Plant a tree.  Plant a bunch of trees.  We're going to need some forests, folks.  With people like Sarah Palin now openly admitting to the reality of global warming, isn't about time that some action is taken?  And we must do more than "reduce, reuse, and recycle."  We must do all three of those things, and we must actively work to regenerate our diverse ecosystems.

No one asked me, but I would say that a sensible use of over $700 billion, a sensible use for the billions of dollars that are daily pouring into our military and war efforts, would be to revitalize domestic service programs like AmeriCorps as well as create new programs modeled after the Works Progress Administration of the New Deal era. 

America and the world are in the midst of a transition from a paradigm of consumption and so-called progress to one of attempting to achieve homeostasis.  The greenhouse effect is being exacerbated by our continued depletion and increased burning of fossil fuels; beyond that, we may have very well have entered into an unprecedented era of geothermal feedback: recently, scientists in the Arctic observed bubbles of methane--which had been previously trapped under glacial ice and permafrost, now melting--burgeoning out of the ocean.  Methane causes global warming twenty times more intensely than carbon dioxide.  With the continued worldwide reliance on fossil fuels for transportation and economic activity, this geological compounding of the problem of global warming seems like a very, very bad phenomenon, at least for life as we are accustomed to it.

In his book The Long Emergency, James Howard Kunstler states: “Of the earth’s estimated 10 million species, 300,000 have vanished in the past fifty years. Each year, 3,000 to 30,000 species become extinct… .” He projects, “Within one hundred years, between one-third and two-thirds of all birds, animals, plants, and other species will be lost.” In case you are disinclined to care, let me take this opportunity to remind the cynical and hard-hearted that we humans are mammals, are animals. We are one species in the estimated 10 million. Within the next hundred years, humans could be extinct.

It is time for us to wake up to reality. Not only is the environmental crisis severe, but even as we continue to trace the patterns of the dying industrial economy with the driving of our daily lives, the entire economic structure we have become accustomed to and taken for granted is crumbling. Keener eyes than Paulson’s and our politicians have seen this coming. As of now, both the legislative and executive branches of the federal government of the United States of America are denying the severity of the economic collapse. And they are denying their denial as they incredibly continue this cycle of financial waste, bloating the pockets of the elite and super-rich with what will ultimately become valueless paper and minerals, while feeding calming sound bytes and junk bonds to the populace.

In his book Entropy, first published in 1980 and then re-issued in an updated second edition in 1989, Jeremy Rifkin described the transition from our current industrialized, high-energy consumption society towards a society of low-energy consumption, using renewable resources, intermediate technology, and human work and energy.  Some sensible recommendations were made, yet in 2008, nearly a full 20 years after the revised edition of this book became available to the public and those in power, our situation is much the same—no, it’s not; it is of course worse.  There is a litany of social and environmental problems.  Volumes of reports and books have been written describing them and offering alternatives, attempting workable solutions.  Hardly anything is being done.  Perhaps more of us reduce, reuse, and recycle now than we did in 1980 or 1988 or whenever, but we need much more active solutions.

The analysis has been made, the studies have been done, the books have been written, the speeches and pleas made.  It is now time for us to act.  The rugged individualism and cowboy mentality of frontier America is, at this point, suicidal.  We must immediately begin to organize at every level of society to mitigate the damage we have done and are doing to our home, the Earth.  It is time that we actively address the inherent connection between economics and ecology.  Both words obviously share the same root, eco-; they are not incompatible, although we have been treating them as separate and opposed at least since Descartes and Francis Bacon.  I don’t need to make the connection for you.  Everyone has access to a dictionary and should be able to process the connection between economics and ecology, between economics and ecosystem; but let me go ahead and make it clear: economics, in its original definition before being corrupted and perverted by the notion that the world is inexhaustible and that everything in nature can be exploited and pushed around as or by machines, means the care of one’s home.  It cannot be denied that, no matter where we live, the Earth is our ultimate home.  Without the functioning ecosystems of the Earth, without clean air, drinkable water, and abundant food, we will die.  We could become extinct.

If we don’t go the way of the dodo, there may be much fewer left of us in one hundred years, even given our best efforts at mitigation and remediation of our environmental crisis.  The global population of humans has bloomed in the industrial age.  Like other species, this bloom will likely be followed by a die-off; in any case we must actively curb and diminish our population.  Now I am not making a case for war, euthanasia, or any kind of murder.  What I would like to suggest is that we stop having as many children, and taking good care of and educating and nurturing the ones that we have already, no matter who their biological parents are.  And we should stop bickering about abortions; abortions have been practiced by cultures throughout all times and places on Earth, and there is nothing wrong with them, in my opinion.  Better to abort a fetus than to bear an unsupportable, possibly unwanted, child into a dying world.  If a couple wants or needs to have an abortion, that is their right, and they are in many ways doing us all a favor; they are doing the planet and future generations of all species a favor, as ironic as that may be.

I’ve heard several people lately say that America is coming apart at the seams.  If it is, we need to recognize that for what it is: a breaking down of old social orders that are no longer functioning.  Democracy, after all, is not about voting; nor is freedom about consuming an ever-expanding array of goods.  Democracy rests on our ability to communicate and compromise with each other.  It depends on our willingness to work together to create solutions to our problems.  It calls on ordinary people, not politicians, to take responsibility for our individual and collective lives, and beyond that, the life of our ecosystems, our planet.

