If there’s anything that frightens the bejeebus out of a lot of people on the far right, it’s a fear that the tactics of environmentalists will destroy capitalism and have communism marching to our doorsteps.

That some people haven’t left the days of the red scare is not so surprising to me, yet it’s a little annoying.  There are about five countries in the world (China, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, and North Korea) that are still fully communist, and the first is more authoritarian capitalist than anything else these days.

But ignoring that whole side of things, there are ways to get cleaner fuel and energy without destroying the economy.

First and foremost, the oil companies need to invest into research into alternate fuels.  I’ve said this before, and I still stand by it now.  That’s the first step: research and develop alternative fuels, and then offer them.  And not just new fuels, but also choices for electricity.

The next step is done by us, the consumers.  With all that new choice, the people will be able to choose which fuels they want to use.  And isn’t that what the conservatives want?  A free market system?  A democracy of the wallet?

Seems quite simple, doesn’t it?  It’s basically the same thing we’re doing now, isn’t it?  You’d think so, but it’s my opinion that as long as the oil companies are reaping huge profits on oil, that much serious development on alternative fuels and electricity sources won’t be done.

So, going back to the free market, I think the people need to start demanding it, specifically before gas reaches $6.00 a gallon everywhere.  It’s simple supply and demand, but rather than waiting for the supply of oil to dry up enough that it’s scarce for all, lets do something now.

So:

1) Oil companies: Invest for research and development of alternative fuel technologies and infrastructures.  It’s good for your future.

2) People: Demand this to happen, before you start paying lot of money for gas.

And, voila.  Helping the planet, and keeping capitalism nice and strong.

Posted by by Michael in Society at 11: 01 PM | Add to del.icio.us | 1 Comment »

Ahh, after an intense end of week, weekend, and beginning of week (nothing to worry about, just busy busy busy), it’s good to be back.  That Independents Week I keep discussing?  Stay tuned to shortly after this entry.

Anyway…I agree with Robert Stein over at The Moderate Voice when he says it seems the main stream media is more interested in the sex life of Eliot Spitzer than it is in the real issues.  Namely a new report by the government that shows 1-in-4 teenage girls are being infected with STDs.

I won’t get into a discussion about Spitzer.  This is one where I’m too late; it’s already well covered elsewhere, so what do I have to add?  He resigned, and that’s probably the best option for him and the state of New York.

So, we go back to the STD study.  1-in-4?  That’s huge!  If you need a visual, find four of your friends that are girls.  According to the study, one of them has an STD.  Now, keep note that STD doesn’t mean HIV!  There are many STDs out there, of which HIV is only one.  You’ve seen the commercials, about genital herpes, and such.

Now, we know that the Bush administration is supportive of abstinence-only education, which is a crock of…well, you know.  According to the NY Times article, the government has spent $1.5 billion on it, and the result is 1-in-4 teenage girls with STDs.

That is why education systems must support contraception education.  Don’t get me wrong.  Abstinence is good option, and should be included in sexual education.  But, it cannot be the sole option taught to American children.  You tell a kid not to do something, and what do they do?  They go and do it.  Look at the prevalence of underage drinking in the U.S.  It’s very high.

The fact is, the numbers of teenagers having sex is rising (or, at least the reported numbers are as the idea becomes more acceptable to talk about).  If a kid chooses not to have sex, great.  More power to ‘em.  But, if they do, I don’t think I need to state the obvious: they need to know their options.

But, more than protection, the idea of talking to your partner needs to be emphasized.  I’m trying to remember my own sexual education.  I seem to remember that it spent a great deal of time on contraception, but I don’t think it spent much time on interpersonal communication.

Look, protection is great, and it certainly does a lot to help, but it’s not all.  The article itself makes note that protection devices such as condoms will prevent all STDs.  I think that’s it’s something of a myth that as long as you wear protection, you’re set.

Well, maybe against some STDs, but not all.  And, I don’t think sexual education puts enough pressure on students to talk with their partner about any issues they might have.  For all the progress this country has made toward sexual openness in the past few decades, I still feel like it’s something of a social stigma to talk to one’s partner about any medical issues they might have.  Part of the problem is the idea of your partner have a sexual history.  Bologna, it’s important to know.  I’m not saying someone has to go into all the details, but if there’s anything that could cause a medical problem, it needs to be known, preferably before the idea of having sex comes up.

I think it’s necessary.  A little talking can prevent a big problem.  It might sound inconvenient, but I think it’s important.  I’d certainly rather a girl ask me about past sexual activity causing any medical issues, than to have that not happen.

Finally, testing.  Needs to be done, especially if you think there’s something going on.  Most testing I’ve seen seems to center around HIV, but I think it needs to be expanded to other STDs.  Not having experienced any, I don’t know, but I’m willing to guess that other STDs are pretty big issues, too.

