Sunday, July 31, 2005

Carter Criticizes Iraq War

"I thought then, and I think now, that the invasion of Iraq was unnecessary and unjust. And I think the premises on which it was launched were false."
~ Jimmy Carter
(from Common Dreams)

Saturday, July 30, 2005

Now is that 'G' or 'Gee?'

Haha... wonderfully stupid.

Friday, July 29, 2005

Wright & Dennett and the Meaning of Life(tv)

Today I happily stumbled (i.e., googled a related topic) upon a website discussing '‘meaning of life'’ issues. I immediately watched Robert Wright interview Daniel C. Dennett. The latter is one of my favourite authors, while the former was author of an evolutionary theory book that I quite enjoyed. This interview demonstrated the differences between the two men, but it was not so much an interview as it was a discussion/debate about consciousness, evolution, free will, quantum stuff and death. Though interesting, it was a bit disappointing. As I seem to have idealist oratorical standards, Dennett fell a bit short of how I would want him to speak. Such expectations and their fall out occur when one reads the thoughts of another and then hears them discussed; there simply is not enough capacity to have speech parallel written argumentation. On the other hand, as the interview continues, I feel Dennett did a fine job talking with Wright, despite Wright'’s disorganized queries and obstinate behaviour. If Dennett fell a bit short, Wright fell down. He was not terrible, but as the interviewer he failed. Wright appeared quite blase, and looked like he was '‘winging'’ it, apparently overestimating his abilities. He should have been more efficient, organized and used his notes (those little cards).

It just seemed like a very inefficient discussion, mainly because of Wright'’s style. Of course I may be a bit biased, but Wright tries to pigeon-hole Dennett on the consciousness of robots, even when Dennett makes his qualified view obvious. As well, at one point Wright sounds a bit desperate when he says, "…That'’s interesting and I'’ve thought about it a lot lately…"” as if by saying he has thought about it, he should be listened to more. That is probabilistically true, but also probabilistically, Dennett has thought about it more. The one snotty comment by Dennett, amusing and somewhat justified after an inefficient back and forth, was, "“I'’ll say it again slower I guess."” (I can sympathize.)
I enjoyed the discussion about epiphenomalism, now realizing how nonsensical a concept it is.

I think the interview is worth watching because of '‘meta'’ level aspects: how two people present their thoughts and react to the points raised by the other. I had hoped this website would be a goldmine, similar to the Edge, but Wright'’s style might dampen the delight of hearing smart people discuss smart things. (Looking the site over again, the benefits easily outnumber the costs.)

Lastly, watching Wright'’s confusion regarding some of Dennett'’s ideas, in addition to some discussions I'’ve had recently and over the past few years, is leading me to think of a '‘lack of (emotional) bias’ as a key factor of intelligence.

I'’ll ponder and get back to you.

(Addendum: Wright has displayed his love of sophistry and 'dunce-osity' by trying to make it seem like Dennett agreed to something he didn't. At best, it is ambiguous, yet Wright feels like there is gold here. Even at the main page, Wright engages in sensationalism about the potential implication of Dennett's putative remarks. It is saddening when smart people don't realize there are people smarter.)

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

FDA oversees hypocrisy & sodomy?!

I couldn't sleep last night so I ended up watching a bit of Jay Leno because Bill Maher was a guest. Bill was talking about Dr. W. David Hager, who is a gynecologist and was appointed by Bush as second in command at the in the Food and Drug Administration in charge of women's issues. Maher said that Hager had written a book that suggests the use of prayer and church if a woman is suffering from premenstrual symptoms. More shocking, is he also said the Hager had anally raped his wife, which subsequently lead to their divorce. Still more shocking, Maher said that Hager did not deny the allegation, but said it was accidental. A gynecologist not knowing where a vagina is? That absurdity is amusing if it was not mixed in with forced sodomy. Does anyone want this man in charge of anything affecting people's lives?

As this was from Bill Maher (who I think trustworthy) and was said on national television (meaning, no one wants to get sued) I cautiously accept it. Does anyone know anything more?

I found this page, apparently based on this page, which seems to indicate Maher was mostly correct, but more sources would be appreciated. (Similarly, based on the original?)

