January 25, 2008: Day 184

It's been six months since you were conceived, and you're two weeks into the third trimester. You're due in 82 days. If you were born today, you could probably breathe on your own and at least respond to changes in body temperature, even if you would still have to be in an incubator since your little body couldn't generate enough heat. But the important thing is, if you are born today or any day after, the odds are overwhelmingly in your favor. The nurses and doctors will fight for you and do whatever it takes.

I realize that in my writing, I often comment on your survival odds, and upon reflection, I admit it might seem obsessive and even morbid to dwell on such things, but you know what? Damn right I dwell on these things! I'm practical, and I'm a realist. It doesn't change my love for you... quite the opposite, in fact, because it's how I've expressed my concern for your well-being. I never allowed this line of thinking to escalate into a frenzy of worry, but there was always enough concern to keep us (your mother and me) aware of and focused on your health. We never lost focus, we never considered your successful birth to be a foregone conclusion, which means we were never complacent or flippant about your pregnancy, we never took this for granted. We were always in your corner, pulling for you and cheering you on.

I believe that every once in a while, when we're in the privacy of our home and not around other people, it's worthwhile to go a day or two without a shower, because that next, much needed shower is a most rejuvenating experience. You can't appreciate how good it feels to be clean until you've known the misery of being grimy and dirty. In the same way, being aware of all that can go wrong in a pregnancy helps us appreciate how fortunate we are when things go right. Our family has been extremely fortunate thus far, enough so that whatever challenges may come our way, we can take them head-on with confidence. Not arrogance or complacency, but confidence. Of course, some couples try so hard to have a child, some spend a small fortune trying to adopt, that'll we'll never truly know how lucky we are.

We enrolled in a Bradley Method childbirthing class. This was your mother's planning, and it's been a valuable experience. We've learned exercises to strengthen your mother's body and prepare her and you for birth, simple ways to help birth go better for everyone involved, things I think the medical community should teach all expecting mothers in a country where one-third of babies are delivered by Caesarean-section and birthing interventions abound.

The Bradley Method has also taught us a new way to approach diet. For example, avoiding excessive weight gain is important, but it should never trump proper nutrition. The Bradley Method teaches what a balanced pregnancy diet is, and how a proper diet will maintain proper weight gain. Traditional obstetric practice addresses the issue in backwards fashion: stressing proper weight gain to expecting mothers, and placing less emphasis on diet. So, by telling a pregnant woman she's gaining too much weight, but not teaching her how to make informed diet choices, many medical professionals unwittingly motivate women to eat less and get inadequate nutrition.

I always thought it was normal and healthy for the breaking of the waters to signal the start of labor (in fact, many ob/gyns will puncture the amniotic sac to help labor progress). Breaking the waters early is not necessarily a good thing. The forewaters around the baby's head provide cushioning and protection during labor, and reduce the mother's discomfort as the baby's skull pushes against the pelvis and pubic bone. Consuming plenty of protein helps strengthen the amniotic sac, ideally keeping it intact for cushioning until moments before birth. So now, we hope for a birth where the water gushes out as the head begins to crown, and we will not allow a physician or midwife to break your amniotic sac simply to progress labor for convenience's sake.

Episiotomies are to be avoided. Even a few minor tears are preferable to the single incision of an episiotomy, because on the whole, vaginal tears heal with fewer complications than episiotomies. Call me crazy, but I believe that our good friend Evolution has responded to crowning by developing vaginas that can heal from tears, but hasn't had an opportunity to respond to the relatively new practice of episiotomy. But in the meantime, squatting and consuming plenty of unsaturated fat and protein helps make the perineum all stretchy-like.

I could go on, but you get the point: these childbirthing classes have given us a new perspective. And to think I was initially resistant to the $250 cost and 12-week commitment! I'm almost ashamed.

What else? We have your crib and dresser with hutch. That crib is quite nice, I must say. Solid, heavy construction, the kind that won't wobble when you grab on and push and pull. Unless we use it for a second child, you'll come to know it as your childhood bed, for we also bought the rails to convert it into a full-size bed. This, too, was your mother's doing. She takes the lead on most everything, while I sit around and pontificate about them in my weblog.

Well, I did take the lead on the electronics: a camcorder to record your milestones, and a camera to capture the moments that go by so quickly and only come once, the moments we want to treasure and not forget, the very moments you'll hope we never show a significant other before a date. Please understand we do it with the best intentions at heart, as a test. For whoever adores our daughter at her most precious or entertaining moments, only these people are worthy of her heart. Trust us on this one.

You're kicking quite a bit, your poor mother's bladder... and sometimes, when you flip, it's your poor mother's ribs we talk about. Not only have I felt you kick, I've seen lumps and bumps move around. A couple weeks ago, we first heard your heartbeat with our own ears through a stethoscope, not amplified through a doppler microphone. The other day, when I coughed next to your mother's belly, you kicked as if startled, so we know you're aware, if not consciously so. I've been shining a laser pointer and moving it over your mother's belly, trying to elicit a response... none yet, but we're certain the glow penetrates blood and tissue, because it's red and bright. Perhaps you think the red glow is nothing to be concerned about or worth moving for, at least not enough for us to feel. Of course, you can't even open your eyes for a few more days.

Until then, we'll leave the light on for you.

December 9, 2007: Day 138

The story so far:

Back in 1975, when your mother was still unborn in her mother's uterus, the egg cell that would become you was formed. Fast-forward through time to August 1996 when your mother and I met, to July 2004 when we married. In mid-May 2007, an unknown and unremarkable spermatogonium in my body became a committed stem cell, one of a million to do so that day, and began the process of producing numerous sperm cells. On July 25, 2007, your mother ovulated and released an egg cell; sometime during the next 24 hours, it was fertilized by a sperm cell descended from my unknown and unremarkable spermatogonium. Thus you were conceived, a lone zygote. Over the next few days, the zygote divided time and again to form a blastocyst, and implanted into your mother's uterus. Thus began your pregnancy, the result of a long series of highly improbable events leading to your creation.