Seven or eight years ago I loathed seeing the bumper sticker of hearing the term, “Freedom isn’t free.”  This seemed so stupid, so paradoxical to me.  “If freedom isn’t free,” I thought, “What the hell is it?”  I knew what was trying to be communicated is that a certain vigilance and sustained effort is needed to preserve freedom; however, in the moment and the context of this popular slogan, I could not get on board, and the phrase itself filled me with the urge to deride and spit.  The slogan does, however, hold a certain truth, especially when it is not embedded in an aggressive war effort and a denial of responsibility for what happens to us.  If freedom indeed is not free and requires a certain energy expenditure, a certain vigilance, it is time for us to reassess what our responsibilities as citizens of a so-called democracy are.  I would argue that our responsibilities do not include backing corrupt governments, and more famous minds than mine have proclaimed this thought.  You know who I am talking about, those statuesque and revered great white fathers of the United States.  I am also talking about Tecumseh and Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr.  I want to invoke Gandhi as well as the Black Panthers; Thich Nhat Hanh as well as Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dhorn.

No less than the survival of the Earth is at stake, and in the survival of the planet rests our own survival as a people.  Beyond our mere physical survival, our spirits are tied to the Earth; we are born out of and into this planet just as a seed grows into a tree, then bears fruit.  It’s my perception that we haven’t been giving much good fruit lately, and that there is much that is rotting right now.  Let’s become fertile and fecund.  Let’s recycle the rot and reuse the crumbling pieces of this outdated machinery to create more satisfying human environments.  Let’s reduce our numbers and our consumption, and once again walk in beauty and in balance in and on our home, the Earth.

Brian Harrington, right, and Chuck Beauchine pray with other mourners during the funeral of Matthew Shepard at St. Mark's Episcopal Church Friday, Oct. 16, 1998, in Casper, Wyo.  Photo AP Photo/Michael S. Green

Matthew Shepard died Oct. 12, 1998, five days after he was kidnapped, robbed and pistol-whipped by two men he met in a bar. Both men are serving life in prison for the murder, which police said was partly motivated by the fact that Matthew was gay.

Matthew's death after he was left in the cold — bloodied with severe head injuries — for 18 hours has produced an outpouring of films, books and plays, but it hasn't seemed to budge the rate of anti-gay violence.

FBI statistics show hate crimes motivated by anti-gay bias have remained at a stable level since Matthew's death. Both in 1998 and in 2006, the latest year for which data is available, roughly 1,200 such crimes were reported — about 16 percent of all reported hate crimes, reports the Associated Press.

The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal ruled today that a controversial article about Islam in Maclean's magazine did not violate the province's hate speech law.

In acquitting the magazine, the Tribunal ruled that the article, an excerpt from Mark Steyn's book America Alone in which he describes the demographic and ideological dangers posed by a growing Muslim population in the West, was not likely to expose Muslims to hatred or contempt.

Those are really good news. Now we need that no other journalist, blogger, etc is ever indicted NOWHERE for EXPRESSING opinions.

The governing Socialist Party and the main opposition Social Democratic Party both opposed legalizing gay and lesbian marriages. Only 28 members of the Portugese Parliament voted for.

this entry is also posted on mediacenterblog.org

In response to Sean Hannity's despotic campaign to solidify the tenuous link between Barack Obama and 60s radical Bill Ayers, and his ridiculous double-standards, Monty Python member John Cleese has written a bit of truth about the good-for-nothing mudslinging conservative pundit.

This one's for you, Sean, and your dissolute employer, Faux News.

Ode to Sean Hannity
by John Cleese

Aping urbanity
Oozing with vanity
Plump as a manatee
Faking humanity
Journalistic calamity
Intellectual inanity
Fox Noise insanity
You’re a profanity
Hannity

And to think, Harding University had him come to speak on campus last year.  For those of you who didn't go, between the Clinton jokes and the patriotic nonsense, nothing was said.  Oh, but he did rip-a-new-one for a HU student who considered himself a pacifist.  That was classy.

Perhaps the only person competing with Sean Hannity for most hated political pundit is Lou Dobbs.  We need a poem for him.

Thanks, John, for the peotic justice.  What's next, the Fox News anchors that say "Ni?"

I set my alarm an hour earlier than the time I need to get up and then for one hour, I play Whack-a-Snooze.

:00 - beep buzz beep buzz WHACK

:09 - beep buzz beep buzz WHACK

Every nine minutes, my awesome reflexes sweep my arm across the bed and bring my hand crashing down on the snooze button- if it's a good day. Foreshadowing a crappy day are the mornings when listening to the alarm ring just doesn't seem so bad.

I like to think my morning game of Whack-a-Snooze prepares me for the glorious day when I'll need my reflexes to kick some ass on Family Feud:

WHACK! Dogs!

Survey says: X

Well, Family Feud aside, I still find it is a much better way to wake up in the morning. I am willing to sacrifice an hour of real sleep for a game of Whack-a-Snooze in order to wake up gradually. Unlike those who try to steal an extra hour of sleep and burst out of bed, still half asleep, and end up brushing their teeth with Prep H or whatever happens to be in the closest tube their squinty eyes can't read.  I get up after a game of Whack-a-Snooze feeling awake and slightly annoyed which is, to my estimation, the best way to greet the day. Plus, it is a great deal more practical than some of the other "Whack-a" games my brethren are wont to play first thing in the morning.