Now for my critique of the article.  It leaves some stuff out, though I cannot tell if this is just the article or the study that does some of these.  The first big glaring thing I see is that the only group it specifically discusses African Americans.  Is there some reason for this?  Do white Americans, Hispanics, or Asians not get STDs?  It does mention a number for white Americans, but not any specific diseases like it does for African Americans.  I don’t want to play the ‘it’s subtle racism’ card quite yet, but the lack of discussion about any other subgroup makes me a little anxious.  The statistics for the group, which was right after the lead, should have been expanded to other groups, or left out entirely.

Finally, my second gripe is with the study itself.  Why only women?  Do men not get STDs either?  I’m going to have to assume there’s another study out there somewhere just for them.  I’d be interested to see a comparison STDs of American teenage men and women.  If I had to make an educated guess, I’d say it’s not so far away from the women statistic.

Posted by by Michael in Society at 8: 38 PM | Add to del.icio.us | No Comments »

Well, now I’m glad I waited a day to do this.  As time goes on, more details are coming out.

Yesterday, I would found it interesting that somebody would just go off killing people for no reason.  Even if there’s no mental illness, there has to be an incident that would make a person just snap.

Today, however, more is coming out.  Lets take a look at some choice quotes:

Meanwhile, the AP reported that Kazmierczak’s parents had placed him in a Chicago psychiatric treatment center after high school. A former employee of the center said Kazmierczak habitually cut himself and wouldn’t take his medication, according to the AP.

Surely, any time somebody has ever been in a psychiatric treatment facility, this should be examined before giving somebody a gun license?  Now, the media might be sensationalizing this (it’s what media often does), but I am increasingly of the feeling that people under current psychiatric treatment (as he appears to have been, even outside the facility) should not be getting access to guns.

Now, before all the “no law shall prohibit ownership of a gun” crowd comes to hunt me down (no pun intended), hear me out.  Look, people are in psychiatric treatment for a reason.  They’ve got something going on that doesn’t make them dangerous necessarily, but they can put dangerous thoughts in their heads.  Sounds simplistic, I know, but the point I’m trying to make is that when you have someone with a history of self-harm, putting a gun in their hands may not be the best choice one can make.  So, lets continue…

University Police Chief Donald Grady said Friday that there were no “red flags” suggesting Kazmierczak was dangerous or disturbed.

Now, I definitely don’t fault the police chief, here.  He’s not lying, I think, because during this time that Kazimerczak was a student, he was on his meds.  To the outside world, everything was peachy.  This guy didn’t have a mental illness to them, and it showed.  All the media reports show he was a model student, and quite the scholar.  And so people can go on to lead normal lives, even with a mental illness, if they’re continuing with proper treatment.   Then he stopped for some reason…

People close to him have told police he was taking medication but had stopped and had become “somewhat erratic” in the last couple of weeks, Grady said, not specifying what the medication was.

Again, no fault of the police chief here, because who are they to know this kind of thing?  Unless Kazimerczak was acting in a dangerous way, they wouldn’t have known.  Similarly, “erratic” is a bit vague.  When I don’t have some of my asthma medication, and less oxygen is getting to my brain, I also do some things I’d consider “erratic.”  Am I dangerous?  Surely not.  So, I can see this one going two ways, depending on what erratic behaviors he was exhibiting.  The story seems to suggest that it was something that should have concerned people, but they were also saying yesterday that he had no signs of mental illness, and that’s since been smashed.

So, the questions are:

1) What was he doing after stopping his meds, and if it was concerning those who knew him, did they say anything about it?

2) I’m unsure of the laws of Illinois, but do they do background checks on mental illness?  If not, they should.

2a). If they do checks on history of mental illness, did he show up?  If not, why not?

3) What is considered the line for unacceptable granting of a gun license in Illinois?

Posted by by Michael in Society at 5: 14 PM | Add to del.icio.us | No Comments »

When I tuned in to O’Reilly last night, I caught the tail end of an interview with a guy making the case to O’Reilly that many of our nation’s veterans end up on the street after coming back from war.  O’Reilly seemed to disagree with this idea, telling the guy to call him up if he actually finds anybody “sleeping under a bridge.”  Now, this shocking lack of respect for the troops didn’t phase me then, because I didn’t actually notice the story much.  Since I tuned in toward the end of that segment, it didn’t impact me as much as it would if I’d seen the whole thing.  I was also running on 4 hours of sleep.

Then I watched Keith Olbermann tonight.  He had on a veteran, and a member of a group that tracks, and tries to help, homeless veterans.  I got to see some of the clips of the interview again, and thought it made O’Reilly look read bad, what he said about there not being very many homeless troops.