A few days ago we found out you are a girl. I suspected as much, but knowing with certainty is a new perspective. I try to imagine what the start of your life will be like, your personality and who you will become, based solely on your gender. No doubt, you will surprise me at every turn. I am told raising girls is easier than boys for the first few years, then puberty comes, and the tables turn. I will always question the example your friends set, as well as my own actions. No boy you bring home will ever be good enough for you, and I will probably make them painfully aware of my opinion with my critical glare when you're looking the other way.

As for now, we can begin preparing to indoctrinate you in the gender roles ascribed by society. This starts with your name, which we've given only the briefest of consideration, but I imagine a name starting with a letter in the first half of the alphabet. Next is clothing. I pledge to keep the number of pink and/or poofy articles to a minimum, insomuch as I can influence the family and friends who may give you such gifts. The rest is up to you. Then the toys. I expect you will have dolls, appliances, and houses to simulate being a homemaker in your own family someday, and as long as you feel free to aspire to anything you desire, I will be happy to help bake cookies, choose outfits for dolls, and have tea parties with you. I'll even do the dishes.

November 3, 2007: Day 102

You are the lucky one. Birthwise, that is. Your mother has been coming home with a box of diapers every now and then. Stocking up, she says, to spread costs over time and soften the blow. Yesterday, I saw Winnie the Pooh bibs on the kitchen counter (yellow, of course) when I came home, and I suspect your grandmother may be responsible for those. My mother has taken her daughters-in-law to Gatlinburg for the weekend, and I think she brought those bibs with her. Your mother will return from her trip with clothes for you, I am sure.

Your younger sibling won't enjoy anything approaching the level of attention you've had during your pregnancy. We'll be too busy with you, taking care of you, reading to you, peeling grapes for you (seriously -- you could choke), to devote as much time and energy preparing for pregnancy number 2 as we did for number 1. Number 2 will have to peel their own grapes, or brave the skins alone. The infant clothes you wear will be the same clothes number 2 will wear, with the added fashion statement of the stains you left behind... and if you are both the same gender, number 2 will be wearing your stains for years.

I won't write as many weblogs to number 2. We won't take a weekly picture of your mother's belly. She'll forget to take her prenatal vitamin and omega-3 supplement more often. You'll learn to read sooner than number 2 because we'll read to and work with you more. These things are unfortunate realities for number 2, but a boon for you.

Starting when I was 6 or 7, until I was maybe as old as 10, I would ask my mother who her favorite child was. Her answers were appropriately non-committal: she loved us both equally, she said. I obsessed with the question for two reasons: one, I had a brother after four years as the spoiled only child; and two, his health problems earned him coddling and attention I never knew. I understand now that my mother's evasive answers were truthful. A parent does (or should) love all their children equally, but that doesn't prevent the firstborn from enjoying an unfair advantage because of the excitement and newness the parents experience the first time around, both before and after birth.

Someday, years from now, when you are a toddler, and your mother and I have a second child, you may feel forgotten when we bring home a new baby. You may act out, and, if you are old enough, you may experience a most unpleasant emotion, jealousy. If you experience these emotions, you will perceive your situation as unfair. I felt that way, too. Not until years later did I see things from a different perspective. In fact, it wasn't until I began writing this weblog that I realized what I actually lost after the birth of my brother wasn't fairness, at all. In reality, I had lost part of the unfair advantage of being the firstborn... just a part of it.

What I considered unfair was actually a leveling of the playing field, but the field can never be perfectly level. No matter how many babies we bring home after you, you will always be the first. Your mother and I will always devote that extra effort, that unfair advantage, to prepare you and us for your milestones. Walking. Talking. Learning the alphabet. Reading. Spelling. Writing. Making friends. Going to school. A second language. Memorizing multiplication tables. Algebra. The first relationship, first kiss, and it's painful end. Driving. You'll always be our first child to do anything, and that means we, your parents, will always spend that extra time sweating and fretting for you.

October 19, 2007: Day 87

We heard your heartbeat last week, 155 beats per minute.

Welcome to the second trimester. Since the last time I wrote, you've tripled in size, from just less than an inch back then to over 3 inches today. A couple weeks ago, you were growing 250,000 brain cells every minute. Like glitter in a snow globe, many of those neurons will flash into life only to flicker out and be replaced by others. No one knows why the brain develops that way. It seems wasteful, but there is always a reason. Prenatal development is the most amazing time of an animal's life. In the weeks ahead, you'll grow faster than you ever have, or ever will.

I have no way of knowing if you are a boy or a girl, but before next month when we'll find out, I want to say it for the record: I think you're a girl, based solely on my "Spidey Sense." We'll find out soon enough.

Something that's been troubling me is the matter of religion and how you will or won't be indoctrinated into it. Your mother and I have differing opinions on the subject, and mine is undecided. I was raised evangelical Baptist, once considered myself a student of Buddhism, and today I am agnostic-about-as-close-as-it-comes-to-atheist.

Part of me hopes you'll follow in my footsteps, and part of me worries for you and hopes you don't, because it isn't easy believing this way. There are those who fear and despise people who believe as I do. I know -- I used to be one of them. I don't want that for you, for you to have to endure that. After a recent school-shooting in South Carolina, TV crews interviewed the school's students, and every one of the shooter's classmates said he didn't believe in God, as if to imply, if only he believed in God, this horrible tragedy would not have happened. The popular opinion seems to be, that of those who believe in God, some are good people and some are bad people, but of those who don't believe in God, all are bad people.

What is it that I want for you? What will make me happy for you and proud of you? I've been pondering those questions as I've been thinking about how to write this.

Roughly 7 in 8 people practice the same religion as their parents. If you believe as I believe simply because I taught you to believe what I believe, I could never be happy knowing that. Conversely, I could never be satisfied with you growing up in a church and being taught to believe what the other members of that church believe. It doesn't matter if the belief system is mine, your mother's, or a church's -- either way, it's indoctrination into a belief system not your own. I will be happy if you are never afraid to think independently and critically, to always and relentlessly question why, and decide what you believe based solely on your own reasoning.

September 11, 2007: Day 49

Today we saw you for the first time. I have many private anxieties about you and your well-being, and today, two of them have been laid to rest: first, there's only one of you in there; and second, you are securely implanted in your mother's uterus, not a fallopian tube. Your mother got to see you move, but I wasn't there, and only got to see the pictures later on. You were 2.24 cm long, but since you grow about 0.15 cm each day, you're already larger than that by now, only 10 hours after the ultrasound.