On a completely unrelated note, I have decided on a new "Best Thing Ever":

Discovery Channel's new TV spot. It makes me smile everytime.

Boom De Ah Dah Boom De Ah Dah...

The gotcha interviews with Gibson and Couric were simply pathetic and dismissive. Their main purpose was to agitate and annoy her with questions they wouldn't even have the guts to ask Obama or Biden. It was meant to be manipulative and insincere, just so to make themselves look good and Palin bad. Journalism as it should be didn't exist in their books. How cruel. Gov. Palin interview with Sean Hannity was longer and with intelligent and appropriate questions. It went without a hitch.

Now back to experience:-A Question

-Who was less than 45,

-had many children,

-was an outdoor enthusiast and hunter

-a conservationist

-a strong supporter of the military

-and became the governor and Vice President.

Of course, it was Teddy Roosevelt. His bully style was as unique to him as Sarah's style is unique to her. Teddy brought  a brash freshness to Washington as Sarah has brought to her campaign. It is my sincere HOPE that history will repeat itself. It is what we need during this time of trial  for all concerned citizen. What better way than to have a woman at the head, bringing all the virtues, strenght and attributes that only a woman can provide.

With those words, Justice Richard N. Palmer of Connecticut's Supreme Court ruled that gay couples have the right to marry, making the state the third behind Massachusetts and California to legalize such unions through the courts, writes SF Gate.

Let Down

Trust swindled me of a soul

I was above the trance of these other sheep

But I see what they’ve done

Every smile I perceived was a fallacy

To ever think I was enough....

I am swathed in botched self confidence

A boring balance of undesired range

It’s my own disillusionment forcing me to change

It’s the beady way they looked at me

With flickering disdain....

This is the life of the broke and used

I am beneath with the fragments of an unfulfilled wish

Fast pace confusion gave its old opinion

Shriveled experience poured out its dust of a vision

Its wisdom and wounds, without a reason  

I never mentioned before, but about two or three days ago I received my absentee ballot (early voting here in Ohio). I was so glad to finally get it over with and send my ballot back through mail, because here in my city the polling places are expected to be very packed and I was worried about waiting until Nov. 4th and having to see the line I'd have to wait in. It's cool though. Now a person who actually needs that place in line will have it, and might be able to cast their vote before the polls close that day. Strangely, I'm in such a better mood today :)

Gay rights, especially same sex marriage rights, are THE civil rights issue of our time, or at least that is how the issue is largely presented in the media. In the course of my adult life, homosexuality has moved quite rapidly into the conscience of mainstream America as an acceptable, though not necessarily welcomed, reality. Most people are still uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality and even more are opposed to gay marriage, though notably they often lack a sustainable moral philosophy to underlie their opposition. Mostly it comes down to a kind of "ick"' factor and some sense that it just isn't quite right. Inundated as we have been as a society in the last twenty years with the normalcy and acceptability of homosexuality, most people really aren't quite sure why they're opposed to gay rights, and at minimum self censor lest they be thought to be homophobic. Certainly most people haven't really thought through the issue in any way other than the bare minimum required to get on with their lives. This is most especially obvious among our youth for whom homosexuality is regarded as one reality of a diverse society among many, without any particular morality attached to it.

Due to the nature of the controversy, the same sex marriage issue is unlikely to be quickly resolved at the state level before it is kicked upstairs to the federal courts. Both candidates Obama and McCain are ostensibly opposed to gay marriage or want to leave it to the states, but it is very unlikely that either will have the luxury of maintaining their default position if elected to the presidency. This issue is not going away. The Defense of Marriage Act is unlikely to remained unchallenged, though the Supreme Court has heretofore turned down opportunities to take it up. It remains a controversial piece of legislation.

Christians have a different set of concerns as the church (and I speak broadly here) is currently convulsed with controversy over the issue. Few churches openly embrace homosexual practice as valid from a scriptural or historic point of view, and even those churches which are most "liberal" have not gone so far as to accept homosexuality entirely. Unlike politicians, pastors do not have the luxury of remaining uncommitted on this issue as it directly affects the pastoral, priestly, and prophetic roles of the church. Contrary to the beliefs of some, most evangelicals are not unconcerned about the impact of their theology on the lives of those within and without the congregation who are gay, nor are they especially homophobic -- which is a word that is thrown around far too easily these days. They, and all Christians who hold to historic Christian orthodoxy on issues of sexual ethics, tread uneasy ground and the convulsions of a social earthquake shift the landscape around them.

Many Christians, having "failed" to act quickly during the Civil Rights era, do not know want to be seen as being on the "wrong side of history" and yet also want to remain faithful to scripture. Others believe that their embrace of gay rights is being faithful to scripture. Caught in the very center of this vortex are those Christians and their families who are themselves gay and seek to live with integrity and in obedience to Jesus.

All of this brings to mind the scripture from Psalms 11.3: If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do? The foundations of societal consensus on the meaning of life, what marriage is, the ethics that ought to govern social relations, and the role and function of the family have all been consistently undermined over the past 80 years with remarkably predictable results.