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

Oh, Wow... Space

Earlier today I had the privilege of watching the space shuttle Discovery launch into space.
The sheer power of the rockets creating vast billowing clouds of smoke was magnificent.

For the first time ever, there was a camera on the main booster looking up at the belly of the shuttle. A wonderful result of the position was that you could see the Earth shrinking in the background. There was greenery, then a cityscape, then blueness with some curvature, then diminishing curvature separating blue-white and deep black.

It was beautiful.

I just found out there are about 2,500,000 parts. I truly cannot picture that.

Events such as these make me feel humbled at the ability of humanity to acquire knowledge and co-operate on amazing adventures. The utilization of various material and intellectual resources to leave this Earthly plain is inspirational and exemplifies my notions of transcendence.

Monday, July 25, 2005

Variety: the spice of life

I've encountered some interesting things lately, please click away.

News/politics from Common Dreams
I should be reading more articles like this or this.
It would be interesting if he was still alive.

a) Bush's hidden speech writer?
b) Weird Al takes on Eminem. (at least two good slams)
c) This did make me smile.

a) Electrons move at quintillionths of a second. For comparison, read a bit of the abstract. (measuring the movement of a cloud of probability seems a bit odd, but seems to be possible)
b) Why doesn't the world go black when you blink?
c) Your kitty may be cute, but isn't sweet?

New Matthew Good. I'm satisfied. Click "Oh Be Joyful," on the left. For Matt's response to critics of his video (I was one) just read the entry that comes up. ("You've got to be kidding...")

Saturday, July 23, 2005

Oh, Christians... you so krazy

Last night I engaged in a religion/science discussion with two Christians. Nice people, educated (almost PhD level in political science) and generally informed. Yet, the discussion went as these kinds of discussions usually do. The most concerning point is that one felt "some things aren't open to debate," while the other thought that nothing could happen that would change her mind about the existence of a God. Once that information was ascertained and clarified, I said there isn't much point continuing the debate unless we want the conversational aspect of it.

Such a level of closedmindedness concerns me because I so clearly see links to other problems in the world. If an individual engages in an act or thought and says, "It does not matter what you present to me or if things change or if you bring me information I didn't know. I will not change my mind," I immediately start to think of any problem that occurs because of such a stance. Iraq caused 9/11, my religion is better than yours, people 'x' are inferior (because of reason 'y'), 'those' people, 'It's my right"...etc. Nearly all of these situations end up in violence or human rights abuses.

The connection was so clear to me but is less visible to those inside it. Obviously, people don't want to see the similarities to systems that have a greater likelihood of causing harm in the world. Critical thinking and being open to new ideas, as well as the possibility you are wrong, is what will help the problems of the world. It would be as if you get to keep all the good stuff (because good stuff is good) without any of the bad stuff.

One of the women had some novel thoughts about space and time. She felt one of her main points was "why can't we see into the future?" because time consists of levels... or something. I never really understood what she meant. I was content with the 'expansion of the universe in time/light cone/things haven't happened yet, so we currently cannot see into the future.’ Her stance was a new one. She said it is justified by quantum physics stuff. I’ve heard of infinite universes, but nothing like that.

Of course one cannot just have ‘science’ as a way of knowing, and it depends on the question one wants to ask, but religious people do not seem to see that most things that people want to know are best known when they are quantified, and those that cannot be fully quantified should still be quantified as much as possible or might be unknowable.

Example: The London bombings.
Who/How? An investigation regarding who committed these crimes will use rational, empirical methods of collecting evidence and testing hypotheses.
What/Where/When? These may seem pretty obvious, but would be based on consensual observation and data collection.
Why?… that’s the big one, the one that non-science people think science cannot answer. I think evidence based quantitative analysis is still highly useful here.
The were religious? How so? Where did they attend? How often did they attend? What books did they read? Who did they associate with? What do their phone records or net usage suggest? Does an independent observer feel similarly? What about an observer that has a different ideological/cultural background? This is how knowledge is best acquired. Obviously, such an investigation is not as rigid as physics or chemistry and much of the power of the scientific method is reduced… but what else is there?

