Genetically Engineered Food: Capitalism Making Nature Way Better Than Nature Ever Could Have

I just watched the documentary The Future of Food. Where to begin? For starters the US (unlike the EU) does not mandate that products containing genetically modified organisms be labeled. Nor do they mandate that extensive testing be done on GMOs because they fall under the FDAs umbrella of reasonably safe. This documentary covers several parts of the food production chain and some of the idiosyncrasies that exist therein. For example, after being allowed to patent the seeds they created, seed companies can now patent any natural seed that is not already patented. WTF? Or the fact that many Washington regulators high up in the EPA, FDA, or USDA hold or have held positions with one of the largest seed and GMO developers. A potential conflict of interest? The film touches on the fact that the biotech industry is marketing itself and GMOs as integral in solving the world's hunger crisis, when in fact there is overproduction and over subsidization of crops by the US government.
Imagine that a farmer isn't turning a profit on his Agriflak brand soy, sprayed with liquid weedwhacker from Dupont. It costs this farmer more to grow the soy than he will make by selling it. Agriflak and Dupont aren't worried though, they can rest assured that the government will be backing up their farmer to help pay his bills.
The biotech industry has independent research under its thumb as well. Not too many universities that are funded by large agricultural corporations would, in their right minds, let research be done whose findings would challenge or call into question that corporation's product.

Besides making me want to eat extremely local and organic now, it was just another sad reminder of the sell off of our political system to large corporations and wait for it... special interests. (such a buzzword in this election, along with golden parachutes, main street, maverick, and ACORN) It is also another example of how regulating bodies in our federal government are too large, too corrupt, and do a poor job of looking out for the best interests of Ameican citizens. Luckily there are independent watchdog groups keeping tabs on such things. (Independent groups, keeping an eye on public institutions, that are supposed to be looking out for us....?)

Last thing, a news story that broke more than a month ago

FDA Says No Label Needed for Genetically Modified Food

But the agency also says producers would not be required to label most genetically engineered meat, poultry, or seafood. The rules treat altered DNA inserted into livestock as drugs. Companies are not required to alert consumers when antibiotics, hormones, or other drugs are used in raising the animals.

"There is no special labeling requirement simply because the animal itself was engineered," Lutter says.

AHAHAHAHA! Thats insulting. The best part is that the public has until Nov 18th to comment. Good Luck.

David Duke on Obama

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96373766&ft=1&f=1012

Presidential races suck

Does anyone else feel like every presidential race they have ever seen is little more than a glorified namecalling match? Seriously, you're grown ass men, and you shouldn't need to be cutting each other down to gain support. Talk about what YOU'RE good at, and how YOU are going to make this country a better place. Don't go on about how stupid the other candidate is or how dumb his vice presidential choice was. I really can't get over it. Then again, maybe that's just politics...a glorified playground shouting match.

This may be the best onion article I have read. I think it best embodies how I perceive this presidential race.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/i_would_make_a_bad_president_obama

Man, I love good satire.

For more on global climate change...

Here is some light reading for y'all who are more interested in the aforementioned issue:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm

Just click the "full report" link and you'll get the 52 page IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (that's the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).

This is a pretty fascinating read, if you get around to it. Read it and learn it. Then, we can harness our powers and kill global warming.

The Paradox of Global Warming

I magine with me for a moment.

At some point in the near future, the world experiences an immediate, global, and significant disaster because of global climate change. That is to say, the very basic necessities of human life--water, food, shelter--were to suddenly vanish or dramatically decline. Millions, perhaps billions, of people are displaced and live in refugee camps. A quarter of the human population die. Environmental terrorists begin to attack those whom they deem responsible, mainly environmentally devious industrial corporations and governments. Most target the United States, the only current country who has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol. In response, the United States takes an isolationist policies to "defend" their resources at all costs. Other countries soon follow suit. Millions more die. After five years, half of the global population, three billion humans, have died due to diseases, starvation, and war.

Fortunately, nothing like the apocalyptic scenario has occurred thus far.
Of course, there have been pockets of environmental change in recent years. For example, the increase in frequency and force of tsunamis, hurricanes, drought, and heat waves, the melting of the polar ice caps, and the subtle rise of the ocean levels. Luckily, we, as a global civilization, have not experienced any major environmental calamity due to global warming or climate change.

However, and, in a sense, unfortunately, nothing like the apocalyptic scenario has occurred thus far.
Suppose something a tenth as tragic were to happen. Given the world's current response to the economic crisis, which would seem like a mosquito bite in comparison, it would be reasonable to assume there would be an equal if not greater response to a sudden and dramatic environmental crisis. But this is not how global warming works. Anyone who has seen Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth or has even read a bit about climate change can attest, the time line for a catastrophic event will not occur within the next few decades, but rather in decades that follow in the twenty-first century.

And herein lies the paradox of global warming: the action by governments, businesses, and individuals needed to stop, or at least lessen, such a scenario would not occur unless a tragedy of proportionate scale occurs; but if that tragedy were to occur, it would be too late to take action and most efforts to ameliorate the problem will be ineffective.

Perhaps Marcos, in his infinite scientific knowledge, can shed some more light on the issue and paradox.

*For a more detailed description of the effects of global warming according to the number of degrees the average global temperature rises in the next century, check out the synopsis of Mark Lynas' incredible book, 6 Degrees. His summation:
If [the environmental historical record] tell us one thing above all, it is this: that we mess with the climatic thermostat of this planet at our extreme - and growing - peril.

Obama's tax plan

I’ve been asked to consider many “enlightening” conservative economic anecdotes, but the one in the bar is my favorite…10 guys go into a bar for a round of tall daddies. At the end of the night, there is a $100 tab. The bartender distributes the owed amounts to the different gentlemen to the effect where three are not required to pay, two pay a small amount, yada yada, and the tenth is finally given a tab of $40 – 40% of the entire tab. This analogy is supposed to be representative of the democratic "tax and spend" system. There's just one problem with this comparison – the top 1% and those along the poverty line are not drinking the same amount of beer. When you're making $250K+, the government does MORE for you, i.e. protection via fire depts, police depts, etc. Therefore, since the top percentile’s interests are more substantial, shouldn’t they be required to pay more? I think so.

Additionally, the Democratic notion of taxing the top 1% is not as simplistic as taxing the successful to "redistribute wealth." Rather, it's an altruistic formula, where a “rising tide raises all ships.” (If you don’t believe me, just ask your parents how well they did under Clinton’s tenure)Since I'm no more than a closed-minded Southerner, I'll give you an example Beaux and I can easily relate to. I have no problem with the fact that my parents' taxes go to the funding of the public schools in the area of Ruston, La., as I would eventually like to return there. By donating pieces of salary, the top percentile can benefit from a surrounding educational system, workforce and society in general who benefits from the allocations. With educated people an economy can prosper. With an uneducated constituence, an economy and society will stagnate at best, but more likely deteriorate.