From the sexual revolution (the real one in the twenties, not the fake one of the sixties) onward, churches have been consistent in first actively fighting, then passively resisting, then grudgingly accepting and finally actively endorsing social change. The path from the acceptance of artificial birth control as a right to the normalization of divorce, straight through to women's liberation (which has happened in ALL the churches complementarian and otherwise) is clear and will likely lead, inexorably to an embrace of homosexuality as a valid practice. The link between all of these seemingly disparate matters is clear as Mary Eberstadt says in First Things:

Before 1930, no Christian Church permitted the use of contraception, but that year’s Lambeth Conference, with its approval of contraceptive intercourse, was the beginning of the end. “If a church cannot tell its flock ‘what to do with my body,’ as the saying goes, with regard to contraception,” writes Eberstadt, “then other uses of that body will quickly prove to be similarly off-limits to ecclesiastical authority.” In short, homosexuality and sexual promiscuity will—and did—quickly follow.

And so it is. Are the foundations destroyed? If so, what can the righteous do?

Someone help me understand, here, because I don't get the ugly fabrics and/or extremely unflattering cuts on any body shape, type of clothing. This "fashion" I am seeing lately, like babydoll tops that look good on NOBODY, cheap-looking shirts with puffy sleeves, floral prints and argyle. It's like every scary element of 1980's fashion reared its ugly head and came crashing down in 2008.

Next thing I know, I will see a resurgence of shoulder pads, light pink lipstick and that God-awful "Color Me Beautiful" book.

Granting women involved in live – in relationships a right to claim alimony is a direct insult of the most sacrosanct social institution, marriage, as in India, a marriage is a solemnized vow to support each other through thick and thin taken in the presence of community elders and with their blessings, but, in contrast, a live – in relationship is initiated by the couple just as a means to stay together. But unlike marriage, the commitment factor in a live – in relationship is very low as the ties are very easy to break. There are no liabilities involved from either side.

But giving women an extra and added advantage over men in a live – in relationship is by no means becoming of a government. It will be highly immature on their part to assume that all relationships end due to men’s fault and hence they should be made to pay for the same in the form of alimony. After totally lopsided and stringent provisions under the anti – dowry provision, which are misused to the tune of 98 % as provided by the 2 % conviction rate in 498A cases as per National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data, which has killed the institution of marriage silently, it seems it is now the turn of live – in relationships.

What the logical rationale fails to understand is how any person having the slightest of common sense can draft any provision on the basis of a generalized statement that all men are criminals and all women are truthfully innocent. When there is a provision to extract money legally, why will a woman not initiate a live – in relationship, break it at will and then harass the man for whole life. As it is the concept of live – in relationship has not come of its age in the Indian society and will also not come as Indian societal scenario is hundred times more complex than western society which is being beautifully attempted to be aped here.

And what do we expect the next step? To legalize children born out of such relationships and promulgate the concept of fatherless society wherein any couple starts living together, parts at will and leaves the children in lurch. Such children will have deep psychological scars rendering them very vulnerable to the possibility of turning into criminals with a multiplicity factor of 9 – 10. Rather than inviting women to start relationships and end them to earn tax – free money without doing any work, the government needs to condemn the very idea of live – in relationships and women should not get any sops so that they are discouraged to refrain from entering the wedlock.

Today’s women are capable of multi – tasking and are no longer living under financial slavery. Provisions allowing women to claim maintenance under the aegis of a failed relationship either need to be scrapped altogether or at least amended to make them gender neutral (thus allowing men also to lodge complaints to redress their grievances) and include severe and stringent punishments for filing false cases.

It is quite logical that when the woman knows that she will get money only on leveling allegations, she cannot be expected to sacrifice and compromise to make the relation work. It will only be the poor man who will have to keep giving in to keep the woman happy so that she does not lodge a complaint against him and the day he refuses to do so, the woman will feel ‘hurt’ and seek damages in the form of alimony as proposed by the govt.. Such a provision can never ensure long lasting relationships.

The following are the proposed amendments to ensure proper justice to all and sundry:-

1)      To begin with all monetary provisions need to be removed completely. Either the complainant or the defendant needs to be punished with imprisonment. If allegations are proved to be true the defendant goes to jail and if proved to be false the complainant goes to jail for an equal term for causing unnecessary harassment, torture and defamation to the defendant.

2)      Secondly judgments and legal provisions need to completely gender – unbiased and based on merits and application of mind.

3)      Thirdly, replace all words like man / woman, husband / wife with person and spouse respectively.

4)      No alimony for earning spouses or having a capability to earn and that needs to be determined from the qualification of the petitioner.

Promulgating promiscuous women by allowing them alimony from live – in partners is just another name of Legal Prostitution as now a woman can claim a lifelong alimony by even spending one night with a man (as a prostitute) and such measures need to be severely condemned in a civilized society and the penalties need to be shared by both the partners as both of them were mature adults when the relationship was started and the decision was mutual.

The shadow of doubt in a biased system is permanent as the veil of darkness remains forever. When a man is aware that stringent legal provisions are present to penalize him on harassing a woman, he will not do it on a prima facie basis. And when a woman very well knows that her allegations and tears are going to get her free money, it is highly unlikely that she is going to level true and realistic allegations. And moreover, it takes two to clap. No relationship can be single handedly initiated and ended by a man. The woman is equal partner to every phase of the relation and thus should be made an equal partner in the brunt of the fallacy as well, if unfortunately the relation does not work.