Example 2: Why do people kill each other? God is testing us? Oooooor… the 4 billion year evolutionary past was such that violence occurred and survival was important. Aspects of our current existence come from previous times and things are not fair and balanced in society while weapons are available. But that is a general statement. I know I’d want to know (a) what percentage of people kill? (b) who, regarding group, sex or location, kills? (c) Are there any reasons for violence occurring more or less?
I don’t know the first answer (under 5% I think), but a combination of the latter two by way of statistical analyses. Younger men kill more, they kill more when there are economic disparities visible in a location and the legalization of abortion was directly related to the reduction of crime. But then one might say “But, REALLY why?” I think this goes back to the evolutionary past part. Additionally, it is useful to think of the situation as “why don’t more people kill?” Phrased like that one might want to examine various political systems, crime rates in various countries, prison systems, sentencing levels, rehabilitation efficacy, recidivism rate… all of which will be determined by evidence based analyses using ‘reason’ as a guide.

During last eve’s discourse, I said there is going to be some inherent subjectivity in science, but it removes more subjectivity than any other way of knowing. I asked for another way and one of the woman said, “You tell me another way,” I said, “I can’t, I don’t have to. I think science is the best, you should have to tell me how it isn’t.” I could have been more clear and said, “One: making things up. Two: Guessing. Three: Reading one source of information and generalizing…” but I feel all of these are just along the continuum of ways to acquire knowledge with the aforementioned ‘one’ at one end, and good science at the other. No other way of knowing will get to the moon.
“One of these things is not like the other.” (Sing it with me!)

Relatedly, we discussed the subjectivity of data collection. How whatever data collected are chosen among other data and if people are ranking things it is not that objective. I said, “But the data is real.” I believe it was a point that was not quite understood, as she kept going on about “But you’re choosing one way over another.”
If a scientist describes their methods of data collection and can actually be trusted, the data is real (within error). The interpretation, the statistics used for such interpretation, the hypothesis that lead to the data collection and any other biases are hopefully, but not necessarily objective… but the data is real.

The usual issues of ‘we can’t perceive everything’ and ‘god created it all’ came up. I uttered my usual replies of ‘yes… so what?’ and ‘who created god?’ So it goes.

One of the women asserted God was omnipotent. I did not have time to fully question the absurdity of that concept.

I sometimes ask religious people, “What if you were born somewhere else?” It is hard for me to believe that a N.A. Christian would still be one if born to a ‘primitive’ tribe in Africa. It makes no sense. Most asked agree that they would likely be different, but don’t seem to realize how untenable their whole belief structure becomes.

Additionally, they said they believe in evolution, but I am not quite sure about that. Depending on how you define it and decide on the implications of it, evolution and a continually intervening God are not really compatible; unless you reduce God to the very beginning of existence, which is like saying the universe itself is responsible, or enlarge God to everything, which is another way of saying ‘the universe.’

Some people seem to want one way for their very personal life, but a completely antithetical way for everything else. I say ‘very’ personal, because even in personal interactions people attempt to use evidence and reason to justify or explain things. I think most do not see the level of inconsistency they possess and perpetuate.

Such a dichotomized existence appears irrational to me.

The notion of bringing in a mysterious, ineffable variable to explain answers currently unknown or possibly unknowable is simply unreasonable.
I wish people could see that.

(What brings me hope is to look at how things have changed over time. The Western world is moving away from ‘Him,’ the guy in the clouds, to some ‘force’ or ‘energy.’ Very few think thunder is because of ‘the gods,’ turns out it is just thunder. True, new age stuff is also highly misleading, but it seems better than the alternative. It appears that worldwide violence is down and human rights are going up. Of course, I’d expect you to find the data ;)

Friday, July 22, 2005

Seeing warmth

"The sun sliced through the windshield, sealing me in light. I closed my eyes and felt the warmth on my eyelids. Sunlight traveled a long distance to reach this planet; an infinitesimal portion of that energy was enough to warm my eyelids. I was moved. The something as insignificant as an eyelid had its place in the workings of the universe, that the cosmic order did not overlook this momentary fact."
~ Haruki Murakami

(the second part of the last sentence is a bit misleading, but what a wonderful sentiment)

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

A Horse Intercourse?

Today I read this story. Read it and then read below.