Obama’s theory of taxation is a reciprocating system which benefits all, not just those receiving benefits directly. If we as a supposed democratic, welfare nation took the cavalier approach of every man for himself, we would inevitably wallow in our self-created demise. Call me a whacky, slippery-slope of a blogger, but revolutions happen, largely due to greed of few coupled with neglect of many.

Undoubtedly, we as a nation should encourage self-responsibility. But we should also have a system that is forgiving, to an extent, and helpful to the less fortunate. Not that I’ve amounted to anything yet, but if I ever do, I’ll be the first to tell you whatever success I have is largely (if not entirely) due to the chances I was given, not earned, but given. There are a whole hell of a lot of people who haven’t been given a lick, and I believe it’s the government’s responsibility to provide at least the most basic sense of welfare for everyone. Kids born into poverty did nothing wrong in utero to “deserve” to be cursed for a lifetime. It’s damn near impossible to pull yourself up when your boots don’t have straps, or when you don’t have boots at all.

A really wise woman once told me, “there’s a difference between hitting a triple and being born on third base.” Think about that.

He Vuelto - I have returned

That's right, I'm back from my journeys through the Iberian peninsula. I could write all the details in my trip, but it would be very difficult to capture everything beyond the activities, sights, or sounds in the streets - there were many emotions tied with being back, the elation of wandering around Madrid while visiting my favorite spots and reading "The Sun Also Rises" while sipping a vermouth at a cafe outside the Plaza Mayor, the excitement of riding a galloping horse through the mountains and valleys of Asturias, and the warm reception when meeting new family members in Lisbon.

So I'll recount a single snapshot for now, and if you'd like more info, I'd like to hear the sounds of your voices anyway, so gimme a call.

"El lenguaje de los sonidos expresa lo inexpresable"

I was sitting with my sister in my favorite hangout in Madrid, Cuevas de Sesamo, a smoky underground sangria bar with waiters in bow ties and a pianist playing classics, and I read the above quote, written with so many others on the limestone walls of the establishment. The language of sound expresses the inexpressible. The quote was written above the piano in the bar, and I wrote it down because I thought it was pretty neat.

A few days later, I was treated to an amazing lunch (tapas, 2 bottles of vino tinto, and some amazing fish) with my sister, the director of the Syracuse abroad program I went on, and two of my favorite professors from my time abroad. One of the professors, Fernando Montes, professor of my Marine Ecology course, was incredibly influential to me when I studied there, teaching me lessons about life in addition to stuff about el fundo del mar. One thing I remember distinctly that he taught me was that you can either live to work, or work to live. It reflects the values placed on priorities in life in Europe and the US... and I've tried to keep his words in mind for much-needed perspective as I embarked on my career. I want to enjoy my life, keep my interests and family and friends as the most important things, and work enough to be comfortable but not too much so that I can live the life that makes me happy. Montes and I were very close when I was studying in Madrid, and we had discussed about me returning to Spain to go hiking with him in the mountains of Asturias - his homeland, a Celtic northern province in Spain - at some point. But I had never had the opportunity to go.

After lunch, Montes invited Laura and I up to Asturias... clearly an opportunity I couldn't pass up. We were supposed to go from Madrid to Lisbon on Thursday, but instead we left Wednesday for Asturias, driving up with Montes as he does every week as soon as his last class is over, so that he can see his girlfriend, brothers/sisters, and mother, and go spend time in the "Lord of the fucking Rings" mountains (as he calls them... they are truly spectacular) and enjoy his homeland and the life there. We arrived at his apartment, which has amazing views of the mountains. His girlfriend was there, and welcomed us warmly. We settled in, all contributed in making various parts of the dinner - Montes teaching me how to make crepes with salmon and cheese, Mapi teaching Laura how to make Asturian clam risotto - and we listened to Celtic music in the background, spoke in Spanish, and really enjoyed a comfortable and fun time together over really great food and wine. After dinner, we all went to Montes' living room and watched a DVD of a Celtic musician - one that Laura and I knew well from our childhood - playing in the Alhambra in Granada. Montes poured various types of single malt Scotch into a small traditional Celtic silver cup, and we all passed it around as a bonding activity and enjoyed the music, with Montes pointing out all of his favorite parts, until late in the night.

I thought about the quote from before. Laura and I are 22 and 20, respectively, while Montes and his girlfriend are both about 50. Between us all, we speak 5 different languages, and hail from diverse and distant parts of the world. We've all had various life experiences, and while there are many things we all share in common - such as a love of the outdoors (we spent the entire following day riding horses in the mountains) - for that night, the music - el lenguaje de los sonidos - forged a certain close bond between us.

The value of time spent with others - so important, and so often lost today, with the melting economy and the hard-driving pace of work and school - really came through during that simple night. When we flew out of Asturias on Friday morning, Montes walked us through the tiny airport, saw us through to our gate, and made sure to tell us how much it meant to him that we felt it important to spend time with him and come to his homeland, and that we will forever have him as a friend.

The few days in Asturias were really the highlight of my trip.

Omaha Supporters Need Not to Apply

Click on the photo, read the last sentence.

"Dollar Bill On Floor Sends Wall Street Into Frenzy"

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/dollar_bill_on_floor_sends_wall

The immediate future is starting to look pretty bright. I'm putting my dollars in the dollar. I'm buying America, unlike that communist turd BeauXtreme.

Damn Thomas Friedman...The world is flat

So I ordered an Ipod earlier this week, and they guaranteed the delivery for today the 24th. They gave me a FedEx tracking number just to...well to keep track of the package. When I check the package, I was amazed. Check out where all my package has been. This is just for a measly Ipod.

http://www.fedex.com/Tracking?action=track&language=english&cntry_code=us&initial=x&tracknumbers=732805102655

“I have found a flaw."

M r. Sperandeo, my high school economics professor, was fond of saying, "Though I do not have a Doctorate of Philosophy in Economics, I can tell you for certain that Alan Greenspan is the single greatest economic policy decision maker this country has ever had." At that time, he seemed right. The United States and the world had seen one of the greatest economics booms in the history of the modern era and Alan Greenspan was seen by many as the heroic captain of the ship. On the eve of his unprecedented fifth appointment as Fed, Greenspan garnered celebrity status. He was so well received by the public even a Joe the Plumber would take heed of a Greenspan press conference.

But that was then and this is now.

Since his departure from the Fed in 2006, Alan Greenspan has been under a barrage of attacks from politicians, economists, and journalists. In the United States' attempt to understand (and/or find a scapegoat for) the current economic crisis, perhaps no other individual (save W.) has bore the brunt of public criticism more than Greenspan. Almost all of the articles--ranging from the Financial Times to American Banker and led by some of world’s leading economists, including two Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences winners, Edmund Phelps and Joseph Stiglitz--pin Greenspan as the architect of the economic mess the globe is in today.

