's viewpoints are just wrong, in my mind. What she is saying, in a nutshell, is that if a meteorologist doesn't agree with her and the Al Gore types, those who believe that global warming is caused by people's inability to be "green" and environmentally accountable, then they should ultimately lose their credibility as a meteorologist. Who is Cullen to be the authority on who believes what? Last time I checked, we lived in a country where you were free to believe what you wanted, without reprucussion. Additionally, it hasn't even been proven that global warming is caused by humans; in fact, there is growing evidence to the contrary. In October, one of the most prominent French geophysicists, Claude Allegre, converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a climate skeptic. Previously, Allegre had argued that man's constant use of fossil fuels increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the air, thus raising the average global temperature by one-half degree in the last century. In 1992, he signed a letter in which many of the world's top scientists warned that global warming’s “potential risks are very great.” What made this long-time supporter change his mind? In an editorial to the French newspaper L'Express, Allegre used the snow atop Mt. Kilimanjaro as a basis for his reversal. Allegre wrote that the “cause of climate change remains unknown” and pointed out that Kilimanjaro is not losing snow due to global warming, but to local land use and precipitation changes. Allegre also pointed out that studies show that Antarctic snowfall rate has been stable over the past 30 years and the continent is actually gaining ice.

In addition, an October 16, 2006 Washington Post article titled “Climate Change is Nothing New” noted that Indiana University geologist Simon Brassell found climate change occurred during the age of dinosaurs and quoted Brassell questioning the accuracy of computer climate model predictions. “If there are big, inherent fluctuations in the system, as paleoclimate studies are showing, it could make determining the Earth’s climatic future even harder than it is,” Brassell said.

So basically Cullen is saying "Hey, you have to believe this, even though reputable sceintists do not, or else we'll blacklist you." How is this fair in any way? Now, I'm not one to normally stick up for meteorologists. To be honest, I think their profession is a joke anyway, and I could do it in a second. Guess what? It's winter, so I say that it will be 42 degrees and cloudy tomorrow, a high of 37 on Saturday with a chance of snow and 40 with a chance of snow again on Sunday. There, I'm a meteorologist. But really, this is about more than that. People are being blackballed for their opinion on something that is not even proven. It would be comparable to to my boss coming to me and saying, "I believe that I will go to heaven after I die because I pray every night. If you don't do the same, you're fired." Maybe that's an over the top example, but it still fits the framework of "I have this belief and if you don't agree with me, you'll lose your livelihood." And to me, this is utterly ridiculous.

Thinking about the issue of global warming and the fierce devotion of both sides to their particular viewpoint makes me think of the battle over the theory of evolution as well. So much has been made over it, when really how much is actually known? Both sides have their beliefs, and argue contstantly about who is right and who is wrong, but in the end, does it really matter? Instead of debating how we got here, why not channel those efforts into finding out if this planet is really the only planet that has been capable of sustaining life throughout the 4.5 billion year life of the Solar System? Or if there are other galaxies other than ours that have life? Or how about searching the vast, unexplored depths of the oceans right here on Earth? This might seem like some crazy rambling, but I find these questions far more interesting, as I'm sure others do as well. Who knows what we might find, or how it may change our perception of our world?

In the end, people like Cullen should be stripped of any power that they have, because in my opinion, that's what it comes down to, just being power hungry and trying to enforce her views on someone else. Do I think anything will come of Cullen's efforts? Probably not, but it's important to know and realize that there are crazy people out there, like her, the act this way. As I said before, we live in a country where freedom of beliefs and expression are our rights, rights that are too often either taken for granted or silenced. Many of us may have a long laundry list of complaints about this country, but we should be happy that we can express those complaints or beliefs to a certain extent without persecution or reprucussion. It seems that Ms. Cullen should realize this as well.

(much of this information was acquired through the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works; www.epw.senate.gov)