You've been moving around for about two weeks. Your first muscle cells form around your spine and actually ooze through your body to their final destinations. You still have no awareness, no sight, no hearing or other senses, no thought. But your heart beats, your legs kick, your arms thrash, your head turns, and your kidneys make pee. You're well on your way to your first dirty diaper.

August 6, 2007: Day 13

Your mother and I were surprised to discover today that you exist. We know you are there, but we don't know much else about you. We don't know if you're going to be a boy or a girl, the color of your eyes or hair, or what your favorite flavor of ice cream will be. We only know that you are.

Know that you were wanted. We planned to make you happen. Your mother had it down to a science. For the past three months, the first thing I heard in the morning was the beeping of the thermometer as she took her temperature, waiting for the spike that signaled ovulation, learning the pattern of her body, learning when was the best time to make you. There were ovulation test strips, ovulation predictors on the Internet, and other things about which I won't go into detail. After all your mother's planning and watching patterns, the first month we tried, we made you. We took a picture of the pregnancy test. It said, "Pregnant." That is the sum total of what we know about you.

We know when you were conceived, to the day: July 25. When you were conceived, your parents loved you and loved each other. I was in love with your mother that day as much as I ever have been. You were created about 12 days ago, and today you are a blastocyst, a tiny ball of cells. In another day or two, your nervous system will begin to form and you will become an embryo, but right now, you have no fingers or toes, no brain, no heart, no awareness. This will all soon change.

I must be honest with you. Life is a constant struggle, but once the ball gets rolling, things take care of themselves, and it gets easier. Why, in the first 12 days, you've overcome nearly impossible odds, and there's a 3 in 4 chance you'll make it until the next month, and a 2 in 3 chance you will be born in the spring of 2008. Those aren't the kind of odds you want to play Russian Roulette with, but just a week ago, the odds were very much against you. I am not a religious or spiritual man, but I do believe in the miracle of life. The miracle is that, despite unimaginable odds, the egg and the sperm that became you managed to meet and merge in the first place. The fact that you even exist makes you incredibly lucky and special. You could easily have been someone else, but it had to be you. That is the miracle of life, your life.

I am a pragmatist. No romantic would fret over their unborn child's odds of survival. Despite my best intentions, you will be exposed to this part of my personality from an early age, I'm sure. All apologies if it makes me seem neurotic, distant, or cold, and I will never forgive myself if it makes you any of those things. In any situation you find yourself, I want you to have a realistic perspective and expectation. There's a fine line between realism and cynicism, however, and constant anxiety and risk aversion are traps I hope you will avoid. When you find yourself up against a challenge, instead of asking "why me?", I hope you ask "why not?" Instead of saying "I can't possibly," I hope you say "I possibly can." In other words, I hope you aren't hindered by the negative attitudes I sometimes have.

Know that your mother and I have always loved you, from the time when you were no more than a tiny ball of cells.

August 8, 2007: Day 15

I told the first person about you today, someone you'll probably never meet or know: my pharmacy preceptor at Samaritan Hospital. His name was Lanny. We were eating lunch in the break room, and I mentioned we were ready to have kids. He asked if your mother was pregnant, and I told him yes, we had just found out two days ago, and asked him to keep it in confidence until we were ready to tell our families. And he did.

August 17, 2007: Day 24

Your heart began beating a few days ago, and you are a little bigger than an apple seed. Your mother's cramps have ceased, and she's taking an omega-3 fatty acid supplement to help your brain and nervous system develop.

When I was born, breast milk and formula didn't go well for me. I was colicky and screamed for six weeks. Distraught, at wit's end, and against doctor's advice, my mother fed me the only thing that didn't make me scream: powdered milk. It's meager on fat, and infants need plenty of fats and omega-3 fatty acids to gain weight and develop a healthy brain and nervous system. I guess I turned out okay, but I'm hoping for better for you.

August 23, 2007: Day 30

Today we met with a nurse-midwife. Obstetricians deliver most babies in the United States, but your mother and I have concerns with the status quo. I find it ironic that your mother, an optometrist, and I, a pharmacy student, as part of the medical establishment, would have such strong concerns with allowing said establishment to bring you into the world. For one, most obstetricians work in a group practice, so when it comes time for the birth, the mother's obstetrician may or may not perform the actual delivery, depending on availability. Second, we believe U.S. healthcare's approach to birth and delivery is overly aggressive, quick to employ interventional techniques such as induced labor, caesarian and vacuum-assisted delivery, and forceps to hasten delivery more in the interests of the healthcare system than in the interests of mother and baby.

Our hopes for a nurse-midwife would be someone who could deliver you in a hospital in lieu of an obstetrician. Sadly, no midwife with hospital privileges is to be found in Lexington. Many cities don't even have professional midwives, so it seems we're fortunate simply to have a nurse-midwife nearby.

The practical upshot of all this is that we're actually considering a home delivery. Only two weeks ago, I would have thought it crazy, but now... if you were not a high risk pregnancy... and a maternity hospital only 15 minutes from home in case we needed it... home births being the only method of delivery for thousands of years... I think I'd go for it. But the final decision is your mother's -- she's the one who would have to do this without any pain meds.

In country where 98% of births occur in hospitals, people may think we're taking a huge risk, but the World Health Organization advocates home births for low-risk pregnancies. In the United States, the infant mortality rate is 7 per 1000. In the Netherlands, it's 5 per 1000 in a country where 33% of births occur in the home and most low-risk pregnancies are delivered in midwifery units, not hospitals. On the other hand, in Sweden, with an infant mortality rate of 3 per 1000, over 99% of births are in hospitals. So at the end of the day, I wonder... in a developed country with access to advanced medical care when needed, does home birth significantly impact infant mortality? And if not, then the logical conclusion is that it's safe for low-risk pregnancies, and should be done without reservation if the parents so desire.

So... only time can tell if you will be born at home, but if you were, it was done because of what happened today.

August 25, 2007: Day 32

This is the weekend we're announcing you to our families. Today we told my mother, grandmother, and brother. With the element of surprise, we met my mother and grandmother at grandmother's house, chatted for a while, and gave my mother a baby picture book in a gift bag. The first picture is your positive pregnancy test.

