I'm still employed, maybe going to be published, maybe going to apply to grad school for this year, and maybe going to keel over from an undiagnosed ulcer brought on by obsessive attendance to that most futile of pursuits, following politics. So, what's been giving me broken molars this week?
- Georgia invading Russian enclaves because they thought they had US support, and Russians facilitating ethnic cleansing because they knew there was no such support.
- Limbaugh's "nobody had the guts to stand up and say no to a black guy."
- Hannity, Coulter and assorted other bottom-feeders accusing Obama of killing babies.
What's helping to alleviate the horrible impending sense of doom?
- Olympic women's beach volleyball.
- 'Rack Rolling.
- Hydrogen economy
Now, for purposes of therapy, I'll go down the list, talk about it, and hopefully get the bile out of my system.
1) The Georgian-Russian Conflict.
As far as I can tell, the Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili thought that - since he was such good friends with the current administration – he could retake the breakaway provinces of South Ossetia and Ashke-something. Georgia attacked them with conventional forces, but was repulsed by Russian peacekeepers and local forces. Russian army and irregulars from the breakaway provinces then advanced into Georgia, blowing the crap out of whatever villages and cities got in their way. There have been reports of artillery strikes against civilian targets on both sides, as well as a large-scale air campaign by the Russians against key Georgian cities and ports.
In response, Bush decided that – because our the bulk of our military is caught up in a useless brushfire war in Iraq – the only way to help our Georgian allies would be to put missiles in Poland. Unfortunately, that really is basically all we can do to help the Georgians, since our military is stretched so thin, our budget driven so deeply into the red, and our people so wary of another engagement.
Furthermore, since Europe relies on Russian oil and natural gas, they’re not going to do jack either. Thus, threats of intervention are rendered poor diplomatic tools, useful only for making us seem weak and inept. Since so much of our current foreign policy is based around the bullshit notion of unilateralism, we can’t act effectively, nor call on any allies to ignore their own interests for the sake of ours.
So America can’t lend a had to the Georgians, no matter how they deserve it, but instead get to be remembered for one more incident where our position as a hyperpower is once again shown to be frail in its stability, and neglectful of its commitments.
The Georgians are bastards because they’re trying to retake an area that doesn’t want to be part of them, while the Russians are utter bastards because they incited the breakaway in the first place, and are now refereeing a fresh round of ethnic cleansing. All because they’re pissed off that Georgia doesn’t feel like being under their thumb anymore.
2) Limbaugh.
So Democrats can’t say “no” to a brilliant politician who happens to be black, and Limbaugh can’t say “no” to the sweet release from guilt brought on by a handful of Oxycotin. What’s worse?
3) "Is that infanticide?" "It's shocking."
From what I can gather from the text of the bill itself, it seems that it aims to classify a child that survives an abortion as a full human being. It also states that no procedure that has a “reasonable likelihood of resulting in a live born child” being taken out of the womb may be performed without supervision from a physician who is not performing the abortion.
Now, when an abortion is performed late in the pregnancy, you of course have to take the body out, as leaving a dead fetus in the womb could kill the mother. However, if a doctor failed to perform the first part of the operation correctly, then the baby will still be alive. In terms of development, the baby will be very premature, to the point where the brain probably won’t be fully developed. The baby will be injured by whatever procedure was performed to terminate it. In short, the baby may be breathing, but is unlikely to be viable, and if it can survive past a year, the child will probably have severe developmental and physical problems for the rest of its life.
So what the bill is saying is that if there’s a mistake, and the doctor fails to terminate the pregnancy and the baby is alive when removed from the mother, the law will dictate that the brain-damaged, mutilated infant will now be kept alive by whatever measures are necessary. The child will then cared for by whatever parents can stick around to raise the most visible, personal reminder of what they will see as the greatest mistake of their lives.
- Georgia invading Russian enclaves because they thought they had US support, and Russians facilitating ethnic cleansing because they knew there was no such support.
- Limbaugh's "nobody had the guts to stand up and say no to a black guy."
- Hannity, Coulter and assorted other bottom-feeders accusing Obama of killing babies.
What's helping to alleviate the horrible impending sense of doom?
- Olympic women's beach volleyball.
- 'Rack Rolling.
- Hydrogen economy
Now, for purposes of therapy, I'll go down the list, talk about it, and hopefully get the bile out of my system.
1) The Georgian-Russian Conflict.
As far as I can tell, the Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili thought that - since he was such good friends with the current administration – he could retake the breakaway provinces of South Ossetia and Ashke-something. Georgia attacked them with conventional forces, but was repulsed by Russian peacekeepers and local forces. Russian army and irregulars from the breakaway provinces then advanced into Georgia, blowing the crap out of whatever villages and cities got in their way. There have been reports of artillery strikes against civilian targets on both sides, as well as a large-scale air campaign by the Russians against key Georgian cities and ports.
In response, Bush decided that – because our the bulk of our military is caught up in a useless brushfire war in Iraq – the only way to help our Georgian allies would be to put missiles in Poland. Unfortunately, that really is basically all we can do to help the Georgians, since our military is stretched so thin, our budget driven so deeply into the red, and our people so wary of another engagement.