No, it is difficult to go on as usual without acknowledging the real economic problems we face this morning and the Chicken Littles who are determined to make everyone feel like the Apocalypse is just around the bend.  Talk of The Great Depression and "bank runs" and "global meltdowns" do seem dire, but we must remember the sources of all of these  - both the actual events and the people determined to remind us (wrongly) of them.

There is a building I walk through each day whose lobby is populated by a large security station and a very large flat panel television that is alternately tuned to Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN, depending on tastes of the guards on duty.  As I walked past yesterday, a voice caught my attention.  Lou Dobbs, CNN.  The market closed below 8600 points, and he was berating other financial experts on other channels who recommend that people hold steady in the market and ride out the storm.   "These people are insane!" he screamed. "It's absolutely irresponsible!" he cried.  Frozen in my tracks, I watched this rant, mouth agape, for about 5 minutes.  He was advocating people panic, pull their money out of the markets, and then panic again, in that order.  I got mad.  This guy doesn't get it, and he's spreading his fear and ignorance to his viewing audience when he should be spreading information so that people can decide what to do for themselves.  So, let me fill in the blanks that Mr. Dobbs so effortlessly neglected to mention.

This Week's Stock Market Crash in Real Terms, Part 1

Many people hear the cry of the NYSE trading at 8500 points and panic.  It was trading at 14000 points in January and now it's lost over 5000 points!  But let's look at what that means in real terms.

The stock market was trading at 8500 points in 2003.  2003.  5 years ago.  Not 20 years ago, or 50 years ago, but 5 years ago.  What I make of that is (A) 5 years ago wasn't so long ago, and I'm still alive, so 8500 points isn't the death knell that it is being made out to be, and (B) perhaps the 14000 point level was artificially high - pushed by the housing boom and easy credit - and we just experienced an unsustainable bubble, much like the bubble we reached in 2000 at the end of the tech boom.  People who "played" the markets then won big or lost big.  But those of us sitting on 401(k)s until retirement 30+ years in the future didn't lose a thing.  It was Play Money to begin with.

The Lesson: Unsustainable increases (and decreases) in market values tend to self-correct over time.  This is not a cause for panic.  Consider it comfort for what is to come.

This Week's Stock Market Crash in Real Terms, Part 2

As of this morning, I have lost 38.8% of the value of my 401(k) since Jan. 1st of this year.  It will likely go lower today.  But let's look at how my 401(k), which is probably much like your's, breaks down.

I am young and I invest aggressively.  I am in 100% stocks spread evenly over foreign, contra, and large/mid/small cap domestic funds.  I have 12% of my paycheck deducted pre-tax and shoved into my retirement fund, my employer matches up to 6% of my salary.  Over the years and as my account grows (or doesn't), I get all sorts of bonuses - growth of the shares I own, dividends that are reinvested, interest, the works.  So, I figure that my current fund is now comprised of about 60% my money, 30% my employer's money, and 10% "other" from the reinvestments.  In this light, if I have "lost" 38.8% of my account's value, then I am still playing with someone else's money - a combo of my employers and dividend money.  My own contributions, so far, have remained untouched.

But then let's look at the number of shares I own.  At the start of Jan. 2008 (End of Quarter 4, 2007), I owned a combined total of 195.071 shares in my various fund groups.  At the end of Sept. 2008 (Quarter 3, 2008), I owned 588.999 shares.  With this current market sell off, I will own more.  Granted, I will own more shares of stock that is worth less than it used to, but when the stock market kicks into gear again (oh, and it will, believe me), I will be well positioned to make a small killing.  Buy low, sell high.  Those people who are pulling out of the market (and are many years away from withdrawing the money) are engaging in the equivalent of buying a house at the peak of the housing market, watching house prices fall, panicking, and selling their house when the market is the lowest.  It makes bad financial sense.

The Lesson: If you are many years from retirement, sit on your hands and do not touch your retirement accounts (except to go "riskier" and reap the benefits a few years from now).  If you are close to retirement, you should not have had your life savings in the stock market to begin with.  Pull out now and put it into cash and low interest bonds until things start settling down.

The Current Market Crash and the Great Depression

Comparing the current market crash to the Great Depression is my favorite scare tactic of the current popular press.  Most of us learned about the Great Depression through our history classes, through iconic images of men in suits standing in bread lines and women sweeping porches of ramshackle homes on the cover of Life magazine, and through the lovely writings of John Steinbeck.

What did you learn about the causes?  Do you remember?  Probably something about a stock market crash in 1929 putting an end to the flapper era and everyone losing their jobs.  Oh yeah - and WWII got us out of the Great Depression.  Stock market = bad.  War = good.  Right?  Am I close?  If I am, it's because these are the lessons that I remember, too.  That is, until I did some investigating into the causes of the Great Depression when the 9/11 attacks were threatening another Great Depression.  This is what I learned:

• The Great Depression was caused by an awful lot of factors - corporate greed, government incompetence, public panic, large personal and commercial debt as a result of free access to easy and abundant credit.  Sounds similar to now.
• The US economy was primarily a farming (commodities) and manufacturing economy in the early 20th century.  These two sectors rely on massive reserves of human capital (i.e. labor).  When these sectors are hit, they lay off a lot of people.  During the height of the Great Depression, unemployment was about 30%, made up mostly of laborers.
• US farming was hit by a massive Dust Bowl era, brought on by a drought (though no more severe than was typical for the region) and poor farming and land management practices.
• The US economy operated on a gold standard, which severely limited the ability of money to change hands and to compound.
• As a response to the economic downturn and resulting belt-tightening across the nation, the government instituted a number of disastrous reactions, which included (among others) placing higher tariffs on exports, resulting in a backlash of foreign country-raised tariffs on US goods.  This served to slow both international trade and the potential for the US to sustain the flush of international money it enjoyed during the Industrial Revolution.