We talked to your grandmother about a birth defect both my brother and I had, anal stenosis. It causes painful bloating and constipation, and requires gradual instrumental dilation of the anus, also painful (at least it was for me, I am told), but the long-term prognosis is good. Sometimes anal stenosis (the mildest form of imperforate anus) is associated with other birth defects in what is known as VACTERL association. I mention this only because my brother also has cardiac congential deformities consistent with VACTERL association. Actually, VACTERL usually requires 3 of the defects, and 2 defects qualifies as "VACTERL-like."

The important thing to know is that VACTERL association does not appear to have a genetic origin, but there is some evidence VACTERL-like does, because cases tend to cluster in families. To add to the rub, though, VACTERL-like is more common in girls, and neither your uncle nor I are.

I mention all this now not only because we talked about it today, but because the defects associated with VACTERL arise from events occuring between weeks 7 and 10 of pregnancy when the embryo reshapes itself from a mass of cells into the characteristic embryo body, a crucial period of time you are about to enter.

I'll be thinking of you often during the next few weeks, hoping all is well.

August 26, 2007: Day 33

Today we told your mother's family about you. Your grandmother had already become suspicious of us. Your mother told your cousin Emma to pull the gift bag out of my backpack and take it to your grandmother. We gave both of your grandmothers the same baby picture album with the picture of the positive pregnancy test. Your aunt April is also pregnant, due about a week before you. We had meatloaf, mashed potatoes, green beans, rolls that failed to rise in the oven, and angelfood cake with blackberries and strawberries for dessert. Between lunch and dessert, we drove down to the creek where your grandfather is building a cabin on stilts in the woods to stay in while he builds a regular-size house not far away in a clearing. Perhaps someday you will spend the night on a camping trip with your cousins in that cabin high among the trees. While you were taking shape in your mother's belly, so was that cabin. On this day, it was still a frame, with only three exterior walls and no roof. After dessert, I took a nap at your grandparent's. It was sunny and hot outside, but shady and almost comfortable in the woods; 2007 was the hottest and driest year in a long time.

I don't know why I tell you all these small details... I think it's so you or me or both of us will read this one day and recreate the event in our minds, for you to see it through your imagination, and for me to hold on to the memory for as long as possible.

August 27, 2007: Day 34

Today I told my father about you. Your mother and I were going to visit him at home when we told my mother and grandmother, but he was at the state fair judging the karaoke contest. Don't ask. Suffice it to say, I had to tell him over the phone. I was driving home from Samaritan Hospital, where I was doing my pharmacy rotation that month. After some chit-chat, I told him exactly as I was driving home on Clay's Mill Road, going through the intersection at Keithshire. I remember looking at the green traffic light passing overhead as I told him, "Rachel's pregnant."

August 30, 2007: Day 37

Today I posted all I've written so far on my weblog.

Adopting a barn cat from a farm with a large population of cats is sure to familiarize you with one thing: parasites. This is something we learned from our new kitten, Zoe, a calico we adopted from Cynthiana. I suppose the same could be said for adopting dogs, stray animals, and even people. Anywhere a population of animals is living in close quarters with others, is a paradise for parasites.

Parasites are masters of finding niches, and there appears to be no limit to their morbid success finding ways to exploit their hosts. Blood suckers like fleas, ticks, chiggers, and mosquitoes are just the beginning. Even though they rob us of our living-giving fluid, blood, they don't make us cringe like some others do. Lice, for example... now, there's a parasite that literally makes your hair tingle. Bedbugs, also an aversive bug, pale in comparison to kissing bugs, which add injury to insult by being two parasites in one. Kissing bugs suck blood from a sleeping victim (they prefer the face, hence their name), and then poop on the bite site when they crawl away. In the feces is the protozoan parasite that causes Chagas disease, which is implanted when the victim scratches the wound, eyes, mouth, or nose. Yeah, that dump they take when they crawl away strikes me as brazen disrespect, the ultimate calling card.

Then there are ear mites, which our kitten Zoe had, finally eradicated after repeated treatments with pyrethrin ear drops. These aren't so bad as kissing bugs. They burrow into the skin in the ear canal, drink some blood, cause severe irritation and itching, and then something else they do turns the host's ear wax black (I guess pooping), which is one of the hallmarks of ear mite infection. The other hallmark is placing a bit of that black ear wax on a dark background, smearing it, and carefully or microscopically observing the tiny, white ear mites as they crawl away. Kinda gross, eh?

But perhaps the most repulsive parasites of all are the intestinal worms. Everything about them makes you say, "Ewww." They live in the intestines, with digested food and poop, feeding on the host's intestinal lining and robbing nutrients. Eggs are transmitted via the fecal-oral route; that is, one infected host has eggs in its poop, and an uninfected host somehow gets an egg in its mouth and swallows it.

Just think that one through. Apparently, fecal-oral transmission occurs more often than we'd care to think, because evolution has determined it happens often enough to be a reliable strategy for supporting the lifecycles of most intestinal parasites. Delicious!

Our Zoe has roundworms, and we're not sure of the exact species. Toxocara cati lives exclusively in cats, except for the larvae, and I'll get to that tasty part in a bit. The other, Toxacaris leonina, can infect and develop in multiple host species.

The T. cati roundworm lifecycle is fascinating. They lay eggs that pass in the cat's poop. The eggs spend about a month developing in the environment, and then can wait for years for a mammal to eat them. If the eater is a cat, the eggs hatch in the intestines, the larvae burrow into the tissues, and usually encyst in the liver to develop. Next, they emerge from the cyst and enter the placenta of unborn kittens or the milk of nursing cats to transmit from mother to kitten, or the larvae go to the lungs, get coughed up, swallowed, and develop into adults in the intestines, which lay eggs that are pooped out.