Why such sharp criticism? Many point to Greenspan's praise of free market economics while at the same time vehemently opposing any intervention into the arena of his beloved, albeit complex, derivatives to assess risk and securities. One of those, Mortgage Backed Securities, played a major role in creating the current economic tsunami.

Sitting on Capital Hill today fielding bullets from inquiring senators and congresspersons, Alan Greenspan conceded that it was his error in judgment believing in the viability, strength, and self-correcting nature of the unregulated, free-market. He stated, “I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms.” Referring to his free-market ideology, Mr. Greenspan added: “I have found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact.”

Now, is this reason to abandon free-market ideology? No. Is this a reason to go on a Teddy Roosevelt-style gang-busting spree? Certainly not. Should we adopt and enforce unprecedented regulation since the late-nineteenth century? Perhaps not, but it looks like we might be headed there anyway.

What is necessary though, isn't more of what has gone on in the media. That is, trying to find a scapegoat or to vilify one group or another. As groups, Wall Street, predatory lenders, home owners, economists, George Bush, derivatives gone mad, and all the other things we've heard in the media are not the root of the problem. Indeed they are problems, but they are only that in so much as they are symptomatic of the problem.

What we must do is address the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is that our business models, assumptions, risk assessments haven't reflected the immense change in economies over the past half century. One way of addressing this is imposing governmental regulation. But it is important that the regulation is adjusted, changed, invented so that it incorporates and accounts for these changes in the economy of the United States and economies abroad. Similarly, another way to address the problem is a significant reevaluation of commonly held economic beliefs, models, and practices. Finally, to steal one from Sous, a commitment to responsibility on part of everyone in this country is needed. We are quick to forget Enron and to think that this problem has been solved because Kenneth Lay is dead and Jeff Skilling is in jail, but it is not.

I wish I could offer a more detailed solution, but I do not have a Doctorate of Philosophy in Economics.

For the Love of God, Can We Please Do This...

Can we please...PLEASE, make a soapbox racer and do this next year? With all of your political awareness and my scientific prowess, we could make a soapbox racer the likes of which the world has never, ever, ever seen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dePv4LAMe3M&feature=related

I now support the theory of evolution

Thanks to this recent article published in Science, I am considering becoming a supporter of the theory of evolution.

"Ancient Fish Heads for Land"
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/1016/2

Throughout my career as a biology major at Davidson, I found that the evidence supporting the theory of evolution seemed misinterpreted and didn't quite hold water. I was always skeptical of new presentations of such evidence. However, this recent article finally put all the pieces together for me. I think evolution might actually be real.

Thanks Tiktaalik roseae. You finally made some sense out of this theory.

The Words of Warren.

Not surprisingly, Warren Buffet, the godfather of Financial America, has come up a lot in recent months.

First, his recent major play of 8 billion dollars in the stock market, particularly with JP Morgan and GE, struck a vote of confidence, albeit brief, through the sector. And to give his move some perspective, his sum investment is over a tenth of the current behemoth bailout plan. Wow. For many, this was Warren being Warren: trusting the long-term success of the United States economy and raking in the wealth from not being afraid to make moves that contradict the financial-herd sensibilities.

Then his name kept popping up in the presidential debates, where both candidates, trusting his judgment concerning financial matters, cited him to be a top candidate for the next Treasury Secretary. A great choice, but even if Warren is not offered the position, Obama and McCain want Warren so much so that both are seriously considering him to play another prominent role within the government (that is, God willing, he accepts).

Now, his editorial in this morning's Times. His piece, which I've included in its entirety below, illustrates that things have gotten so bad and so serious, that Buffet felt the need, like never before, to assuage the fears of an entire country. This is something he has rarely, if ever, done, so we might want to pay attention.

Without further ado:

Buy American. I Am.

By WARREN E. BUFFETT

Published: October 16, 2008

THE financial world is a mess, both in the United States and abroad. Its problems, moreover, have been leaking into the general economy, and the leaks are now turning into a gusher. In the near term, unemployment will rise, business activity will falter and headlines will continue to be scary.

So ... I’ve been buying American stocks. This is my personal account I’m talking about, in which I previously owned nothing but United States government bonds. (This description leaves aside my Berkshire Hathaway holdings, which are all committed to philanthropy.) If prices keep looking attractive, my non-Berkshire net worth will soon be 100 percent in United States equities.

Why?

A simple rule dictates my buying: Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful. And most certainly, fear is now widespread, gripping even seasoned investors. To be sure, investors are right to be wary of highly leveraged entities or businesses in weak competitive positions. But fears regarding the long-term prosperity of the nation’s many sound companies make no sense. These businesses will indeed suffer earnings hiccups, as they always have. But most major companies will be setting new profit records 5, 10 and 20 years from now.

Let me be clear on one point: I can’t predict the short-term movements of the stock market. I haven’t the faintest idea as to whether stocks will be higher or lower a month — or a year — from now. What is likely, however, is that the market will move higher, perhaps substantially so, well before either sentiment or the economy turns up. So if you wait for the robins, spring will be over.

A little history here: During the Depression, the Dow hit its low, 41, on July 8, 1932. Economic conditions, though, kept deteriorating until Franklin D. Roosevelt took office in March 1933. By that time, the market had already advanced 30 percent. Or think back to the early days of World War II, when things were going badly for the United States in Europe and the Pacific. The market hit bottom in April 1942, well before Allied fortunes turned. Again, in the early 1980s, the time to buy stocks was when inflation raged and the economy was in the tank. In short, bad news is an investor’s best friend. It lets you buy a slice of America’s future at a marked-down price.

Over the long term, the stock market news will be good. In the 20th century, the United States endured two world wars and other traumatic and expensive military conflicts; the Depression; a dozen or so recessions and financial panics; oil shocks; a flu epidemic; and the resignation of a disgraced president. Yet the Dow rose from 66 to 11,497.

You might think it would have been impossible for an investor to lose money during a century marked by such an extraordinary gain. But some investors did. The hapless ones bought stocks only when they felt comfort in doing so and then proceeded to sell when the headlines made them queasy.

Today people who hold cash equivalents feel comfortable. They shouldn’t. They have opted for a terrible long-term asset, one that pays virtually nothing and is certain to depreciate in value. Indeed, the policies that government will follow in its efforts to alleviate the current crisis will probably prove inflationary and therefore accelerate declines in the real value of cash accounts.

Equities will almost certainly outperform cash over the next decade, probably by a substantial degree. Those investors who cling now to cash are betting they can efficiently time their move away from it later. In waiting for the comfort of good news, they are ignoring Wayne Gretzky’s advice: “I skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it has been.”

I don’t like to opine on the stock market, and again I emphasize that I have no idea what the market will do in the short term. Nevertheless, I’ll follow the lead of a restaurant that opened in an empty bank building and then advertised: “Put your mouth where your money was.” Today my money and my mouth both say equities.

