Study finds differences between "gay" sheep and "straight" ones . Very weird thing to be studying if you ask me, but maybe helpful to the gay community. If it can be scientifically proven that gay people aren't making a choice to be gay but are rather genetically different than it is patently illegal to discriminate. Maybe.

And...this is just disturbing

(The sheep is on top)
Inflatable Party Sheep designed to be the friend you've always needed, the love you have always dreamed of. It's the little lamb you can love and will love you back. For all your sheep loving friends - bring out the beast in them. For centuries men the world over have known that a sheep is the next best thing to a woman. It is soft, sexy, and disease free!

A new study has found that over 2/3rds of US crops are contaminated with genetically modified material. The Independent reports that... "The test found that at "the most conservative expression", half the maize and soyabeans and 83 per cent of the oilseed rape were contaminated with GM genes - just eight years after the modified varieties were first cultivated on a large scale in the US." Fun times. So eight years later...plenty of time to figure out just what the fuck these genes do. The tomacco is here and here to stay. At this point there is little hope of any of our crops remaing "pure." This is a problem. Now I don't know that I necessarily think genetic altering is a bad thing. It could lead to many innovations, leading to healthier and disease-repellant crops. But, and this is a big but, we don't know what else they might do. So we have a soy bean that matures more rapidly and is less likely to be eaten by a specific pest because we have spliced in some lemon-gene. What if it also leads to clogging of the arteries, growth of tumors, hair-loss, who knows what else. And that's the thing we just don't know, and now it may be too late to prevent every soy bean eaten from now on to be contaminated. Fucking Monsanto!

This is a good article too I think and a good idea for Kerry. Bring the whole team along I say.

This strange new study by Stefan Koelsch highlights a connection between human understaning of music and language. The study consisted of segments of music being played and then immediately after a volunteer (who had no musical experience, ie: never played an instrument, etc.) was shown a word that was either "related" or "unrelated." Take a look at the music samples and the word lists: .

Apparently when the volunteers heard a related word key areas of the brain responded with high levels of activity. When the unrelated word was shown no such response was garnered. The relevance of this "priming" of the brain is seen in many other activities of language. For example, in other studies it has been shown that participants respond differently after reading a passage relating to a particular topic and then seeing a similar word afterwards (ie: a passage about sailing is read and then the brain mapped as the next word is read, desert or ocean). The study gives credence to the theory that music and language evolved along the same lines in terms of human understanding, just how related remains to be understood fully. Some suggest that music (or tonal recognition, and harmonic relations) may have played an important role in the development of language.

Paul says I'm like Elvis. In the early stages, he qualifies. I guess I'm just too fabulous for reality. What can I say? The ups and the downs, the rebounds, what have you. I'm learning to be a very optimistic person. Not about the world in general, or America, or people in general, just about me. I am learning to enjoy life as it comes. To make choices (or not) and to not dwell on could-have-beens or should-have-beens. I've found that goals are an unhealthy construct most of the time. They make you struggle for eventual happiness while ignoring what can be found in each moment. So I don't believe in the whole sacrifice today for the future bullcrap. In fact I think it's hardcore business propaganda to pump us as hard as possible during our most productive years. How else do you convince all of us to work so damn hard? It's the end goal, the financial security, eventual prestige, what have you that pushes us to produce. So I don't buy it. I look at my poor father, who worked for a damn long time, had a great retirement plan and so forth. He lost most of his retirement in the whole Enron fiasco (his company has nothing to do with them, but that's where the money was invested), and now is out of work and pretty much at the same financial security level as me. What the hell did prodigiously working for years and years get him? So, I scorn the future, and care about today. But I am learning to be happy, which is the important part of this rant. Most of us are unhappy because we're not where we "want to be" but I want to be happy because I am, right here right now. There is no other place I'd rather be-heeee! Jesus Jones thank you for those words of inspiration.

A quote by James Madison made at the debates before the drafting of our constitution:

In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority [italics mine]. The Senate, therefore, ought to be this body.

