Rou

The press like the story to seem balanced. They like to give both sides equal weight. They also like to reach out and find controversy and stir it up. These two features make the press very bad at educating the population. If people don't understand something, they trust the press to inform them. To give them all they information they need to make an informed decision.

That's the problem with teaching the controversy. Evolution is a not a controversy. The US did land on the moon. Vaccination isn't harmful to your children. The planet is over 4 billions years old. There is no chance of the LHC causing the end of the world.

That's just the way it is. But those are not interesting stories. So, reporters seek out opposing views to juice their stories up. They spread lies and distortions in order to grab ratings and sell copy. A story about the evolution of man isn't interesting. But push a few buttons and put the one moron who believes in the literal translation of the Bible on with equal time, and suddenly, the disease of disinformation is spread.

Vaccines are responsible for ridding the world of many serious illnesses and making many more much more manageable. But put Jenny McCarthy on the radio to spread lies about a imaginary link to autism, and you've set back the health care of the country dramatically.

The LHC is a big deal to scientists. It's such a big deal, that the press feel obligated to talk about it. But it's not sexy enough for general usage. So they go out and try to find some fringe scientists looking to make a name for themselves. Someone with really off the wall ideas. Put them up and tell the public this machine is going to cause the end of the world. Suddenly, the LHC is on your morning radio and in the news around the world. But it's such a complicated thing that most people don't understand it, including the reporters. The fuck up the story and just lace it with extra panic.

Then, once the fear mongering hits a crescendo, you open up a paper and see a little Indian girl, so terrified that the world is about to end that she drinks pesticide and kills herself.

All because reporters feel an obligation to teach the controversy.

All my rage and disgust for every low-life slime-ball piece of horseshit who peddle bullshit stories and distortions onto the public to make a few quick dollars. May your sexual organs become gangrenous, and your children all drink pesticide. There is no punishment too severe. Die screaming.

Said it before, so I'll keep it short and simple.

When scientists say it's a theory, that doesn't mean it's untested. Common usage and scientific usage of the word are different. Scientific theories don't become scientific laws. Theories explain laws.

Quick example: The Law of Gravity describes HOW matter attracts other matter. The Theory of Gravity explains WHY matter attracts other matter.

Really, a law is a statement of fact. Not that great an accomplishment, except in it's precision. Seriously, how big of a deal is it to say that what goes up must come down, right? But a theory... that's a big deal. That's a lot more complicated. It's an explanation for all given evidence, supported by tests, experimentation , and observation, for why something occurs the way it does.

It's not just a theory. More like... 'Holy Crap! It's a Theory!'

Seriously, I blame the deficient education system for not making this clear to every school kid.

I have very specific views on the role religion should have on our government. None. In my ideal world, the role of religion in the governance of a country should be exactly 'none'.

But I'm not totally unsympathetic to the plight of my theistic brethren. I know you want to to vote for candidates that believe in the same religion as you. Or that you want your courthouses to put up your religion's rules as a moral compass. You want you children to learn things that are approved by your faith. Even that you want public lands to be available to help demonstrate the local celebrations of faith.

I understand. I do. So, I'm going to be as fair as possible. Propose some reasonable alternatives.

Let's start with public land, shall we. It's simple. You can put up Christmas displays on school grounds and public parks and such things. In exchange, you have to make those same premises just as available to any other religious group at any other appropriate time of year. Not only that, but any funds used to purchase, install and maintain those Christmas displays must be matched as well. If you pay for Christians, you pay for Muslims. Simple, balanced, fair.

Now, let's try those Commandments. Toughie, I admit. But I'll let you put them up by calling them a historical precedent for American legal code. I think we should toss up some other key documents. Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights and Magna Carta under the same guise. course, I want something in return. Hammuribi's Code (Babylon), the Book of the Dead (Egyptian), and the Twelve Tables (Rome). All of which are just additional sources that influenced our legal systems and provided a sturdy bedrock to build on. And really, we should at least consider the 5 Pillars of Muslim law, the 4 Noble Truths of Buddhism, though I'm willing to concede that little of our legal system traces back to those two documents. I include them simply for the sake of religious equality.

Still with me? Good good. Now, onto the children and the process of educating their little minds. I support the religious indoctrination of children at a young age. Often actually. See, we get along! Of course, we do disagree on which religion we want to fill their heads with, don't we? Well, my religious friend, we can get around this. You can teach them about original sin, and Noah's Ark, and how Jesus died for their sins. But not in science class. Move it on over to World religions. Make them take it in 3rd, 6th, 9th and 12th grade. Teach them all the basics of the five major religions, and you get 4 chances to convince them that your religion is the best. Plus, you can tutor them at home every Sunday! Trade off? You can't use the music, art, or science budget for it.