Musings on Politics and the Economy

Hello again. First off - Beaux, great post.

I was sitting with my work team this afternoon, watching the news about the markets falling enormously for another time today. The economy is clearly in shambles - a crisis widely accepted to be unlike any since the crash of 1929. As we near the election of a new President, much focus falls upon the proposals of these two candidates to reverse the global economic calamity we face today. I got to doing some more musing, and here's what I came up with...

The root of the problem we're facing right now is sub-prime mortgages, and with that, bad credit. Essentially, Americans who could not afford to pay back their loans took out large "sub-prime mortgages," which enabled them to spend well beyond their means, particularly taking out loans to purchase real estate. The $700 billion now allocated to buy up these bad mortgages - essentially giving a free pass to those who took them out - will serve to remove the financial burden off of these Americans. My concern comes with this "bailout" plan which, as I mentioned above, rewards - with a free pass - many Americans who, cutting through much of the bullshit, made irresponsible financial decisions. Conversely, the bailout plan does not reward, and, paired with Obama's tax plan, could actually penalize, other Americans who have been financially conservative and responsible, and who are equally financially strapped because of the world's current economic turmoil.

It can be argued that, well, it's human nature to want to get the most one can and take the most from an opportunity... therefore, when someone making $30k per year takes out a mortgage on a $1 million house, human nature must be the culprit, the motivation. Along with this line of thought, it would therefore be the fault of the banks, who enticed Americans to take out these ridiculous mortgages. And it's true... much of the fault does fall on the offending banks.

But my problem really comes down to personal accountability, which seems to have gone out the window. As a new player in the "real world," I of course need to be prudent with my spending, balancing my costs with my income, and keeping close track of my accounts. While I would like to eat out every night, buy new suits (stud), and drive a BMW, I know - the numbers show me - that I cannot necessarily afford to. Now, with careful allocation and investment of my income, I know that I'll eventually be able to afford these things. Even at 22, I am making financially responsible decisions with the small amount of money I have.

At its most basic level, it is not difficult to identify and stick to one's financial bounds - regardless of what tax bracket someone belongs to - and while some people may be more strapped financially than others, that should not be an excuse to act irresponsibly financially. Rather than ignorance as an excuse, taking out enormous mortgages - and knowing you cannot pay them back - is greed. As I wrote earlier today, 1 in 6 Americans owe more money than the value of their house. That is baffling and unacceptable. Is this fair to the many people in this country - across any and all tax brackets - who have worked damn hard and planned carefully to build a stable and responsible financial base? While there are certainly criminals on Wall Street who have taken complete advantage of investors to fill their own pockets, acting irresponsibly, unethically and greedily, there are many, many hard-working people in this country who don't deserve to be ripped off by the financially irresponsible and greedy in this country.

I have a problem with the "bailout" plan in place and with Obama's plan to tax the top 5% - those who earn $250,000 or above - "because they can afford it." A blanket tax schema of this sort does not make sense to me. While "taking from the rich and giving to the poor" might have worked well for Robin Hood in the oppressive aristocracy of Britain, the same type of policy will not work in the U.S. today. There is a sense of entitlement in this country; the mind-set of working hard to earn one's living, a former staple of the American way, has fallen off course. Those members of American society who have worked hard and acted ethically and responsibly and have earned their $250,000+ (or whatever amount they earn) should not be forced to make up the burden left by some members of this country who feel entitled to what America offers, and who have let greed - not reason, responsibility, or need - shape their irresponsible financial decisions.

"Bradley Effect", "Reverse Bradley Effect," or Color Blindness

There has been a lot of talk lately that Barack Hussein Obama may fall victim to the dreaded "Bradley Effect." For those of you who don't know what that is; (I didn't until a few weeks ago) the Bradley Effect is named for the former California gubernatorial candidate Tom Bradley. In the 1982 governor's race, Bradley was showing double digit leads in the polls however when election day rolled around, such was not the case, in fact he lost. See, Tom Bradley was African-American and when the pollsters asked the people questions like "would you vote for a non-white candidate" they typically answered that they would, or that they were undecided. However, on election day, they were not so tolerant. Some speculate that when people go to the voting booth there is some sort of social desirability bias and they vote for the white candidate. I have noticed that a lot down here in LA. People say race is not an issue, but when push comes to shove, it is. Whether they know it or not.

Not all people buy into the Bradley Effect. In fact Barack Obama's campaign has lead many to offer an contradictory theory. This other side claims that because of race, Obama's poll numbers are underrepresented and when asked to vote, the voters ignore the race issue. For instance, black voters may be hesitant to say that they will support him and then on election day, they pull a reverse of the Bradley effect. Obama's Super Tuesday victories showed some signs of polls both over and under representing the actual results.

So what will it be? Bradley, Reverse Bradley, or soemthing else? I hope that it is something else. I hope that on election day race is not a factor. I think the Bradley effect shows problems in our society and I think that the Reverse Bradley effect shows the same problem. As you are learning right now Fitz, the reverse of flawed reasoning is still flawed reasoning.

The ongoing fight for Civil Rights is not fighting for the inverse of the old. It is hoping for a new America. Race should not be an issue. Anthropologically, the concept of "race" is a myth. It should be politically too. I hope that when Americans go to the polls, they cast their vote not because of race. Voting for Obama because he is black is no better than not voting for him because he is black. It is still basing a decision on the superficial. "Let us not judge men by the color of their skin, but by the Content of their Character."

Musings on Politics and the Environment

In advance of tonight's Presidential debate, I've spent some downtime at work sipping a coffee and musing about what I'm going to find most important for the next President. Clearly the economy is a major concern right now, and will require a great deal of change to get it strong again so that we can afford plane tickets to reunite, perhaps in Vegas. The credibility of the country abroad is also something that has been gravely damaged over the last eight years, and needs a good fixin'. But, being a good flag-waving, canoe-paddling, moccassin-wearing, "eh?"-saying Canadian, my biggest concern for the next four years is the environment. I've been ranting and thinking about it for a good amount of time now. It's not news to anyone that we're in a predicament. The IPCC - a commission of over 10,000 well-respected scientists from around the world - reported in 2004 that by 2012, great changes need to happen in the amount of emissions that go up into the atmosphere to slow the trends of global warming, and if the necessary action is not taken, the earth's climate is likely to reach a breaking point... terrible droughts and forest fires in some areas of the world, catastrophic flooding and hurricanes in others. It's even possible - so I learned from my Marine Ecology professor in Madrid - that the oceans currents (which regulate the world's weather patterns, and are fueled by discrepancies in water temperature, causing cold water to sink and warm water to rise) could slow or stop entirely if the planet's ocean temperatures continue to rise. For example, Europe's latitude is akin to northern Canada's, but the continent's temperatures are much like those of the Eastern seaboard of the US. The reason: the Gulf Stream brings warm water from Caribbean up along the Eastern seaboard, across the Atlantic, and down the European coast, keeping the region moderate in temperature. Without those currents in place, Europe becomes like Hudson Bay, which would only help to give polar bears a place to live now that their sea-ice is disappearing so rapidly.