So if anyone still believes in the common fallacy that the crafters of our constitution really believed in any form of equality, please reconsider. They knew exactly what they were doing, basically making sure that the wealthy landowners (ie: the opulent minority) would stay wealthy and become wealthier through direct control over the political and economic processes of our country and its people (ie: the sniveling majority).

from:
Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, 1787 ("Yates's Minutes"), Philadelphia: Lippincott, 2nd edition, 1836

At risk of having everyone hate me again, I present an opposing view on the draft.

Currently our army (enlisted men, excluding officers) consists overwhelmingly of poor people. It is a last resort for too many kids with few prospects (see some of my other journals about prisons and soldiers [inlink]userName=terry,blogID=62[/inlink] & [inlink]userName=terry,blogID=64[/inlink]). The reason for this is that we have what is called a "professional army" composed of paid soldiers whose main occupation is war (call it "defense" or "peacekeeping" if you like). What we used to have was a "volunteer army," meaning that our citizens were our army when needed (hence our 2nd amendment rights to carry arms: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.). The draft is an extension on this volunteer army system.

There are many differences between the two types of armies. Economically speaking, a huge standing army (ie: our current system) must be constantly paid, fed, housed, etc. With a draft in place, you would of course keep a much smaller army, and only pay a larger force when necessary. I think a part of the reason for our skyrocketing defense budgets since Vietnam has a lot to do with maintaining a gigantic army constantly. Politically, it is much harder to justify war if you don't have professional soldiers. If the kids going to war aren't just from the farms and the ghettos, but from right next door-suburbia, you better have good reasons. How much more antiwar sentiment can you garner if everyone has to worry about themselves or their loved ones being drafted? I especially like that there are very tough requirements for waivers in the new bill which would hopefully prevent stooges like our current leader from ditching his duty. Another point I always think of is if it ever got down to the army being used for civil purposes (as was very close in Miami this summer at the FTAA protests) I would much rather see a draftee who still remembered being a civilian than a hardened professional killer.

Basically the way it works now is hugely expensive, allows America to have a gigantic army that can be repositioned as easily as the pieces on a Risk board, disproportionately utilizes lower class labor, breeds sociopathic killers, must not be strenuously justified, and allows slackers like Dubya off the hook. So while I personally have no desire to be drafted, I don't know that the idea should be so off-handedly dismissed. I just think of the next war that Dubya thinks up, in Lybia or Iran or wherever, and imagine the draft cards going around, and the hundreds of thousands who then could stand up in solidarity, saying we will not fight for your greedy wars. The 82nd Airborn is never going to do that.

Slithering tires bring friends to the goal
Squelching through slime
Racing through time
Fast as you can but watch out for the fall
White wonder abounds
Breath panting in rounds
To the river of course though hidden beneath
Coruscating ice floe
Wary feet tread slow
Across and over rushing depths below
Round the next bend
Like pure heavensend
Glistening water frozen while falling
Boys take it in
Both sight and sin
Winter relaxes and they enjoy the melt

She was invading my thoughts this morning as I lie semiconscious after sleep. I rode the Autobus and remembered what it was like to travel through a downtown that had no cars. Of course we abused the system half the time, which made it more dangerous. Danger is not always a bad thing though. One time I kotzte on the bus, I don't think the Führer noticed though. One time I ran away from my friends for no apparent reason and then returned home later to lock myself in the bathroom where I was found lying at the bottom of the shower. I used to wander a lot. About the town and surrounding countryside. Our town was small, you needed only to go a halfmile in the right direction to be away. I found a glen. It became my private getaway spot. I made a hollow in the ground which I could disguise by pulling the long grass over. I made an Indian. He was natural. Except for his weapon. He had a rock for a brain, but was imbued with my lifeforce. He was precognizant. Or maybe connected with another faraway life force. He reacted once or twice. He remains in Deutschland (so far as I know). I wonder if he's still connected or if it fades with time. I hope he's not too dusty. Those were free and carefree (and I must admit workfree) days. Leisure up the kazoo. I used to run and bike. I had a ridiculous headpiece for earphones. Everyone laughed at me (mostly to themselves). It was fun being foreign. Exotic even. Maybe not quite that far. Until I opened my mouth you couldn't really tell. There was a See. You went there, schwimmen, sonne-baden. The whole time nackt wie ein Baby. I must stop, the reminiscing is too much for me. Makes me miss what's faraway right now. Spring will help. It always does.

we went for a walk. The weather is achangin. Who knows how long for. Enjoy it while we can, sall we can do. Friends come over after crazy enticers, making us do the crazy too, not soo crazy though. Ima gonna have fun and take a minute to take in some good old fashioned sun. Didn't mean to sound like Sheryl Crow. Sorry for that. Tshcüssi.