Interesting points:
1) "The county Medical Examiner's Office ruled that the death was accidental and the result of having sex with a horse." Now, it doesn't say exactly what the injuries were. Bones crushed? Hoofed imprints on the torso? Choked on the mane? Torn... things? Maybe the horse was all into it, then the guy brought out the saddle and stirrups and the horse freaked out. (Same thing seems to happen with girls. They say they love you and then don't follow through. Whatever.)

2) "...other people involved..." What? Can't handle a horse all by yourself? I mean, bestiality is one thing, but at least be monogamous about it. Where's your sense of decency?

3) "Deputies don't believe a crime occurred because... the horse was uninjured..." How do they know? Did they do a thorough search? Additionally, what about emotional trauma. I know that nearly every time my sexual partner has died during the act it has affected me. Worst is the time-constrained cuddling (body gets cold and all).

4) "But because investigators found chickens, goats and sheep on the property, they are looking into whether animal cruelty -— which is a crime -— was committed by having sex with these smaller, weaker animals." Sex with a chicken?!
Here's a piece of advice. If you go to KFC or Swiss Chalet, and you find yourself wishing you could have romanced your dinner before you eat it, it is time to seek professional help. I think Tom Cruise knows the history of chicken sex, so you should ask him.

5) "A significant number of people, we believe, have likely visited this farm" What kind of initial meeting is that? So... here for the animal sex? Oh yeah, me too. Did you see that Discovery channel special last night...?
As well, would vegetarians go or reject bestiality on principle? Maybe they have to use fruit and vegetables?

6) "This and a few other cases that we have will allow us a platform to talk about sex abuse of animals," I really didn't know that we needed a platform. I would think, "Hey, no sex with animals" would be enough.

7) "Thirty-three states ban sex with animals." That means 17 states have yet to do so. Wtf?!!?

8) "It's animal cruelty behind closed doors" I agree. But what if it is in an open barn, or field? I don't think we should localize it. (But we should check near the edges of cliffs)

9) Generally, it seems that animal sex is okay, but animal cruelty is not. Who's going to decide what's what? Like, if you romance the horse with some oats and an apple first, does that make it okay. What if you get the sheep drunk first?
Additionally, what if someone changes their mind but the language barrier is an obstacle to communication. I say, "Neigh means Neigh!"

10) Similar to the above point, what if a 'couple' hits it off and the horse wants to go cuddle, but is property of the farm. I know I wouldn't like my girlfriend to be owned by someone else. Maybe we should see ends as ends unto themselves and bestow upon them the human rights and liberties that we all have come to expect and respect.

Lastly, I can understand if it was various non-human primates, but a horse? That's disgusting.

ps: thanks to Mush who keeps abreast of the bestiality literature and sent me the link.

Monday, July 18, 2005

The persistence of Homunculi

A man didn’t understand how televisions work, and was convinced that there must be lots of little men inside the box, manipulating images at high speed. An engineer explained to him about high frequency modulations of the electromagnetic spectrum, about transmitters and receivers, about amplifiers and cathode ray tubes, about scan lines moving across and down a phosphorescent screen. The man listened to the engineer with careful attention, nodding his head at every step of the argument. At the end he pronounced himself satisfied. He really did now understand how televisions work. "But I expect there are just a few little men in there, aren’t there?"
-- Douglas Adams

Sunday, July 17, 2005

A highlight of the day

I made a girl feel safer on the Metro.

She was across from me, several seats away, and was being subtly propositioned/bothered by some guy. I caught her gaze and was able to inaudibly communicate my concern. She smiled appreciatively and was subsequently aware of my observation of the situation. Several stops later, after she stood up and before she got off the train, she said, "Thank you" and appeared to have a sincere smile.

I wish I could do something like that for everyone.

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

All tucked away down there...