Anyway, the environment and climate crisis really has strong ties into political and economic arenas throughout the world. Did you know, for instance, that there is a negative correlation between the price of oil and the level of democracy in the world's petro-dictatorships?... that is, the levels of freedom and democracy in those nations increases as oil prices fall, and vice-versa. As petrodictators gain more and more wealth, they have more and more influence over religious institutions (the Saudi brand of Islam preaches a much more fundamentalist/radical version than that in Pakistan, or even in Iran before Ahmenijad (sp?) took over), and they can prop up their economies and societies with oil revenue so that capitalism, innovation, and women's rights get lost in the fold. So, America - historically the international champion of capitalism and individual freedom for the oppressed - actually directly restricts the ability of the citizens of those countries (Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, to name a few) to live freely and democratically by refusing to wean itself off foreign oil. Domestic oil seems to be fine (as all these Republican "Drill baby, drill" shouters keep shouting) as an alternative to foreign oil, but it is short-sighted and does little (read: nothing) to wean the country from oil dependency in general and begin a true path to energy independence, which anyone with any foresight would be able to recognize, as the world's oil supply is not unlimited. In order to truly get there, the country needs to do a lot more than the "25 Easy Steps to Being Green" or to turning off the lights during game 4 of the ALCS... while they are nice gestures and may draw attention to the need for Americans to reign in their rampant excesses (whether it be food intake or energy (gas, electricity) consumption) and to act in an environmentally sustainable and responsible manner, they also reinforce the idea that acting "green" is easy, and the current debacle of the planet can be solved with such simple measures. Rather, it requires dedication on revolutionary levels, and I'm concerned that neither McCain nor Obama will implement the full change needed.

Revolutionary levels mean laws and dedication. The current gas mileage goals of the US for 2020 are the levels imposed by European countries NOW. Instead of enforcing strict emissions standards for automobiles, the government offers a relaxed attitude, essentially saying "we'll get to this later." Later will be too late. While it will be unpopular for some - special interest groups and auto companies specifically - strict emissions regulations would be a beneficial longterm goal. This is just one example, but really, government needs to get involved to make strict regulations and get our country on track for energy efficiency and independence, and then let the ingenuity of American corporations and innovators to figure out ways to get it done.

That is all for now. Thank you for reading my rant.

It's 5 o'clock in Glasgow

This is my first post in this blog. It's not going to be super sweet, like all of my upcoming posts will be. However, I just want to make known that I'm the fourth wheel on this powerhouse of political, artistic and existential ranting. I'll just take some time to introduce myself.

I grew up in a family of 6. These are my three brothers:

I am a grown ass man of 22 years.

I am balding prematurely, much like my older brother, the guy who looks borderline retarded.

I like to do arts.

I want to be a doctor.

I am currently unemployed, but I just got a job working in a lab encouraging mice to procreate so I can take out the eyeballs of their offspring. We're doing retina research. It's pretty cool I guess. I don't know, I haven't done it yet.

I really like the other guys contributing to this "blog."

I hate "blogs."

A Day On The Links

"[Tacitus], you're an Obama guy, right?"

Well of course Tacitus is an Obama guy. But, not wanting to ruin the next two hours of my life, I grudgingly said that, well, yes, Tacitus is a supporter of Barack Obama and then, instead of arguing, simply listened.
_____________________________
Brian, by most standards, is a reasonably intelligent, very successful salesmen in the medical/pharmaceutical business. As, if not more, intelligent were the two young Wachovia analysts who rounded out the foursome on the golf course. Ten holes in and a few beers down (a lot of beers down for Brian) the polite golf talk of club choice, general banalities, and random bursts of expletives general banalities turned toward the upcoming election. And Tacitus was in the minority.

Brian is a self-described, "conservative from another generation." He dislikes the, to quote, "multicultural" nature of Chicago, where he resided for 25 years; he can do without about eight million of the eight million people who live there. He lambastes the "niggers" who broke into his car in New Haven, Connecticut, but is quick to cover by saying he isn't a racist. He, correctly, points out that McCain has missed so many valuable opportunities within his campaign to regain control of the election. Brian thinks Barack Obama would be terrible for the White House for two main reasons. First, Brian duly notes Obama has no experience whatsoever, despite my objection that he was a law professor at UoChicago for twelve years. Second, Ron can not imagine Obama's "bitch of a wife promenading around the White House in hats."

The young analysts were also McCain supporters. Though much more sober and much less supportive of the character attacks on Obama, their arguments for McCain followed a similar, generic storyline: because Obama is bad for our country, our economy, my job, his job. Their biggest gripe seemed to come over the unneccesary regulation Obama and the Democrats would impose on the financial sector. Second to that the issue to them was of Obama's far-left, liberal-leaning record which pushed them toward McCain.

Interestingly, all of their evidence for McCain was not based on McCain at all, but because of the failures and/or weaknesses of Obama (save for the implied joke that voters should choose McCain because of sexual chemistry between he, Sarah Palin and/or Mrs. McCain; I'll spare the readers the details).

Not one person gave direct evidence for their support of McCain, but implicitly, there's still a lot to take away from this. Namely that many voters who choose McCain do so because he is NOT half black, NOT going to impose regulations into the financial sector, NOT married to a bitch, and, finally, HAS the fantastical possibility of having sexual relations with his running mate.

Further, there was no mention of the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, our national debt problem, the future of globalized political and economic systems, the quarter of Americans living below the poverty line (many of whom are veterans), the need for adjusted/reevaluated regulation into the financial industry, the fact that the current Republican president has increased the size of government to Great Depression-esque enormity.


Nope. None of that rational political discussion. Just that McCain isn't Obama, and so McCain is the way we should go.


After that round, it became clear the hockey moms and Joe Six-Packs aren't the only ones buying into the McCainian "Hate Week" rhetoric and the eagerness to vilify candidates on the most base level has even spread to those with education, with wealth, and with significant influence in 2008 election.

Canadian Thanksgiving

Yo. Happy Canadian Thanksgiving. I've been asked many, many times what the Canadian Thanksgiving is for. As we should all be aware, the Pilgrims, intent on founding a settlement that "should be as a citty upon a hill" (Winthrop, 1630) actually landed in Plymouth and relied upon the hospitality of native peoples for their survival, generosity which would later be repaid in full at the end of the 19th century (see: Trail of Tears, 1831, and Wounded Knee Massacre, 1890).