I'm reading Understanding Power: The Indispensible Chomsky. Basically a primer and compilation of the ideas and essays of Noam Chomsky. From the Sandinistas to Israel to thoughts on sports and socialism it spans a lifetime of hardcore political thinking. He's so extreme and so cool and so right. My favorite excerpt so far: a woman asks Noam if he's seen a Barbara Walters special about the organ trade in Nicaragua, Noam repiles, "Well, by definition, no." Snooty and self-righteous, maybe, but something that I myself might say indeed. It's a good thing to read because it kind of sums up a lot of his ideas without getting too tedious. I tried to read Manafacturing Consent, but only got about halfway through; it's simply too boring, focusing on specific case-examples of how our media fits into a so-called "propaganda model." I totally agree with the explanation and see it everyday I log onto google news, but I couldn't sit through the boring statistics. Maybe I'll finish it yet. I kinda want the synopsis though. And that's exactly why this book is great, it gives the basic terms and doesn't go into specific detail (though there're copious footnotes provided on a separate internet site for those who wish these details).

We come now to my problem. I believe almost 100% of what dear Noam is saying, but find my acceptance a bit suspect. Am I not falling into Noam's propaganda model? I simply can't make myself check his facts. He's a super-genius who's spent 50 years gathering his data, how could I (even if I had the willpower and stamina) test his data? I somehow don't think I'm being lied to though. It all makes too much sense, it fits into the exact mould that the Bush administration is now occupying. I see/hear/read the propaganda everyday. It's becoming more and more obvious. I can't decide if I've become attuned or if our current administration is so egoistic that it doesn't even bother to try very hard. A perfect example is our vice-president. We seem to have no problem that his (former?) company is being formally investigated by the DOJ for overcharging the government (ie: you and me sorry taxpayers) and being granted multi-million dollar Iraq reconstruction contracts at the same time. Does no one see how ridiculous this is? Does no one see that this should be at least questioned? This example and many others lead me to trust what Chomsky says. Why shouldn't I, when everything in my own experience agrees so completely?

Chomsky at one point in the book is asked (it's a series of lectures/Q&As) if he votes. He replies that he votes if he thinks it will make a difference one way or the other. And, especially because it's somewhat of a hot-topic on the site now) I sorta agree with him. In our current example, we have Bush vs. a democrat (most likely Kerry, or Edwards, or some combination). And while I want Bush gone with heart and soul, it is very disheartening to have no "real" candidate to vote for. The quotations around real mean that there are candidates who I feel share many of my concerns and priorites: Kucinich, Mosley-Braun, Nader. They have all been so marginalized by our system and by the media as to be virtually non-existant. That is so fucking wrong. This is supposed to be a democracy. Yet every candidate who has even an inkling of my views is so intentionally marginalized that they fall right off the politcal map. And, you tell me I should vote for the lesser-of-two-evils. I don't want any evil though. A little evil? A big evil? WTF, mates? We're caught in a cycle of hardcore Republican (Reagan/Bush) to centrist "Democrat" (Clinton) to hardercore Republican (Bush) to centrister "Democrat" (Kerry/Edwards), I don't see it ending anywhere besides Facism. These are not real choices. These are margarine or butter when I want olive oil. I guess I want Revolution. I don't believe in the system. I don't believe in capitalist democracy, it's an oxymoron. As long as real power lies in the hands o
f
co

rporations instead of politicians there can be no meaningful change (by and large we don't even debate possible alternatives). So, I don't believe in change through the system, and challenge anyone to find a single instance of meaningful substantive change that has come only through the system. So, yes, maybe I'll vote, but I won't like it and won't be satisfied. I'll probably vote for Nader and you can all come burn my house down when fucking Kerry doesn't win. Nananana-boo-boo.