My conclusion was and is that the conditions that created the Great Depression of the 1930's simply are not evident today.  Our economy is more diverse (including the advent of the "knowledge worker"); technology and industrial diversity has lessened the effect of any one industry's collapse on national unemployment rates; and regulations and programs put in place after the Great Depression (i.e., Social Security, unemployment benefits, and Welfare), though imperfect, ensure that a great many out-of-work citizens continue to have a certain amount of buying power that slows, but not halts, the economy.

Under these circumstances, the cry of the next Great Depression is greatly exaggerated.  I'm not saying that another Great Depression couldn't happen in some other fashion, but current comparisons of our current situation to that which happened almost 80 years ago is disingenuous at best, and fear mongering at worst.

The Lesson: People who try to scare you want something from you - your viewing time, your vote, your money.  Be smart.  The internet is a wonderful tool for finding truth.  If something doesn't sound right (or is morbidly calamitous), let your fingers do the walking and find out the real truth for yourself.

We all need to remember to breathe.  While it may seem that the sky is falling, look up, trust your eyes, see that it is still blue up there, and take a deep breath.  Altogether, now:  Inhale.  Exhale.

SNL has hit in the past---recall Dana Carvey's impression of Bush I---but most recently notable have been the instant classic sketches featuringTina Fey portraying Republican Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin in an impression that can only be called 'uncanny' in a Palin-Clinton Speech, a Palin-Couric Interview, and the Biden-Palin VP debate (complete with Queen Latifa playing Gwen Ifill). Thus far all three sketches have been major headline news on every network come the following Monday morning, drawing many viewers back to SNL again. Fueling this surge is the high accessibility of recent SNL skits on the internet placed there directly by NBC itself.

On Saturday October 4, 2008 SNL presented a skit titled "Washington Approves the Bailout" focusing on many of the ludicrous aspects of the current economic situation. The sketch instantly became a hit with links to the official NBC posting of the video appearing all over the web almost immediately. Then suddenly chaos ensued. Withing a matter of hours on a lazy Sunday mid-day as citizens awoke and checked their digital communications, countless numbers clicked on links sent by a friend, family member, or co-worked promising a hilarious video, only to be met with a cryptic message that the sketch was no longer available and apologizing for the inconvenience. Instantly as the so commonly do, conspiracy theories began to run wild. For two days one in the know would hear every theory from space aliens to the illuminati. Then finally on Tuesday afternoon the truth broke and a now far less funny, edited version was put back up on the internet by NBC. Unfortunately for the American public, the truth was far more sinister than Martians or Free Mason wannabes. The truth was that NBC lawyers had pulled the sketch. Though NBC officially did not mention this in their statement:

"Upon review, we caught certain elements in the sketch that didn't meet our standards. We took it down and made some minor changes and it will be back online soon."

Apparently the sketch's portrayal of Herb and Marion Sandler was considered a liability since it pointed out their acts of corrupting US Government officials and their severe culpability in the current financial meltdown affecting the US. Additionally as a faux C-SPAN video SNL had a chyron on-screen text shown below the Sandler lookalikes that would normally serve to identify the subject on-screen stating: "Herbert & Marion Sandler: People who should be shot". Supposedly this is to be part of the basis of the video edit, as it may be misconstrued as a death threat to some people and/or offensive.

Now this is not the first time that SNL has turned against one of its funniest components. Norm MacDonald was fired from his stellar and unparalleled stint as the anchor of the weekend update sketch for making too many side splitting hilarious OJ Simpson jokes. Do not worry if you are confused, you are not alone. Many fans and casual watchers alike have asked themselves why a comedian would be fired for raising a dieing show's ratings by making hysterical jokes at the expense of a public figure who is himself, well.... a joke. The answer was unfortunately the same then as it is in now in the case of the Bailout Sketch: NBC Cronyism and Politically Correct Cowardice.

Thus an entire American populace is left one step closer to an Orwellian Nightmare in which our right to speech and thought even as basic as humor is subject to regulation by the State at the whims of the ruling oligarchical elite. That is unless a line is drawn in the proverbial sand, saying "This far and no further". For those looking to stand up and fight back by saying "NO!" to the tyranny of the minority, by saying "NO!" to those who would tell you how to think and how to laugh; stand up and wave the banner of Free Thought high in the sky. Spread the UNEDITED VERSION as far and wide as you can. Show it to your parents, siblings, spouse, grandparents, cousins, friends, co-workers, and to anyone you possibly can. The sketch is downright hilarious to anyone with a single drop of a sense of humor in their entire body, and (based on the talk of the town prior to the pulling and editing of the video) the quote "people who should be shot" is one of the most memorable gems of the bit. So much so in fact that to one who has seen the original, the edited version leaves one feeling quite dissatisfied. Make sure that the memories of original version Do Not Go Gentle into That Good Night! Together it is possible to prevent NBC from pulling a Lucas on this classic!