If a host other than a cat (known as an intermediate host) eats a T. cati egg, the larvae hatch in the gut, burrow into the tissues and usually encyst in the liver, but not always. Lucky larvae develop in small mammals that a cat will eat, such as mice, rats, small bunnies, or chipmunks. The larvae's burrowing behavior is a problem for humans, because the larvae can burrow into the eye and cause blindness, the brain and cause seizures, or severe inflammation wherever else they go. Fortunately, the vast majority of the time, the larvae burrow in the liver, and that's the end of it. The really tasty fact is, if you have ever had a cat that goes outside and comes into your home, there is an excellent chance you have worm larvae encysted somewhere in your body. Same goes for toxoplasmosis, which is a single celled protozoan, not a worm. Basic message: you don't want to be an intermediate host, because the larvae can mess you up. Being a definitive host to adult worms is actually better, notwithstanding the "ewww" factor of worms slithering around in your poop.

T. leonina roundworms lay eggs that pass in the host's poop. The eggs develop, and the lucky ones are eaten by some mammal and develop into adult worms. Thus, humans can be definitive hosts for T. leonina, with adult worms in their intestines. This is ultimately delicious, but wormy parasites typically do less damage to definitive hosts than intermediate hosts, because as gross as the adult worms are, it's the burrowing larvae that can do the most damage.

So, we're not sure which species our young Zoe has, but I kind of wish we did. When we first got her, the vet found and treated her for roundworms, but because we didn't understand the lifecycle, we didn't ask about a second roundworm treatment, and the vet didn't offer. Because you see, a roundworm medicine only treats the adult worms in the intestines (and it doesn't even kill; it only paralyzes worms so they lose their grip on the intestinal lining and pass on through). Any larval worms hanging out in the liver or lungs are unaffected, so roundworms can re-establish unless the cat has two or three de-worming courses about two or three weeks apart.

The night before we re-discovered Zoe had worms, I drank a latte while studying for tests. I put the large latte cup on the bathroom counter, studied some more, heard Zoe jump up on the counter, but thought nothing of it. Later that night, I rinsed the cup out with water, and drank from it. Then I watched Zoe walk over to the cup, lick the inside of it, stick her paw in it, then walk away.

Thinking about all the times I've watched her lick her butt or play with "things" inside the litter box, I was grossed out. When Zoe jumped up on the bathroom counter, before I drank from my cup, she may have licked the inside or stuck her paw in it. I'll never know, but when she puked up a few roundworms the very next day, I wished I had known. Better yet, I wished I hadn't drank from that cup without washing it better. Hopefully, she didn't leave a worm egg for me inside my cup, but if she did, hopefully it was T. cati, because I'd really hate to find adult roundworms in my poop in a couple more weeks. Aside from the shock of seeing wriggling worms in my poop, I'll be really embarrassed if I have to go to the pharmacy where I work (or any pharmacy, for that matter), and present a prescription for mebendazole, explaining that I caught roundworms from my cat.

Maybe I'll just lie and say I caught pinworm (although that's a one day course of mebendazole, and roundworm is a 3-5 day course... however, it would take a keen pharmacist to catch that), because pinworm eggs spread through the air, and it's entirely feasible and easy to inhale a few from a passing stranger who stirs up pinworm eggs from their clothing. Here's a short video from a colonoscopy showing a pinworm infestation up close and personal. Enjoy!

It's mind-boggling to comprehend the insignificance of your own existence with the incomprehensible vastness of not just the universe, but the multiverse. This very concept was used as capital punishment in Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, in a machine called the "Total Perspective Vortex." It was a punishment so hideous only one person survived to tell about it, and even then, he cheated.

Imagining the Tenth Dimension is a website to accompany a book of the same name by Rob Bryanton. It presents a short and engaging audiovisual of our 10 dimensional multiverse as described by Superstring Theory.

When I realize myself for what I am, a miniscule fleck lasting for but a flicker in the entire timeline of the universe, there are no words to describe the sense of humbleness and disappointment I feel. Comparing one's own existence in the universe to sitting in a huge, dimly lit stadium for 10 years and barely noticing a tiny flash of light in the far distance out of the corner of your eye late some night on day 218 of year 4, and not being sure if it was really there or your eyes playing tricks on you, is a poor metaphor because it still doesn't come close to conveying the insignificance of you compared to the immensity of everything there is, ever was, and ever will be.

What kind of an existence is that? Seriously, we're nothing man! Even a star, a million times the mass of the Earth, which is itself is at least 70 sextillion(70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 -- typed out since hardly anyone knows what a sextillion is) times more massive than you or me... even that massive star is insignificant in the universe. It's one of a hundred billion other stars in a galaxy, which is one of anywhere from hundreds of billions to an infinite number of galaxies.

Now, imagine our entire universe, from beginning to end, as one possible timeline. Then imagine all the other possible timelines for our universe, an infinite number of them branching from each point in an endless timeline. Finally, imagine all the infinite, different manifestations of the Big Bang, each with different constants for the fundamental forces of nature (gravity, electromagnetism, and strong and weak nuclear forces), amount of mass in the universe, speed of light... and each of these "starter recipes" for the universe would have its own infinite number of possible timelines.

Okay, so this infinite number of Big Bangs followed by an infinite number of possible timelines defines the grand total of all there is, all there ever was, all there will ever be, all there could have been, and all there ever could be. It's everything, and it's represented by a single point in the 10th dimension. We're left wondering, "what comes next?"

What comes next, indeed?

Maybe this is a better metaphor: it's like comparing all those possible universes (what is known as the multiverse) to a single proton in our universe, and all the other protons in our universe are each their own multiverse. And you and me? You and I are a rather miniscule bit of the energy that forms a single proton for a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillionth of a second in the entire lifetime of the universe.

All this might give some insight to my struggle with the existence of a God, because the multiverse is so vast, the concept of God I formed as a child is incompatible with the perception of reality I have today. I'm sorry, but my mind struggles with the concept of a God who demanded animal sacrifices, assumed a human form for a brief 30 years, and requires an unquestioned belief in Itself as price of admission to immortality. If God did exist, it seems extremely improbable such an entity would even notice us, much less take an interest.

But on the flipside, supposedly our entire multiverse, and all the subatomic particles in it, is comprised of a single Superstring that vibrates, folds, and interacts with itself to form the universe we see. That's one busy string! Well, maybe I shouldn't anthropomorphize our great big Granddaddy Superstring and suggest it has self-awareness of everything that occurs within itself... and maybe if it were self-aware, it wouldn't necessary mean it was aware of things at every level of detail. For example, humans are self-aware, but our self-awareness isn't detailed enough to include every cell or every molecule in our bodies. But to suggest the nature of God's existence is somehow related or equivalent to the Superstring is fascinating, but ungraspable by our brains. I just don't know.