Anyway, so I'm sitting here watching football and having a "Harvest Moon" from the producers of "Blue Moon"... it is brewed with pumpkin, which is very seasonal and I find it very appropriate to this current Canadian celebration of the harvest. I've actually been pretty happy with the autumn seasonal beer selection. Beaux - I bought Abita Pecan Harvest beer the other night, it was delicious, and it said "Brewed with Louisianna Pecans", so I thought of you, naturally. Also, I thought back to a night at the Brick House - I believe it was last November - when you (Beauxregard), Marcos, and I sat outside smoking stogies and enjoying flavorful brews. Good times.

I went for hikes both yesterday afternoon and this morning with my Mom and dog (Pepper, 12, miniature schnauzer, athlete) and it was great walking around outside... the leaves are changing wonderfully up here and the air is nice and cool. Instead of talking about just "normal" stuff with my Mom, I asked her to tell me stuff that I didn't know. Stuff about her college life, family life, stories about her Dad, etc. and I learned a lot. Having my parents back on this side of the country (they've moved from Seattle) is awesome, and I try as much as possible to make the most of the time we can have together... nothing like spending time and hearing stories that will make them laugh out loud or get all emotional because they haven't thought of a particular funny or sad story in years.

That's all I got for now. Gotta go help my Mom finish making dinner... we bought a leg of lamb that we're roasting, potatoes (we got awesome purple, yellow and red ones), asparagus (mmm... smelly pee), and salad, and an apple pie for desert. Then its back up to Hartford tonight to continue racking up hotel points.

Hasta.

Sous

Banksy?

While procrastinating during Criminal Law today, I came across this pretty sweet "artist." Some may in fact call him a menace to society or a criminal in his own right, but I think he his pretty cool. His name is Banksy and he is from Bristol, England. And, that is about all we know about him. He started off as a graffiti artist and has since moved into some outrageous studio art. The most interesting thing about him, is that nobody really know who in the hell he is. Obviously, painting on building is a crime, so it doesn't make sense to publicize your role in the deed.

Banksy has started to use stencils alot in the last few years, in the interest of time and I think that they look great. You can see for yourself by looking at his website. He likes to poke fun at the police brutality, the media,advertisements, and some other flaws in our society.

The first picture up at the top is currently the background of my computer.
This next one is in New Orleans. It seems to ask the question of what life will be like for the children of Katrina?


This one is also from New Orleans, it is a pretty sweet example of using the existing buildings.


Ok I'm going to stop trying to play art critic, but I think these are all pretty effing fly.
http://www.banksy.co.uk/menu.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/7662797.stm

Tacitus For Election 2008

he original Tacitus, the Roman historian and senator, was much like a modern day socio-political-historiographer journalist; if a journalist could become a politician. Tacitus was heralded as one of the finest writers of his day and was best known for deep, though pessimistic, insights into the nature of power. His written work, the Histories and Annals, spanned the reign of the Roman Empire at its heights under Augustus to the beginning of the slow decline from power over the course of the century.

With the upcoming disposal of the current United States president, one whose approval rating is the lowest of any president, ever, and, on the other hand, one of the presidential hopeful's peculiar journey to the candidacy, I offer you a relevant passage from the original Tacitus on the reactions to Nero's death in 69 A.D.:


Welcome as the death of Nero had been in the first burst of joy, yet it had not only roused various emotions in Rome, among the Senators, the people, or the soldiery of the capital, it had also excited all the legions and their generals; for now had been divulged that secret of the empire, that emperors could be made elsewhere than at Rome.

Sand in my ...

Johnny Boy is absolutely right. I am pissed. I am just basically upset over the idea of freedom. What freedoms do we have? Speech, Religion, Assembly, Press? Which ones of those have we had to fight for? Well I will concede that at one time all of those were fought for, but what about now? When we say fighting, and even more, dying for the sake of our freedoms, what does that mean? Of those rights above and any other that you can think of who has the highest possibility to infringe on them...my best estimates say our very own government. When I want the right to free speech or the right to assemble, I tell the government to get off my back, yet I and millions of others close our freaking brains when the government ends a sentence with..."in the interest of our freedoms." We are not at war to protect "our freedoms," we are at war to possibly protect other's, for oil, for power, for world security. Any of those are possibilities and may be warranted and totally just, but for "our freedoms?" The best that I can see it, the main way to manifest our "freedoms" is to vote. Yet, less than 60% of Americans voted in the 2004 presidential elections. (By the way those were the highest numbers in 40 years) So, we don't want to exercise our freedom but we will close out eyes and ears to anything the government wants to do in the name of our freedoms. I guess that makes sense.

Maybe it is just me. I am a young, well off, southern, white, male. I don't have much to complain about in the realm of people withholding rights. So, my country better have more of an excuse than "we are going to war to protect your freedoms." I am not saying there are not good reasons. I am a pacifist, not that much. However, another right that I have failed to mention is one that falls in the Second Amendment. Don't I have the right to blow someones brains out if they infringe on my rights? Why do I need someone else to do that?

If the dozens of people that I have had tell me that "Muslims just hate our freedoms" are right, then why in the hell are we promoting democracy. A democracy is a rule "by the people." If "THEY" just hate our freedoms then wouldn't "their" beliefs be perpetuated through a democracy just as in a theocracy, a dictatorship or a failed state?

It is time that we drop these deep seeded illusions. Our "freedoms" are not being threatened right now. They haven't been since the maybe WWII and maybe the Revolutionary War. We will all go in a mushroom cloud before another country takes away a single one of my "freedoms." But I have seen our own country violate its own citizens right to vote, to assembly, to practice religion, to speak. Whom shall we fear?

I only have questions...I do not have answers. Well maybe one answer, it is time to cut through the bullshit rhetoric of fear and patriotism. We as a people need to be motivated to see what is going on in this world, and do something about it. Vote, assemble, Speak, Pray. Those rights are not being taken away unless of course we let our government do it. Do Muslims really hate our freedoms? If so, what freedoms in particular do they hate? If it is the right to vote, then they are pretty finicky. Is it the right to practice certain religions? That could be it, but could our radical theocracy have anything to do with that.

Now is not the time to be comfortable. If being afraid is what makes you shift in your chair then so be it, but now is not the time for young people to be idle. Economic Crises, Wars (plural), poverty, human rights. Just because I am nice an comfy in my apartment and my law school is paid for doesn't mean that I can remain quiet.

If I pissed anyone off, good. I have been wrong before and I will be wrong again. But the situation remains. That comfortable roof our have ancestors built, has reached it's warranty, and it is starting to leak. We better at least start patching before another storm comes. Or we may have to actually fight for those freedoms.

Twenty-First Century Occupational Loomings

In his recent business book entitled "A Whole New Mind," Daniel Pink, former speechwriter for Al Gore, outlines the modern day challenges educated, logical, and mba/j.d.-oriented workers will confront in a Brand New World. Along the way, Pink succinctly diagnoses the major problems Western countries will face in the twenty-first century.