Ultimately it is a matter of "How dare NBC!?!". How DARE they back off from calling a spade a spade? How dare they a non-news organization try to hold themselves to a journalistic standard when speaking about the rich and powerful whom have destroyed people's lives (some figuratively others literally)? How dare they back down from vilifying scumbags who wrecked the entire world economy so that they could glean a few extra shiny nickels! To paraphrase from one SNL's own skits, I invite them to grow a pair, and if they can't, I will lend you mine. So in case anyone else is looking to make a bumper sticker or t-shirt:

Atheist: one how does not believe in the existence of god(s).

Why is this so difficult for some people?

Perhaps it's not really difficult, but the straw man definition, that there absolutely is no god, which has only ever been stated by a tiny handful of atheists, is easier to destroy, so theists who choose to debate the point also choose to ignore common usage and resort to their Websters.

Let's go with that, shall we? All of the following references will tell you that the root word, theism, is a belief in the existence of gods. Therefore, a theist is one who believes in the existence of gods.

Theism
Theism
Theism
Theism
Lots and lots of theism

Next, we come to the prefix a which means lacking, not, absent, or without:

Learn English
English Club
Wikipedia
MyWord

So atheism means without belief in god(s) and atheist is a noun referring to someone without belief in god(s).

So why do so many theists and even lexicographers take such liberties with the word? If you look at any number of online dictionaries, you'll see atheism defined in some rather creative ways. For example:

a·the·ism (th-zm)
n.
1.
a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.

The Free Dictionary

Why? Did knowledge or morality factor into the definitions of theism? No, it did not. Only belief. Prefixes do not alter the definitions of root words. So why do people do it? Ignorance? Prejudice? Fear of the unknown? Intellectual dishonesty and laziness? A few loud and obnoxious atheists making the rest of us look bad? I wonder how Christians who take this approach would feel about being lumped in with Fred Phelps and his ilk?

I don't know, but the leaps some people are willing to take to avoid thinking, deny reality and cling to their preconceived ideas is disturbing and mind-boggling.

Connecticut's Supreme Court ruled Friday that same-sex couples have the right to marry, making that state the third behind Massachusetts and California to legalize such unions.

The divided court ruled 4-3 that gay and lesbian couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry under the state constitution, and Connecticut's civil unions law does not provide those couples with the same rights as heterosexual couples.

"I can't believe it. We're thrilled, we're absolutely overjoyed. We're finally going to be able, after 33 years, to get married," said Janet Peck of Colchester, who was a plaintiff with her partner, Carole Conklin.

Justices overturned a lower court ruling and found in favor of the plaintiffs, who said the state's marriage law discriminates against them because it applies only to heterosexual couples, therefore denying gay couples the financial, social and emotional benefits of marriage.

"Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice," Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote in the majority opinion that overturned a lower court finding.

"To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others," Palmer wrote.

While many people are panicking about the economic issues facing our nation as a whole, it is my opinion that we should focus on our own issues. Take a look at what is affecting your personal business, work, your neighborhood and your family. This is an approachable view of how it would affect you directly and here is where you can make practical changes. I believe that worrying about the entire nation as a whole is overwhelming and not pratical. The average American, unless they are directly involved with the government, would get overstressed in matters they cannot control.

The best thing to check is how the company you work for is doing financially or how your business is doing. Investigate the situation of your personal financial investments and again, focus on your local situation. This is something you should always keep an eye on anyway. If people directly around you are not being affected, you probably will not be affected either. Americans shouldn't panic, we should go on with our normal lives. This in turn will set the mood for the rest of the country. A nation in panic is not productive and will only feed fear. If it makes you feel better to turn the news off, do so, this might help you come back to your real life situation and not make you fearful of what most likely will not affect you anyway. Best thing to do is communicate with those around you.

I remember when the powers-that-be in the US were saying that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger. The first few times I heard about it was on the radio and I'll tell you, I had no idea what country they were talking about. It didn't register with me. All I could gather was that this country was somewhere in the west of Africa.

After looking it up, I realised they were talking about Niger, as is Nee-zhay. The light bulb was ignited in my brain. The pronunciation I kept hearing on the radio and on television was Nye-jer which I have never heard of, well at least not in the context of the country. To me, Nye-jer refers to the River Niger which actually does run through Nee-zhay amongst other countries.

So when people would ask me about Nye-jer, it jarred me a bit just because it sounded so foreign. If you ask a Nigerien (not Nigerian, that belongs to Nigeria which actually also benefits from the River Niger), they would say, "I come from Nee-zhay and not Nye-jer." They would also be quick to tell you that they are not like their neighbours to the south, the Nigerians. Makes sense to me. Niger is Francophone and Nigeria is Anglophone but that's another story for another day.

So, what if someone from Nee-zhay tells you it's not Nye-jer,what would you do? I guess if there was ever such a thing as country-pronunciation etiquette, its significance would only come up if the pronunciation is something that is important to the person making a request that it be said a certain way. I don't think that requesting that someone say Nee-zhay as opposed to Nye-jer is something to be dismissed. The pronunciation is not really about semantics, it ties to the concept of identity and that's a big deal. Just ask the Ivorians who prefer that their country be called Côte d'Ivoire and definitely not Ivory Coast. This point was well taken by the Olympics, not once was Côte d'Ivoire ever referred to by the "other".