School has been going at a breakneck pace, so there hasn't been much time for writing this semester. The main issue has been homework... pharmacokinetics labs, pharmacy practice labs, and various assignments. While there is a massive volume of material, it hasn't been so hard to learn, in part because the homework exposes and re-exposes us to the material. By the time we begin studying for tests, we're making the second or third pass through our notes. The averages on three of our tests were in the 90s; the average on the fourth was 87. All of the course coordinators remarked these are the highest class averages they've ever seen. Our class is awesome... what more can be said?

Rachel and I had some drama last month. The optometrist she's been working for in Florence made her a job offer she couldn't refuse. Problem is, Florence is a 90+ minute commute from our house in Lexington, so we were planning to put the house on the market and move to Georgetown this summer. Living in a home two years and selling it in a slowing housing market would have put us in negative financial territory after moving expenses, realtor fees, and closing costs, to say nothing of the pain-in-the-ass (PITA) factor. But it was an offer we couldn't refuse, an offer that made financial sense.

Rachel had tentatively accepted the offer, and then a miracle happened. Another practice in Lexington offered her a full-time position and matched the pay. Well, it really wasn't a miracle; it was a counter offer to keep her in Lexington, and it wouldn't have been made had she not announced she was leaving before the summer. Rachel's patients love her, and they tell the receptionist, who tells the optometrist who owns the practice, and so they try to keep her on staff.

Being successful in a medical career is a lot simpler than being successful in a corporate career. There are fewer terms in the equation. If you want to be successful in a medical career, treat your patients well, don't rock the boat with the office staff and techs, and you have it made. If you want to be successful in the corporate world, it's not only how well you do your job, it's also how well you market yourself, along with being in the right place at the right time and taking on the highly visible projects that earn the most kudos from the people who determine which opportunities are presented to you in the future. The corporate success equation includes a complicated political element.

Poor Rachel gracefully had to back out of the job in Florence, which had us worried, because the doctor up there closes his business deals with a "yes" and a handshake. He doesn't do contracts or written agreements; his trust and respect is earned through honesty and not going back on your word. She was honest and direct, though, and it seemed to go well, but he's a difficult man to read, so who knows?

So now we get to stay in Lexington at least until I graduate from pharmacy school. You have no idea what relief that brings both of us. We were ready to move because it was the logical thing to do, but I don't think the desire to do so was in either of our hearts. We love our house, the neighborhood, and the neighbors. We love having a huge backyard that stretches 350 feet from the street to a corn and soybean field. We love the privacy. I love tending a garden in the spring and summer. I love having a compost pile and getting coffee grounds from the nearby Starbucks to mix into it. I love being able to set out a hummingbird feeder in early April when the first hummingbirds return from Mexico. I love my herb garden in the frontyard.

Most of all, I am thankful for being able to stay here in my Lexington home after realizing just how much we love it here. Wanting what you already have is the most wonderful feeling in the world.

Religious differences have caused more and bloodier wars, more suffering, more persecution, more harmful laws, and justified more hatred than anything. So much human energy has been expended on religion that could have been used more beneficially elsewhere.

I've pondered those thoughts for a long time, and I believe them. I used to think these observations justified going on the offensive against religion, to dismantle it as an institution, but then I realized something. While it is ironic institutions regarded as "holy" and "good" as religion manage to spawn so much suffering, religion manages to rise above it all, and still does a lot of good.

Religion is an easy target for those who spread suffering because religious interpretation is so subjective. Relgious texts are plentiful, diverse, and vague enough to be interpreted however a reader chooses. The believer can find passages to justify whatever was already in his or her heart, and then argue their point convincingly. You can't prove or disprove anything about religion, and this is at once the very thing that has allowed religion to endure so long and it's fundamental flaw. A double-edged sword, if you will.

So people use religion to justify what is in their hearts. Some use it to reduce suffering, and some use it to create suffering. If religion did not exist, people would find surrogates to religion to achieve their goals. Further, I think people are afraid to ponder a universe that is random and without purpose. Society would be lost without the (real or imagined) sense of purpose religion gives. Hats off to Karl Marx, for truly, "religion is the opiate of the masses." Given how well society behaves when it believes something greater is watching and judging, how would it be if society believed there were nothing? If for no other reason, religion should be maintained to prevent anarchy.

And with that, I'm done. My beliefs change constantly, and so in another five years, I'll probably believe something else. My wife thinks my frustration with George Bush's brand of Christian Conservatism has caused me to go over the edge by announcing myself agnostic. Perhaps she's right -- I take the opposing extreme position to U.S. society's currently prevailing extreme belief. So when the current U.S. political climate changes, as it always does, we'll see if I start wearing red bowties and thumping my Bible again.

Some resources I found helpful for this series of posts:

• Why Does God Hate Amputees?
• An Atheist Manifesto
• Get A-Life
• Penn and Teller - The Bible, a Helpful Hand
• This I Believe - Penn Jillette

We'll probably have children someday, which will raise the question -- how should our children be exposed to religion and spirituality? My wife and I don't share the same beliefs, so this is something we'll have to sort out.

I struggle with an internal conflict between faith and reason, and I would not wish such confusion upon anyone, especially my own children. It is an epic existential crisis. But I am what I am, and I have to deal with it.

The wish I bestow upon my children is for them to be open-minded. I think I am more close-minded than not, more than I'd like to be. All good parents hope for their children to be better than them, and I do not want my kids to share their father's prejudices.

When I was a close-minded believer, I thumped my Bible and told people who worked on Sunday they were sinning. We dislike in others what we dislike most in ourselves, so as a close-minded agnostic, I hold Bible-thumpers in contempt, even as I admit I used to be one of them. You'd think I could understand them and cut them some slack, but alas, how soon I've forgotten what it was like! I also know that I probably wrapped myself in the vestments of hardline evangelical Christianity to deny the doubts that had begun causing cracks in my beliefs. Just like people who smear putty into cracks in their house's foundation soon realize they're living a pipe dream, the cracks in my religion burgeoned into something huge.