[Before you stop reading, I thought the same thing: What relevance does a business book have? Well, a lot, so says Tacitus and Pulitzer-Prize winning author/journalist Thomas Friedman.]

In the first half of the book, Mr. Pink asks his readers to consider: Can computers do it faster? Can overseas labor do it cheaper? Are your skills in demand? Are your skills overly abundant? His answer is clear that the majority of workers within the United States will soon answer yes to these questions: there will be little demand for number-crunchers(computers), white-collar jobs (outsourcing to India/China), and those of whom receiving juris doctorates and mba degrees--43,883 and 110,000 per year, respectively (saturation of the demand for a limited number of positions). These jobs that traditionally were considered one's best bets relied upon left-brained thinking, those that our society has advocated through its type of tests (LSAT, SAT) and strictly objective, detail oriented approaches to problems.

No more, says Mr. Pink.

His argument follows that the skill set that will succeed in the new century will be those who have fully encompassed right-brained thinking into our trained and true left-brained thinking, thus creating, as the title denotes, a whole new mind. A mind that can see the big picture trends within a comprehensive and large amount of evidence. A mind that can play and be creative in coming up with solutions. A mind that gives the narrative to these solutions and facts. A mind that empathizes. A mind that can design or improve on existing designs. And, most important, a mind that finds meaning within its work.

-- -- --

Though a fascinating thesis, Mr. Pink inadequately addresses several key flaws within his argument. First, those six principles on which he argues the success of American jobs will depend is highly speculative and under substantiated. Even if they were the only six, why wouldn't India and Asia (and Russia) be able to develop them as much, if not more so, than many Western countries? Second, What happens when the market is flooded creative, design workers? Will the pendulum swing back or drop off? For much of his forward looking argument, he does not question what impact it will have later on down the line. Thirdly, his argument for the numerical decline of the the lawyer profession is that computers will be able to pull up prepared forms by a drastically smaller number of lawyers. These seems almost unfathomable, considering how many divisions and sectors there are in the legal profession. And finally, his proposal is very much a simplistic outlook on the future job market. Many factors will determine the twenty-first century worker. His version, the "conceptual worker," though perhaps valuable in ways, will not become the standard.

Appendage:
I wrote to Mr. Pink as per his suggestion in the epilogue of the book. I wrote him of my anxiety and frustration that, despite encompassing those necessary values he outlined in his book, despite my achievements at one of the finest liberal arts college in the nation, I remained jobless. He replied within four days with words of encouragement and blamed the current market.

Cadenza 1

Cadenza, noun: "An improvised or written-out ornamental passage played or sung by a soloist or soloists, usually in a "free" rhythmic style, and often allowing for virtuosic display."

So I'm up in Hartford... another week passing me by. I've been here since June, Monday through Thursday... sometimes its pretty good, other times it sucks horrendously because I'm not living daily life in New York. It's really the simple things that I miss, like sitting around in my apartment, sleeping in my own bed, buying groceries and cooking, playing my own Mario Kart set, or even just walking around. I can't complain too much though, cause I don't have any expenses to worry about during the weeks, I'm racking up hotel points at a freakish rate.

I've decided that I really like autumn... it even says so in my profile interests. I think its something about the crisp fall air around, beautiful colors in the trees... makes me want to go walk around in the woods and get lost somewhere and not have to come into work. I've been hitting up the farmer's market in Union Square every Saturday morning, buying milk fresh from the cows udder (mooo!), eggs, veggies... and now that it's fall, there's lots of gourds and pecan pies and even locally-brewed pumpkin ales! Pretty solid. On the thought line of fall and how I just wanna be outside in a flannel shirt and cords, I'm pondering a canoe/portage trip through Algonquin Provincial Park for next fall... get into the backwoods and canoe from lake to lake, see some moose, sleep out under the stars and listen to the wolves howling. I think that's going to be my vacation next fall. If any of you other guys are interested, let me know, we'll do it live.

While I'm on the topic, check out a video on youtube about Bill O'Reilly flipping out... some writer on his show wrote something for teleprompter, and he didnt want to say it so he flips out. Best line? He goes "fuck it... we'll do it live". So the "we'll do it live" phrase has somewhat stuck, I use it when I'm making moves.

Recent moves I've made:

- Bought Rosetta Stone for French so I can eventually go live/work in Europe (Switzerland?) and make bank over there, live like Hemingway, enjoy nice wines and new cultures, and travel around easily.

- Bought a sick knife set for my apartment... Henckels. Can cut through anything I'm prepping, its fucking great.

- Learning how to cook a ton... some specialties I've been working on are Spanish tapas: Gambas al Ajillo (Shrimp and Garlic), and Chorizo con Manzana (Chorizo with Apple).

- Got the digits of a really hot girl at a recruiting fair at UPenn... unreal. We went out last weekend, making plans for this weekend. She is actually very cool and smart, and its the first time in a while that I'm actually excited for some kind of possibilities. Woohoo.

I'm getting excited for this debate. I've also gotta make a bit of a poop, so I'm gonna go do that.

Speaking to Beaux right now, he is angry as hell. I love it. I hope he writes something about it all (hint, hint).

That's all for now. I wanna go play frisbee in this nice fall weather. And have a stogie on the roof of Commons. With some Spanish wine. And the frisbee team. That'd be hype.

Sous

A few words about the American Legal System

In reading for class this morning I came across an amazing passage. 49 states in the United States are based off of the English Common Law system, Louisiana is based off of a combination of French, Spanish, and Voodoo law.

In the Middle Ages in England, there were no trials by jury. They actually had much more efficient and logical means of deciding trials.

The First method: The ordeal by Deity
"The accused had to perform a task imposed upon him by the judges. If he performed it to their satisfaction, it was assumed that God was on his side, and that he was innocent."

The Second Method: The ordeal by Fire
"The accused had to carry a piece of hot iron in his hand for a number of steps, or he was required to pick a stone out of boiling water. After the wound was inflicted, a priest bound up the injured hand or arm. If it healed cleanly after three days, the person in question was deemed innocent. If there was a blister as large as half a walnut or more, he was convicted."

I shit you not, this is actually how trials were decided.

If the blister ain't bigger than a walnut, you have to acquit. -Judge in O.J. Simpson trial

Prologue

Call me Tacitus. Some years ago - never mind how long precisely - having little or no money in my purse, and nothing in particular to interest me in these United States, I thought I would talk a little and see the reality of the world. Whenever I find myself growing grim about the mouth; whenever it is a damp, drizzly November in my soul; whenever I find myself involuntarily pausing before coffin warehouses; especially whenever my nerves get such an upper hand of me, that it requires a strong moral principle to prevent me from deliberately stepping into the street, and methodically knocking people glasses off - then, I account it high time to get to blog as soon as I can.

"Hold my beer and watch this."

A great scholar once said that all good things in Louisiana begin with the title phrase of this post. I agree.