I know, it seems like a lot. For the most part, I think it's pretty fair. You get to practice your religion and not feel persecuted (somehow some of you manage to do that in a country with nearly 80% of the people practicing your religion). And we atheists, agnostics, pagans and heathens can go about our buisness without feeling like your shoving your faith down our throat.

Here's a tip for communication with Roulette.

'Re:' should not be used as a replacement for the word 'about'.

For example, "Rou, re: your message re: Client A, I sent you an email with all of the details"

See... that's fucking stupid. I have no doubt that re: has some ancient Latin base. And it make perfect sense in a title of an email or memo. However, it's fucking stupid when you use it in the middle of a sentence.

So... yesterday was a big day in news. You just have to open up the front page of CNN, MSNBC or Fox news and you can see a couple of big stories. Olympics are starting, and we have a swimmer who could win eight... yes EIGHT gold metals. Wow.

John Edwards admitted to having an affair. But the lovechild isn't his. Or so he says.

Beneath those headlines, there are some other... minor topics. Like Russia going to war with it's neighbor. Little things like that.

Seriously... a sex scandal outdoes an actual war for top story? What the fuck.

“So when I put my hand on the Bible, I will swear to not only uphold the laws of our land, I will swear to uphold the honor and dignity of the office to which I have been elected, so help me God.”

“In my administration, we will ask not only what is legal but what is right. Not just what the lawyers allow, but what the public deserves. In my administration, we’ll make it clear there is a controlling legal authority of conscience.”

Eight long years since those lies were uttered. The full weight of history has demonstrated how false they were. A man who had the nerve to decry the Clinton campaign for sullying the office of the presidency should never get away with such rampant, wretched lies. I could go on for hours or days. Or I can try to sum up my feelings in one word.

Despicable.

So, once again, the Mighty Mississippi River has overflown it's banks. The waters have risen and left devastation in its wake. Huge areas of land are under water. Homes are destroyed. Crops are wrecked. All a tribute to the amazing power of nature to flex her mighty muscles and remind us all how insignificant our best efforts to chain her down really are.

There is of course, a lot of suffering in the flood wrecked regions. I feel for them. Some.

That emotion is tempered by a couple things. The reason many of those towns are there is that the land is exceedingly fertile. It doesn't just magically happen that way. Something causes it to be fertile. Floods.

Sure, we've built up huge levees to reduce the amount of flooding that occurs. We try to make sure the Mississippi River, one of the largest and most powerful rivers in the entire world, stays inside it's banks. We don't let it straighten it's course or naturally redirect it's flow seasonally. We lock it into it's path with levees. Because it doesn't have anywhere else to put it, we force the river to deposit it's sediment of the bottom of the river instead of across the floodplain. That raises the river higher every single year making it more and more likely to overflow the levees. You have to raise the levees to match. And if it ever does break a levee, that much more water will flow out into our towns and farms. It's a vicious circle.

So, here we have huge populations of people living on or near a flood plain because it's both fertile land, and has easy access to a major shipping lane. Note the term. Flood plain. There is a reason we call it that. These people, living on these flood plains are taking a calculated risk. Even if it wasn't apparent to them decades ago, the 1993 flood should have raised awareness.

Certainly, the government noticed. It changed it's rules for federal flood insurance. Silly things like requiring people to flood-proof certain areas, or build houses on stilts to prevent flood damage. Did the people listen? I'm sure some of them did. But most of them didn't. And now they're trying to figure out what to do because the government isn't going to cover them.

It's those people that I just don't have a full measure of sympathy for. Yes it's bad. It sucks. But at the same time, they choose to wager their lives and belongings on a bet: that the Mississippi River wouldn't destroy their homes. That the levees would protect them. That the 1993 flood was a statistical anomaly that could never happen again.

Yes, yes. It sucks to be them. I can't truly imagine the damage done to their lives. I really don't want to be totally cold-hearted. I just think that there are certain facts of life that you need to accept. I accept that any money I go into a casino with is as good as gone, and anything I come out with is a bonus. They need to accept that they were gambling everything they had on the hope that the river wouldn't flood. My odds at blackjack are probably better than theirs out on the floodplain.