"I’m just going to plow on here, and you can correct for my native bias. First, in an uncharacteristically brash generalization, I have to say that Canadians tend to be a good deal more introspective and self-effacing than Americans, much slower than their southern neighbours to celebrate their triumphs and much quicker to expose their flaws. This is a disposition, note, that is ripe for the development of satire. Another fundamental difference is that many Americans believe – are in fact raised to believe – that everyone else in the world lives like they do, or else wants to live like they do, and that the American way of life is compelling to pretty much everyone. Whereas Canadians are raised with the absolute certainty that not even their closest neighbours live like they do, nor want to, and that their way of life is not even particularly compelling to those neighbours. America’s enormous global influence – politically and economically as well as culturally – and Canada’s comparative invisibility confirm these beliefs to some degree. America sees itself everywhere, Canada almost nowhere. The former thus develops a highly insular and inwardly focused culture, the latter an obsessively outward-looking culture. And the place Canadians most often gaze out upon is their big, brash next-door neighbour. This has provided Canada with a point of view utterly unique in the world: Canadians are by nature and circumstance experts in American studies, nearly as well versed as Americans themselves in the society and culture of the United States, able to identify every cultural referent, able indeed to pass for Americans – to produce pop culture that an American audience frequently mistakes for its own. Canadians almost instinctively get American culture, but at the same time they are profoundly aware that they are not entirely of it. And this allows Canadians to be critical of it with a degree of detachment impossible for an American, even as their privileged point of view ensures that their criticisms ring true."
-Chris Turner, Planet Simpson, page 49

What do you think?

Present and Future?

Once upon a time on Tralfamadore there were creatures who weren’t anything like machines. They weren’t dependable. They weren’t efficient. They weren’t predictable. They weren’t durable. And these poor creatures were obsessed by the idea that everything that existed had to have a purpose, and that some purposes were higher than others.

These creatures spent most of their time trying to find out what their purpose was. And every time they found out what seemed to be a purpose of themselves, the purpose seemed so low that the creatures were filled with disgust and shame.

And, rather than serve such a low purpose, the creatures would make a machine to serve it. This left the creatures free to serve higher purposes. But whenever they found a higher purpose, the purpose still wasn’t high enough.

So machines were made to serve higher purposes, too.

And the machines did everything so expertly that they were finally given the job of finding out what the highest purpose of the creatures could be.

The machines reported in all honesty that the creatures couldn’t really be said to have any purpose at all.

The creatures thereupon began slaying each other, because they hated purposeless things above all else.

And they discovered that they weren’t even good at slaying. So they turned that job over to the machines, too. And the machines finished up the job in less time than it takes to say, “Tralfamadore.”

-Vonnegut, Sirens of Titan, pg. 274-275

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

Guns, Brains and Stealing distance

1) Small arms fire kills as many as three times more people than previously thought...
Whenever you hear a speech or comment indicating the moral righteousness of a country, try to find out if they sell guns, bombs or military crafts. It is quite fallacious to, say, spread the ideology of peace while simultaneous selling weapons to both parties in a conflict. (as well, do they include the 10,000 in US? Is this just in intercountry conflict?)

2) Brain imaging and moral decisions...
Interesting little article, my only complaint was with the phrase "...suggesting that volunteers were calling in a neurological mediator." can you guess why?

3) Teleportation
Why? Because it is fun to think about even if it's completely implausible in the near future.

Addendum: Go here, under Scotty's greatest hits-Plame, and click on video to see how the Whitehouse feels about hypocrisy. (worth the wait)

Sunday, July 10, 2005

Straight Outta Contrast

In a similar vein to Ben Fold's cover, Nina Gordan has done a cover of the gangsta anthem "Straight Out of Compton." I suggest listening to a sample (edited) of the original and then watching the original video overlaid with her melodious singing. The wrathful lyrics juxtaposed with her euphonic voice delights me.

Saturday, July 09, 2005

Perception and Reality

In a recent story in The Globe and Mail, it was reported that "...Canadians on average believed the cost of one year of undergraduate university tuition in 2003 was $4,989. But the average cost of tuition that year was $3,749." Additionally, "The survey found that Canadians believe university graduates earned $39,967, or about $5,000 more than high-school graduates actually earned on average. In fact, the 2001 Census reported that the average university graduate in Canada made $61,823, or about $27,000 more than a high-school graduate."*

I love such news pieces! They blatantly demonstrate that perception is not necessarily reality. The importance of the empirical method (and its little friend Statistics) is illustrated when our society attempts to correct itself from inaccurate thoughts. Misperceptions abound, but at least our perceptions have the potential to be bounded. How often have you thought or said something that, upon reflection, you truly have no idea of whether it is true or not? I would guess frequently; it is one of the problems of the complexity of the world. The complexity of most things is just so vast that even those with an inclination and a capacity are not fully informed, and even if they are they may not be in agreement with other such individuals.