According to the Department of Veteran Affairs, there are about 200,000 veterans homeless on any given night in this country, or about 1/3 of all homeless veterans.  Now, I understand that in relation to all the veterans in this country, that may not be a lot.  But, consider that this is about 23,000 more people than the amount of soldiers we have in Iraq right now, and 2/3 of what we had at the invasion.  That’s a lot of homeless veterans!

Notice that I gave a direct link to the VA’s website.  There can now be no arguing over sources, since the facts are coming from the horse’s mouth itself.  I know it says 195,000, but I’m guessing the number has been updated since then.  Regardless, it’s close enough for me to make my point.

Come on, O’Reilly.  Even you can’t deny that source.  I’m hoping what might have happened was that he assumed that the figures were specifically for people “sleeping under bridges”.  That’s be reasonable, if that were the case.  But, I don’t know.  O’Reilly has a pattern of vehemently disagreeing with people when he considers their opinions to be part of the “secular progressive” movement.  I think the representative from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans for America group thought right when he said he guessed O’Reilly was disputing the number of people under bridges.  I also agreed when he noted that some veterans are worse off, sometimes only having cardboard boxes to sleep under.

I’m surprised that nobody on his mail segment was featured calling him out on that.  Perhaps people did send in mail, but he didn’t choose it.  I hope that he sets the record, because for a man who pounces on people who disrespect the troops, saying what he said sounds pretty disrespectful.  It’s ironic, since today he had a whole segment blasting a New York Times story about veterans coming back from Iraq being more likely to commit murders.

Our veterans sacrifice a lot to fight for us, and the idea that they can go homeless when they come back from fighting is disgraceful.

Posted by by Michael in Society, Television at 1: 42 AM | Add to del.icio.us | 2 Comments »

Now, I know that not every case is like this, but the fact remains that no veteran coming back from Iraq or Afghanistan should have to fight the Veterans Administration to care for injuries received during their service.

Like this man, Ty Ziegel.  He was very badly injured when a suicide bomber attacked the place where he was in Iraq.  When Ziegel got home, he had to fight the VA to get his “head trauma” coverage changed to traumatic brain injury.  That covers 100%, compared to head trauma’s 10%.  The point is, he should not have had to do this, they should have automatically done it.

Now, I’m not saying the VA has to cover everything that ever happens to a veteran off duty, but they should be covering injuries (physical and psychological) that happen to them during the course of their service.  They are putting their lives on the line to defend this country, and we owe them that.

The story has quotes from people who say the injury ratings system is antiquated, and I believe it is.  But, the VA has other problems.  State to state departments simply do not communicate.  I know this from personal (second hand) experience, because my mother had to handle my grandfather’s medical things for awhile.  She had to deal with getting medical data transferred from Massachusetts to my state when he came to live with us for a while.  I think the problem becomes increasingly exasperated after a several years out of active service.  The older veterans are pushed back to make way for the new, and may fall through the cracks.

My point is, this should not be happening.  It would seem to me, that until I hear of any more problems, the way forward is clear for the VA.  There are 3 steps that can be taken to clean things up a bit:

1) Fix the injury rating system.  The article says it dates back to WWII.  Hello!  This is 2007, and we know a lot more about what real injuries are now then we did.  Maybe this is the reason people who fought in Vietnam are having trouble getting psychological injuries covered.  Since back then you probably would have known about it!

2) Improve your communication, VA offices!  Maybe it’s time for some kind of national database of veterans, so that all offices can know their details, and what service-related medical problems they have.  It’d certainly help when a veteran moves to a new state, or has a VA-covered problem in a state other than their home.

Yea, I know, privacy issues.  I am normally against things like this, but I think it’s clear something needs to be done.

3) Make sure your hospitals are ran properly!  After the whole Walter Reed scandal last year (though I know it’s not in your jurisdiction), the VA should make sure its hospitals are keeping clean, and giving the utmost proper care to our veterans.

I think it’s a simple issue, though the solutions may be a little more complex.  We owe it to our veterans to make sure they are cared for after serving their country.

Posted by by Michael in Society at 6: 36 PM | Add to del.icio.us | No Comments »

Not that, according to some, he hasn’t already.

On his show tonight, he’s talking with who I believe is a psychologist (came in late, so not sure). His gripe this time is that two girls being chosen as cutest couple in some high school yearbook is inappropriate. The two girls are shown in a picture together, although the picture isn’t inappropriate in any way. They’re just facing the camera, with a one-armed hug.