I think the world's long-standing religions offer allegorical stories to teach the collective wisdom, ethics, and morality of humanity. For this reason, I am thankful for being raised in the church; however, the literal interpretation of those allegories causes trouble and confusion, and it is something I could have done without.

I doubt there is a better environment than the church to teach my children to know the difference between right and wrong. I want my children to appreciate the impermanence and suffering inherent in life caused by desire and envy. I want them to seek a way out of suffering, and to find joy.

So in the church, I hope for my children to judge fairly what is right and wrong. I hope they will be independent thinkers, questioning what they are told, and accepting things on the basis of their own thinking, not the thinking of others. Blind faith has caused bloodier wars and more deaths and human misery than anything else. If my children choose to accept religion, I wish for them to understand it is a double-edged sword, capable of great good and also great evil.

Someday, perhaps my children will ask me if there is a God, much as I asked my parents. Perhaps, if they are not cursed with my existential pathos, they will never need to ask. But if they do, I will answer that church tells us about a God. If my children then ask whether I believe in God, then I will know they are thinking abstractly, able to analyze conflicting ideas. I will know my children are ready to decide for themselves. So then, and only then, will I tell my children the truth about my belief in a God, which is "I don't know, because anything I am willing to accept as God is indescribable and unknowable... but in the sum total of my experiences and how they've shaped my thinking, I find it hard to believe."

Part of me hopes to be asked someday, but mostly I hope never to go there.

I was raised in a conservative Southern Baptist church, and since the age of 12, I've been locked in a continual struggle of faith and fear versus proof and reason. For me, proof won out over faith some time ago, but I couldn't completely let go until reason had won out over fear.

I am agnostic, meaning I'm uncertain about the existence of God. Some folks might like to change my mind and "convert" me, but as a corollary to my belief that I can never know, the same applies to everyone else -- you can't know, either. There is faith, and there is proof. Some seek to convert the world by offering biblical passages and religious rhetoric as proof of God or God's will. This is a fundamental logical flaw -- one cannot offer the purported word of God as proof of God's existence without first giving proof (or at the very least, some independent plausible evidence) of God.

I've tried to take in the religious rhetoric and biblical teachings and embrace them. Allegorically, they are fine. When it comes to accepting them as a metaphysical explanation of the universe, however, they fall apart in my mind. With the passage of 2,000 - 5,000 years, it seems to so obvious these stories were conceived in the minds of people living in a different time. They do not convey a eternal truths -- they convey the culture of a long ago society.

As a child, I was told God was constant and unchanging, but the incongruence of the Old Testament God and New Testament God were troubling. When I asked about it, I was told God "make a new covenant" with humanity. The much more logical explanation to me was that the Old Testament was written by a people living in a volatile world ridden with external and internal strife. At various times, the people of Israel were nomadic, a kingdom, overthrown, a kingdom again, and conquered again. They were often at war with others, and when they weren't at war with outsiders, they were at war with themselves. Their God reflected their society, loving one day, angry and murderous the next.

For example, in 2 Kings 2:23-24, a group of kids made fun of the prophet Elisha and his bald head. In my Christian upbringing, I was taught to focus on the New Testament and Jesus' example of taking the high road and "turning the other cheek." The rules were different in the Old Testament. Elisha cursed the kids in the name of the Lord, and a couple bears killed 42 of the kids. Because the kids were killed after Elisha cursed them, it's implied the actions of the bears are the work of God.

This kind of stuff (and the rest of what happens in 2 Kings chapter 2) doesn't happen today. Or maybe it does. Maybe when wild animals maul children, it is the work of God responding to the curses of unrecognized present-day prophets. If you accept the 2 Kings 2:23-24 story, you must accept this statement: God killed kids for being kids (and if you don't, skip to the next paragraph). You must also accept one of these statements: One, God is constant and causes similar deaths today (and on this point, I will argue with you the concept of a benevolent God); or two, God doesn't kill like this today (and on this point, I will argue with you that God is not constant).

Another possibility is God didn't cause the kids to die, and this story is the author's peculiar way of warning the reader against laughing at prophets, because even though God doesn't cause it to happen, terrible things may happen to those who poke fun at God's workers, however disjointed that line of thinking may be. Maybe Satan does it to make God look bad and fool everyone? But how can a benevolent God allow this to happen? The book of Job is dedicated to discussing this question, but in the end, the answer God gives is, "because I say so." Ipse dixit.

So what is my take on all this? Remember what I said about Occam's Razor in the last post? Occam's Razor states the most probable explanation is the one requiring the fewest unproven assumptions. There was probably an eccentric bald man, and people called him a prophet. Adolescents, unsure of themselves and striving for peer acceptance, make fun of people, especially eccentric bald men. The eccentric bald man had recently lost his mentor and friend, and was in a foul mood that day, so he lost his temper and gave the kids a tongue-lashing. Some time later, some of the same kids stumbled upon a group of bears, and being kids, foolishly taunted them. Or maybe the bears were rabid. It doesn't matter, but the bears killed some of the kids. Trying desperately to make sense of this tragedy, the townsfolk attributed the death of these kids to taunting the prophet who passed through town a while back. Yes, my interpretation is dull and simple, and it implies the universe is random, and people suffer and die senselessly. Yes, it does all those things. It is what it is. My explanation is dull and simple, and that's the beauty of Occam's Razor.

I was told one must approach worship with the mind of a child. Actually, I think this statement attributed to Jesus (Matthew 18:3-4 -- "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.") is an allegorical teaching of the importance of humility, but it has been said to me as a warning not to question or over-analyze Christianity and the bible.

Whatever that passage really means, I have tried approaching my religion with the openness and heart of a child. I've been so moved in worship that I've been overcome by wave after wave of sobbing repentence. I attended a charismatic Christian church in college and regularly waved my hand in the air as we sang, and even spoke in tongues a time or two and had hands laid on me (that's when a group of people stand around you, place the palm of a hand on your head or upper torso, and pray for you). And after everything, honestly, a lot of it strikes me as the stuff of fairy tales. So much for the mind of a child. Read here for some examples by Marshall Brain, founder of the popular howstuffworks.com website, and while you're at it, the entire website whydoesgodhateamputees.com is well presented; the author's thinking is better organized than mine, but I'm trying to express my own original thinking here, so this is what you get for reading my weblog.