The aforementioned situation leads to the logical, but sadly fallacious, reliance on upon experts. It is true these experts have the knowledge, but they are also emotional beings who possess various human shortcomings. Thus, their 'informed perspective' can be inaccurate or misleading; both the former and the latter can vary in their intentionality.

What is the alternative? Do all the research yourself? No, this is simply not feasible. But, a middle ground can be reached. Try to find several sources for the 'same' pieces of information. Try to think of the other factors that may underlie the stance of another and any ulterior motives they might have. Realistically, take a loss on some issues. But, you also must take a loss at speaking with any confidence about such issues. It is only fair.

Many do not want to admit their level of ignorance because then they would not be able to say much at all. While I am sympathetic to the situation (as I'm right there with them), I still see intellectual restraint as the best way to go about discussions (and improving the world).

I think a wonderful definition of wisdom is 'the ability to recognize one's ignorance.'

*The study was based on a telephone poll of 1,055 Canadians. It was done by Ipsos-Reid in August and September of 2003. Information was also obtained from the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation. The survey has a margin of error of 3 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Blue Skies Over Badlands

What if you woke up in the middle of the night
And in your bare feet you walked outside
And realizing that you were awake that you could fly
Out over the world
To places that you’ve only heard of
See faces that you were sold as murderers
But just like you they’re only lonely boys and girls
Like all over the world
What if you could lift them up?
What if you could make it so that times weren’t tough?
So ever morning when the world woke up
There’d only be weather on the news
And what if you were back in bed
With one of them floating over your head
What do you say to your enemies
When you don’t know what it is that could have been between you?
There ain’t no blue skies over bad lands
Even if it ain’t raining in the mornings
But you don’t need to fly to understand it
Just understand understanding

~ Matthew Good

Thursday, July 07, 2005


I was walking up a path to a street where a soccer ball had just landed after going over a high fence from a field where kids were playing. I trotted to the ball, picked it up, waited until some cars passed and then flung it across the street and over the fence. The kids said "Whoa," and then "Thanks." I'm just happy it didn't hit a large pole.

(and I laughed at the Amazonian episode of Futurama)

Tuesday, July 05, 2005


There are more than seven times as many firearms in the United States as Canada has people.

Kris Kross will make you laugh laugh

I happened to see a brief part of this video while flicking around today. Enjoy the absurdity of the lyrics.

Kris Kross

Jump Jump
You should know, you should know that ahhh
Kris Kross is not having anything today
As we stand there totally krossed out
We commence to make you

Jump Jump
The Mac Dad will make you Jump Jump
The Daddy Mac will make you Jump Jump
Kris Kross will make you Jump Jump

Don't try to compare us to another bad little fad
I'm the Mac and I'm bad give you something that you never had
I'll make ya Jump Jump wiggle and shake your rump
Cause I'll be kicking the flavor that makes you wanna Jump
How high? Real high
Cause I'm just so fly
A young loveable, huggable type of guy
And everything is the back with a little slack
And inside-out is wiggida wiggida wack
I come stompin' with somethi' to keep you jumpin'
R&B abd bullcrap is what I'm dumpin'
And ain't something about Kris Kross we all that
So when they ask to the rocks they believe that

Jump Jump
The Mac Dad will make you Jump Jump
The Daddy Mac will make you Jump Jump
Kris Kross will make you Jump Jump
uh huh uh huh
Jump Jump
The Mac Dad will make you Jump Jump
The Daddy Mac will make you Jump Jump
Kris Kross will make you Jump Jump

I let myself knockin' knockin'
I love it when a girl is play jockin' jockin'
The D-A-double D-Y-M-A-C
Ya you know me
I got you jumpin' an' pumpin' an' movin' all around G
In the mix I make ya take a step back
They try to step to the Mac then they got jacked
To the back you'll be sportin' the gear that's coincidental
And like you knowit so don't be claiming that it's mental

Two lil' kids with a flow you ain't ever heard
And none faking you can understand every word
As you listen to my cool school melody
The Daddy makes you J-U-M-P