Furthermore, since Europe relies on Russian oil and natural gas, they’re not going to do jack either. Thus, threats of intervention are rendered poor diplomatic tools, useful only for making us seem weak and inept. Since so much of our current foreign policy is based around the bullshit notion of unilateralism, we can’t act effectively, nor call on any allies to ignore their own interests for the sake of ours.
So America can’t lend a had to the Georgians, no matter how they deserve it, but instead get to be remembered for one more incident where our position as a hyperpower is once again shown to be frail in its stability, and neglectful of its commitments.
The Georgians are bastards because they’re trying to retake an area that doesn’t want to be part of them, while the Russians are utter bastards because they incited the breakaway in the first place, and are now refereeing a fresh round of ethnic cleansing. All because they’re pissed off that Georgia doesn’t feel like being under their thumb anymore.
2) Limbaugh.
So Democrats can’t say “no” to a brilliant politician who happens to be black, and Limbaugh can’t say “no” to the sweet release from guilt brought on by a handful of Oxycotin. What’s worse?
3) "Is that infanticide?" "It's shocking."
From what I can gather from the text of the bill itself, it seems that it aims to classify a child that survives an abortion as a full human being. It also states that no procedure that has a “reasonable likelihood of resulting in a live born child” being taken out of the womb may be performed without supervision from a physician who is not performing the abortion.
Now, when an abortion is performed late in the pregnancy, you of course have to take the body out, as leaving a dead fetus in the womb could kill the mother. However, if a doctor failed to perform the first part of the operation correctly, then the baby will still be alive. In terms of development, the baby will be very premature, to the point where the brain probably won’t be fully developed. The baby will be injured by whatever procedure was performed to terminate it. In short, the baby may be breathing, but is unlikely to be viable, and if it can survive past a year, the child will probably have severe developmental and physical problems for the rest of its life.
So what the bill is saying is that if there’s a mistake, and the doctor fails to terminate the pregnancy and the baby is alive when removed from the mother, the law will dictate that the brain-damaged, mutilated infant will now be kept alive by whatever measures are necessary. The child will then cared for by whatever parents can stick around to raise the most visible, personal reminder of what they will see as the greatest mistake of their lives.
However, if the parents didn't want a normal child in the first place, why would they want to raise one they crippled? Who would gain anything from this? The child, now slated for being brought up by those who destroyed any chance of an existence even resembling a normal life? Maybe the parents, sticking around only out of a overwhelming sense of guilt - if they remain at all? No, those directly involved would only be harmed.
The only people who would benefit would be those who derive a smug sort of pride from inflicting their version of morality on others. And the law does not exist to provide them with that pleasure. It exists to maximize freedom of choice, while minimizing harm done between members of the polity. The former always takes precedence, and since this bill violates both, Senator Obama voted correctly.
Now on to the Happy Thoughts section.
1) Olympic Women’s Beach Vollyball.
I love sports again.
2) ‘Rack Rolling.
I want someone to rickroll the Democratic National Convention. I want that someone to be Barack Obama. Never going to give [you] up… on change we can believe in.
3) Oxygen-evolving catalyst
One of the main arguments against hydrogen fuel cells is that generating hydrogen and oxygen from water (the most readily available source of both) is energy intensive. And if you have to burn fossil fuels to do so, a transportation infrastructure based HFC’s won’t reduce global warming. So, the team that discovers a good catalyst (something that reduces the amount of energy required to perform a certain action, in this case, splitting H2 from O) will not only help the world, but also make bank, as any overhaul of the transportation network would require use of the
Apparently, in the latest edition of Science, Kanan & Nocera discuss use of a catalyst formed using readily abundant minerals and capable of producing H2 and O2 using sunlight. This is important not only because of the because of the effects it may have on the way we travel, but on how we get energy in the first place. After all, solar energy is only available when there is abundant sunlight available. A way of storing this energy is vital. If a non-biological (and thus indigestible by microorganisms) manner of photosynthesis can be discovered, then that would go a long way towards solving the energy problem.
Now on to the Happy Thoughts section.
1) Olympic Women’s Beach Vollyball.
I love sports again.
2) ‘Rack Rolling.
I want someone to rickroll the Democratic National Convention. I want that someone to be Barack Obama. Never going to give [you] up… on change we can believe in.
3) Oxygen-evolving catalyst
One of the main arguments against hydrogen fuel cells is that generating hydrogen and oxygen from water (the most readily available source of both) is energy intensive. And if you have to burn fossil fuels to do so, a transportation infrastructure based HFC’s won’t reduce global warming. So, the team that discovers a good catalyst (something that reduces the amount of energy required to perform a certain action, in this case, splitting H2 from O) will not only help the world, but also make bank, as any overhaul of the transportation network would require use of the
Apparently, in the latest edition of Science, Kanan & Nocera discuss use of a catalyst formed using readily abundant minerals and capable of producing H2 and O2 using sunlight. This is important not only because of the because of the effects it may have on the way we travel, but on how we get energy in the first place. After all, solar energy is only available when there is abundant sunlight available. A way of storing this energy is vital. If a non-biological (and thus indigestible by microorganisms) manner of photosynthesis can be discovered, then that would go a long way towards solving the energy problem.