This is a story that happened very recently to a group of people I know very well. I will use three fake names to protect the parties from any seemingly illegal acts. As some of you may know, September in Louisiana is Alligator season. Boudreaux just moved back his home state of Louisiana and he was looking to get that cajun blood flowing so when he was invited to go on a gator hunt with his cousin Thibodeaux and his uncle Pierre, he was happy to accompany them. Boudreaux hadn't shot anything in years, so his was planning to just have an auxiliary role in the hunt. He wasn't quite sure that he could stomach killing a beautiful creature of the Great Spirit. Pierre and Thibodeaux had no such moral barriers.

After an afternoon of searching around the Atchafalaya Basin for gators, the 3 relatives had grown pretty frustrated. They had missed an opportunity to bag a 10ft+ gator and those two cases of cold domestic beer were almost gone. All of was almost lost until Boudreaux spotted about a 7 foot gator catching the last rays of the afternoon sun on the bank. Uncle Pierre spun the boat around, and Thibodeaux steadied his rifle against the edge of the boat. BAM! Direct hit right in the head. The gator started to spin and thrash in the water. Uncle Pierre hit the gas and as they got to the gator, Boudreaux reach down to pull it into the boat. Unfortunately for Boudreaux, the jaws and not the tail of the gator came up first. Boudreaux quickly withdrew his arms and the gator disappeared under the black water. Drunk and not wanting to lose his gator (new pair of boots), Thibodeaux jumped into the water with a hook and a rope, hoping to fish the dead gator off the bottom. After about 3 throws of the hook, there was still no gator. Uncle Pierre in his less than sober mind handed his pistol to Boudreaux, undressed to his tighty whities and jumped into river. "If I yell your name, start shooting!" said Uncle Pierre. The water was only about 4 feet deep and Uncle Pierre was dragging his feet (socks still on) on the bottom trying to kick the dead gator. To everyone's surprise, the "dead gator" brought its long snout to the top of the water right next to Uncle Pierre. Apparently the rifle shot had only knocked him silly, it didn't go through the skull. So, what did Uncle Pierre do? He did what all reasonable men would do, he grabbed that cold-blooded SOB by the snout and slammed it on the bank. Thibodeaux immediately jumped on top of the gator and Uncle Pierre and began to punch the gator in the face. So, lets recap, Boudreaux is in the boat pointed a loaded .357 Magnum at the gator, screaming "What do I do?!", Thibodeaux is punching an almost 7 foot alligator in the face, and as the gator attempts to roll them off, Uncle Pierre is screaming "You Ain't Rollin' on Me Mudda Fucka!!" Boudreaux then jumps into the river and places the barrel on the head of the gator..."CLICK"...the gun doesn't fire..."CLICK"..."CLICK"..."CLICK"...Oh Shit! The rifle is in the boat, out of bullets, and there is something wrong with the pistol. Let's recap again. Three grown men on top of a 7 foot alligator with no way to kill it, the boat is slowly moving down stream, Uncle Pierre has a broken finger from the wrestling match, Thibodeaux has a broken hand from punching a wild alligator in the skull, and Boudreaux may have just pissed himself. Thibodeaux takes the gun with his broken hand and luckily it wasn't out of bullets, it was just jammed..."BANG." So it goes. The great beast had been felled. Gov. Palin would be so proud.
This story is what happens when you mix beer, alligators, and coon-asses (Cajuns). So what have we learned? A 7 foot gator is much stronger than a former professional baseball player, a former professional football player, and a former college football player. Also an alligator's skull is much, much stronger than the human metacarpals (hand bones), but not stronger than a point blank bullet from a high powered pistol. Laissez les bon temps rouler! (let the good times roll).

Political Rant 1: The Letter to the Editor

Hi. This is my first post on a blog, ever. And I'm excited.

The following is my first ever letter to the editor, written to the New York Times last week. I was completely taken aback by Sen. McCain's dishonest, passive aggressive way of backing out of a talk-show date on the Letterman show, and questioned how his inability to deal with a late night comedian would reflect on his (in)ability to manage the country's credibility in the face of impending global economic and political crises...

"To the Editor:

Re: "Letterman unloads on McCain for not showing up" (Sept. 25, 2008):

While Senator McCain's publicized absence from Wednesday night's "Late Show" certainly provided host David Letterman with ample comic material, the deceitful manner with which McCain handled the cancellation raises serious concern about his ability to promote "change" from the dishonest ways of the current administration. McCain apparently spoke to Letterman before the show, claiming that he would be "flying [immediately] back to Washington"; instead, he appeared on another CBS program.

Why did McCain lie to Letterman? Given the severity of the nation's economic status, cancelling an appearance on a late-night talk show should be understandable and forgivable. But if McCain cannot interact honestly with a talk show host, how can we expect him to restore the country's heavily-damaged credibility or bring the “change” we need?"


Hope you enjoyed. More to come later.

Sous

A little bit of nothing

So, I am in law school right now and the best way to describe how I feel about it is with an analogy. Being in law school is sort of like having a prostate exam. Now, I have never had a prostate exam but from my understanding, it is a very painful, uncomfortable, and awkward experience. However, it is necessary if you want to be cancer free. Law school is painful, uncomfortable, awkward, depressing...and so on, but for me I guess it is necessary. Now Fitz and I have fought tooth and nail about this, but I do want a law degree. I do see great value in getting a professional degree, but the process is miserable.

This blog is comprised of a few good friends who have been scattered around after graduation. We are all in some sense trying to figure out our lives. 3 of us are making money doing that, and I am paying money, again. I am in Louisiana. "Home." I was really excited to come home. Contrary to the popular stereotypes there is great art, culture, and music in certain sectors down here. If you can ignore the hurricanes, occasional racism, and the mosquitoes (which are preventing me from being in my hammock right now) Louisiana is a sweet place.

The purpose of this blog is unclear and as of right now, I am not even sure if anyone else is going to sign up. But, I hope for it to be a place where we can stay connected, Tell cool stories, Rant about what pisses you off- or what makes you jingle, Talk about books, movies, music, art, anything. Basically I am feeling completely cut off from the world and quite frankly studying law is boring the hell out of me. I only have small amounts of times, so this is my effort to live vicariously through a few good friends and if need be, they can do the same.

A note about the picture: The title of this blog (until one of you comes aboard and changes it, which is totally OK) is a spin on a great book by John Kennedy Toole, The Confederacy of Dunces. This was one of the first books from the Sousa-Jones book club. The main character in the Novel is Ignatius O'Reily. He is an amazing character, sort of a modern day Don Quixote. Anywho, that is a picture of his statue in New Orleans under the awning of the Chateau Senesta Hotel.

That is all for tonight. I have one good story to tell, but I am tired and no body has actually accepted the invite to the blog, so I will save it for another time.

~Beaux aka BeauXtreme aka MOI Spine

Sir Ignatius