Jump Jump
The Mac Dad will make you Jump Jump
The Daddy Mac will make you Jump Jump
Kris Kross will make you Jump Jump
uh huh uh huh
Jump Jump
The Mac Dad will make you Jump Jump
The Daddy Mac will make you Jump Jump
Kris Kross will make you Jump Jump

Now, the formalities of this and that
Is that Kris Kross ain't comin' off wack
And for all ya'll sucks that don't know
Check it out

Some of them try to rhyme but they can't rhyme like this Go Go
Some of them try to rhyme but they can't rhyme like this Go Go
Some of them try to rhyme but they can't rhyme like this Go Go
Some of them try to rhyme but they can't Go Go
Cause I'm the miggida miggida miggida Mac Daddy
Miggida miggida miggida Mac
Cause I'm the miggida miggida miggida Mac Daddy

I make you wanna
Jump Jump
The Mac Dad will make you Jump Jump
The Daddy Mac will make you Jump Jump
Kris Kross will make you Jump Jump
uh huh uh huh (repeat 3 more times)
Believe dat

Two of my favs were the second line ('You should know, you should know that ahhh') and the repetition near the end ('Some of them try to rhyme but they can't rhyme like this'). The former because it ends with 'ahhh' and the latter because it serves to undermine the very point the words attempt to make. hahaha
Did you have any?

Monday, July 04, 2005

War of the Worlds (don't see it)

I just finished watching War of the Worlds. This was not a good movie.
Turns out stories 107 years old don't work in the present, especially when they didn't make much sense to begin with.
I could go on about it in greater detail, but I don't really want to . Instead, I suggest checking out this link, BUT know that it spoils the movie. That being said (i.e., written and read), if you don't care about that sort of thing, and/or don't plan to see it, enjoy. It is pretty funny (save the odd religious debate in the comments section).

Happy Birthday!!!

I was trying to think of a gift to give, but it was really hard. I know what America has and I also know what America wants. But I don't think it has been good this past while, so maybe this?

Sunday, July 03, 2005

The Art of Science

Worm Window
Erin Cram
Department of Molecular Biology (Princeton)

This work is based on the rose window of St. John the Divine, NYC. Each segment of the image is an image of the microscopic nematode, C. elegans. The red images were generated by staining the animals with a dye called rhodamine-phalloidin, which lights up actin, a protein found predominantly in muscles. The blue is a DNA stain called DAPI, and the green comes from expressing the jelly fish protein GFP transgenically in the nematodes. The grayscale images are mainly of C. elegans embryos or dissected C. elegans organs. Although the work was assembled using Photoshop, none of the image is pseudocolored.

Saturday, July 02, 2005

Make Avariciousness History (I can dream)

Still wondering why some people are critical/skeptical of the recently announced African debt relief? Read this and this.
It's important.

Oh, Tom...

Thomas Cruise Mapother IV has... well, lost it.

'It' could be a variety of things, but most likely 'it' is the respect and admiration of the public. Yes, it is true that some never respected Tom Cruise, nor will they ever start. But in the realm of Hollywood, Tom is the Golden Boy; who else to defend the very idea of movies after 9/11?

Of course, what it will all come down to money. If War of the Worlds is a hit like his other movies (Mission: Impossible - $180 million, A Few Good Men - $141 million, Rain Man - $172 million, Top Gun - $176 million, Jerry Maguire - $158 million, The Firm - $158 million, Mission: Impossible 2 - $215 million.).

Admittedly, I've always liked Tom as a 'moviestar.' I know the stupidity and deception that defines show business, and hate those things dearly, but at the same time somehow had to give Tom credit for playing the game so well. And then: "...why I didn't believe in psychology."

I was even willing to forgive the Oprah thing ( joke version), and thought he acted appropriately when squirted with water, but when his Scientology starts to attack my science then the end is near. (note the reactions of Oprah's audience.)

I wonder if he and Katie can even see outside of the bubble they are in and see how absurd their existence is becoming (as if it wasn't absurd enough before).

I took the picture from a very amusing description of his Matt Lauer interview.

Friday, July 01, 2005

Happy Canada Day!

Good thing Canadians don't have to pass a test to stay here.