The psychologist I think called him out on his true thoughts when she asked him whether he’d have a problem with a heterosexual couple doing the same thing. O’Reilly says that he have no problem with it, but does with this because it isn’t “socially accepted behavior.” Yet, O’Reilly also keeps saying that he thinks people should be keeping their sexual life behind closed doors. These two statements don’t match up. If he really thinks the latter thing, he should be saying that the school should abolish the cutest couple section altogether.

So, O’Reilly thinks that people should keep their sexual life private, but also has no problem with a heterosexual couple being picked as cutest couple, since it’s “socially accepted.” These statements, made within minutes of each other, don’t add up, O’Reilly!

Now, on the other hand, I have no problem with cutest couple sections, or who gets picked for them. It’s a non-issue, really. So, I don’t know why “Mr. I Don’t Have Problems with Homosexuals but Make Conflicting Statements” does.

Posted by by Michael in Society, Television at 11: 45 AM | Add to del.icio.us | No Comments »

If there’s anything I hate more than chain email (and I hate chain email like I hate corrupt politicians), it’s badly researched chain mail, which seems to be a characteristic of a lot of them. Most of them are rumors started by someone who couldn’t spend two seconds looking up the facts, so they get all hot and bothered by the issue.

Take the new $1 coins from the U.S. Mint. I got a chain mail from my mother (who didn’t start it, so not her fault) complaining that these new coins should be boycotted because supposedly they don’t have “In God We Trust” on them. Well, apart from the fact that I could less if they did - I feel a lecture in the importance of God coming from a commenter in my future - something tells me that given most politicians in the federal government are not atheists, this wouldn’t fly with them. They’d be on the Mint faster than you could blink.

Sure enough, it’s not true. Just the position of the phrase has moved. As you can see, it’s now on the edge. This is interesting, because I think it’s the first time any coin (of any country, but not sure on that) has has words on the edge of them.

Now, I know what people are going to say, “But you can’t see it as easily.” Well, maybe you can to actually exercise for thumb and forefinger to get to it, but looking at the picture, it would seem that the words stretch the whole thickness of the edge, potentially making them a bigger font size than they are on any current coin. I’d have to see one to be sure, but if that’s the case, wouldn’t that make it easier to see? Especially for the elderly?

Surely doing this would make people happier, as it’s actually emphasizing the phase just that much more. But, people will probably still complain. By the way, “E Pluribus Unum” and the year are also on the edge. So, no people. This isn’t some vast far-left conspiracy to remove God from our lives. So, stop while you’re ahead.

Posted by by Michael in Society at 2: 44 PM | Add to del.icio.us | No Comments »

This is one I haven’t really touched before, except in passing, when discussing other things. However, I think it’s time. Of course, something else prompted it.

I hadn’t heard of the series before, but many Christians (of the far right flavor) appear to be up in arms over the upcoming film His Dark Materials: The Golden Compass. Like I say, I don’t know much about the series, never having read it (though, after reading the descriptions of the books, I do want to read it). It appears to be somewhat similar in nature to the Chronicles of Narnia (another series I want to read), in that a child travels through a portal to another, rather magical world. Lyra, the main character, has to battle through evil, and all that good stuff.

Unlike Narnia, though, the series features multiple worlds (in a multiverse), and a strange, Dark-matter like substance called Dust (that apparently identifies sentient beings, like us).

Continue reading »

Posted by by Michael in Personal Life, Religion, Society at 1: 51 AM | Add to del.icio.us | No Comments »

Author Tim Ferriss, on his blog, tries to explain how any of us can live our lives without paper, voicemail, answering calls, or using cash.  Now, I try to live my life as electronically as possible and consolidated as possible.  Makes for easy reaching, see?  I’ve consolidated all my emails into one place (Gmail, I love you so).   I also use Google Calendar to schedule my life, and just started using Google Reader to file through my favorite blogs easily.  I also use iGoogle as my browser homepage so I’m easily able to get to all these things, as well as BBC News, some movie times, and Digg.  And with my new cell phone, I can check all these things anywhere I go.

Continue reading »

Posted by by Michael in Society, Technology at 2: 25 AM | Add to del.icio.us | No Comments »

I’ve heard this story before, but now that I see what seems to be all the details, I now think more than ever that this place is a disgusting example of bad horrible health care.

The subject of tonight’s entry is the Martin Luther King Jr.-Harbor Hospital of Los Angeles, California. The incident in particular I speak of concerns Edith Isabel Rodriguez, who died in the hospital last month while pleading with the hospital staff for help with pain in her stomach. She had apparently been previously seen by doctors, who diagnosed her with gallstones, gave her a prescription, and sent her on her merry way. However, this time was different, and to save the easily woozy their lunch, I’ll continue on the flip side.

Continue reading »

Posted by by Michael in Rambling, Society at 9: 41 PM | Add to del.icio.us | No Comments »