Well then, I suppose the next question becomes, is it Pak-is-tan or Pahk-is-tan? Is it Ee-rak or Eye-rak? Don't ask Senators Obama or McCain, they each feel differently about the subject. You could even extend the question to cities, is it Bombay or Mumbai?

Certainly looks like I haven't gotten very far with figuring out what the etiquette is exactly. What do you think?

Turns out, the kid he got in a fight with, AJ, was talking total trash about not only Scott, Drew's friend, but Scott's mom, and Scott's friends.  Most of us, could ignore this kind of trash talk, but Scott is extremely protective of his friends and family, as he should be, but he kept his cool.  Until the kid grabbed Scott by the throat and scratched the hell out of him, making Scott bleed.  This sent him over the edge, Scott grabbed a desk, threw it at AJ and used it to pin him down, then proceeded to beat the Holy Dog Poo out of AJ (oh and he broke the chair in the process).

After several very good punches, Scott got up, walked out of the room, and went to the office (he knew he was in trouble).  Here is where I get upset.  Scott is facing a 10 day suspension, has to apologize to the entire student body (because somehow this affects them) and will not be allowed to participate in football for some period of time (I am not sure how long).  AJ will most likely be expelled, which is fine because he has been trying to get out of CFCA for years.  However, should Scott really be punished so severely?  After all, it was self defense, more importantly you really can not make the argument that he was out of control, since he stopped himself and went straight to the office, he knew exactly what was going on and was very aware the entire time.  Seems to me, that one of the reasons our society is in such desperate need of real men, is because we take the wild, dangerous side of men, and squash them into pansies (oh and the Church, in my opinion, is the one most guilty of this charge).  Scott did what he should have done, and while I can not necessarily "praise" his actions, I can tell you that next time I see him, I will be shaking his hand.

What do you think, are we making mice out of men?  Should Scott be punished so severely for defending himself and the honor of those he loved?  Should Scott be punished at all?  Any thoughts, or ideas are appreciated.

This poem was nominated by UN as the best poem of 2006.
Written by an African Kid

When I born, I black
When I grow up, I black
When I go in Sun, I black
When I scared, I black
When I sick, I black
And when I die, I still black

And you white fellow
When you born, you pink
When you grow up, you white
When you go in sun, you red
When you cold, you blue
When you scared, you yellow
When you sick, you green
And when you die, you gray

And you calling me colored?

I thought it was very meaningful on how the world looks at colored people.

I'm very much yellow, for eg.

And I can't help but feel a similar thread running through my veins.

From the US to the UK, in Europe and Iceland and maybe even in Albania for all I know, we have all suddenly found ourselves part of  big, big business. Before all this credit crunching you may well have owned a house and a car, maybe even a few old CD's and some books, a laptop and a fridge. But now, you my friend ,own part of a bank.

I've put my faith in the government and I'm assuming that at some point in the coming weeks (assuming they're not too busy) someone representing 'the powers that be' will be knocking on my door to tell me exactly which bit of which bank I actually own. I mean this is important information for the citizen of the 21st century. The last thing any of us need is the embarrassment of going into a bank that we don't own part of and demanding stuff that we don't actually own. Imagine the shame of going into, oh I don't know, Barclay's, and demanding your stapler 'There, that's mine, can I have my stapler please' you'd say, only to be escorted out by the forces of law and order as they inform you that the stapler you own is actually being used in HSBC. Oh the shame of it.

No one asked me if I want part of a bank and maybe if they had I'd have said no, I mean why would I, or indeed any of us actually want tp own part of a bank? Having a stapler in a branch office 200 miles away is no good to me, I've got a perfectly good one in the study, if I want to staple a couple of sheets of paper together I'm not likely to drive on a 400 mile round trip when a few paces is the alternative. Still, that fact aside, I'm determined to make the best of it now. I've written to the chancellor of the exchequer to ask which bit I now own, I'm expecting a reply within the week, I'm sure they had the fore sight to employ someone to answer the dozens of questions they are sure to be asked.

Now you may well ask, what right has this person to pontificate on the world economy and finance system, well I'm glad you did it's a question I'd like to know the answer to myself and when I find it I'll let you know.

So dispite my massive and totally made up knowledge of economics, politics and shopping (the three main subjects for this blog) I have a question I'd like answering, it's this; recession? Yes? or maybe no? Who knows? Why I have to ask do some pundits (or guessers as we call them in the world of economics)  claim we're (that's all of us) in a recession? Apparently if there is a 'decline in economic activity lasting more than a few months' (Wiki obviously) then we are in recession. Good, well I'm glad that's clear then. How longs a few months? two? three? four? five? more? and this decline, big? small? very big? very small?. It seems to me that the definition of a recession is pretty much like the defintiion of Art (something is Art if I say it's Art, or if you say it's Art). So a period of time is a recession if you say it is, or if I say it is, got that? Good.

So, is one persons recession another persons slow down, or is that a down turn to you, but if things are going well for me it's an up turn? It's  certainly a time of massive up turn for the average economist and political journalist. You wouldn't really ask an economist to dinner would you? Last year economists couldn't get laid for love or money (or should that be love of money?), but now, mention you're an economist and you're everybodys friend.  Fancy earning a few extra quid? dollars? euros? Just call the local radio station, tell them that you're an economist and they'll have you on the air in double quick time and will pay you pretty much what ever you care to ask for, you might even get paid in staplers.