Christians find it easy to consider believers of other religions deluded. How many believe in the Greek/Roman gods? Would they proclaim Allah as the one true God, and that Mohammed was his prophet? And how about the countless Hindu gods, Buddha, and Native American spirit gods?

Likewise, believers of other religions find it easy to consider Christians delusional in favor of their own beliefs. I will quote directly a bit from Marshall Brain's website because it is so well put:

"Here is the thing that I would like to help you understand: The four billion people who are not Christians look at the Christian story in exactly the same way that you look at the Santa story, the Mormon story and the Muslim story. In other words, there are four billion people who stand outside of the Christian bubble, and they can see reality clearly. The fact is, the Christian story is completely imaginary."

I was listening to a phone-in talk radio program the other day. The topic was the controversy over the numerous mega-churches that were closed on Christmas Sunday 2005. The guest was a minister from a non-mega-church who thought closing the church's doors on Christmas Sunday was absolutely abominable. A lady called in to defend the mega-churches, saying it was an internal matter between the churches' leaders and parishioners, and that making a public spectacle of the divisive controversy only served to cast Christianity in a negative light to the rest of the world.

The minister and the caller began quoting Bible verses to one another in support of their viewpoints. As they began their contest of launching one volley after another of scriptural quotes, I was hardput to side with one or the other based solely on their scripture, for they each quoted accurately and in context, both claiming an intimate knowledge of God's will in this situation. Each was obviously a devout Christian and had the best intentions in heart, but yet they were diametrically opposed on this issue. There seemed to be no middle ground, and realizing this, the talk show host thanked the caller, let them agree to disagree, and ended the call.

This exchange exemplifies my central thesis in this series of posts: it is impossible to know the will of God. But I take it a step further: it's impossible to know if there is a God, and if one were to apply Occam's Razor to the question, mostly likely there isn't based on what we as humans can know, understand, and perceive.

I am a white 30 year old male living in North America. This means I've never been in a minority or protected class, never at risk for discrimination or persecution by a large segment of the population. What I wrote in the previous paragraph changes that. Agnosticism is not well understood in our society, and it is frequently confused with atheism. Atheism itself is a socially unacceptable belief in American society. The thought of being labeled and identified in a negative way troubles me, but so be it. Saying all this means that I could never successfully run for a political office.

2003 Pew poll: 69% of Americans completely agree with the statement, "I never doubt the existence of God," and 87% mostly or completely agree with it.

I'm somewhere in that unlucky 13%. From the time I entered puberty and began to think abstractly, I began losing my religion. At first it was creation versus evolution, but over time it's morphed into faith versus reason. A lot of reasonable, sensible people I know embrace religion and reasoned thought simultaneously. Somehow, the glaring incompatibilities between the two are resolved or deemed unimportant. Perhaps they dismiss it by saying logic can't be applied to religious matters, because that's not how spirituality works, and so they never bother trying and aren't troubled by it.

As far as I'm concerned, though, religion and reason must be reconciled, because they each offer a different ontological definition of the universe. In other words, you cannot say that 2+2 simultaneously does and does not equal 4. Maybe I am a mental midget. Maybe I am close-minded. Maybe I am arrogant for insisting that things must have logical explanations, and even if I don't understand those explanations in detail, most of them should make sense to me at least conceptually. Maybe I am a heretic. Maybe I am a lost soul. Maybe I have a point.

I've been dealing with this since I was 12, and now I'm 30. So instead of telling the tale of how I got here, I'll just describe "here."

I forced myself to consider why I was so hesitant to let go of a belief in God. There are several answers:

First, the egoist reason: it meant I had to let go of belief in eternal life, immortality, as it were. The most terrifying thing was coming to terms with death as a complete cessation of existence. I want to exist forever. And since my sense of self-awareness is all I really, truly know, it's terrifying to think it will cease to exist when I die.

Second, the existentialist reason: it meant I had to accept the universe was random, and there was nothing (no one) guiding the course of things. This meant considering the vast universe and acknowledging my own significance is rather insignificant. And no guardian angels to look out for me, either.

For the first time in my life, I have come to terms with both of those fears, those reasons favoring a belief in religion. I have accepted them. I can approach the question more objectively than I've been able to before. What does this mean? Very simple: I am an agnostic.

And what does that mean? It means I don't think it is possible for me to know if there is a God, simple as that.

More in part 2.

We went to New Orleans the first weekend in August. Katrina hit three weeks later. We went to Slidell for a swamp tour, then on a whim, drove on through Bay St. Louis and Gulfport on our way to Biloxi along I-10 and US-90. So when we see the scenes of New Orleans flooding and destruction along US-90 in Gulfport and Biloxi, we can pick out familiar landmarks. We were there three weeks ago, and contrasting the horrific scenes on TV to the memories of the happier times we experienced is chilling and eerie.

I can only imagine what it's like for the people who live there, dazed and unable to escape. I think of the people we saw walking around New Orleans and working in the casinos. I can clearly picture our bed and breakfast hosts and their orange tabby cat, tour guides, restaurant staff who waited on us, clerks in the wine store, street car drivers, street performers in the French Quarter, and coffee shop baristas. Are they alive? Are they okay? And what kind of hell must they be suffering through?

All up and down St. Charles Avenue, we saw thousands of Mardi Gras beads hanging from power lines, tree branches, and street signs. They are gone, I'm sure, buried in debris and under water. We heard looters were roving up and down St. Charles Avenue, breaking into the million dollar historic homes we admired walking from Audubon Park, all the way past Napolean Avenue to our B&B on Constantinople.

Some of the scenes from television and newsfeeds that chill us:

Canal Street. We took the St. Charles Avenue streetcar to Canal Street. It's a divided street, a boulevard. A streetcar line runs in the middle, between the two rows of lampposts. I remember crossing the street here.

I-10 Lake Pontchartrain Causeway. We drove over this several times on our way to the swamp tour in Slidell and Biloxi. The major artery to New Orleans from the east, several sections of this bridge are no more. The other two highways from the east are US-11 and US-90, but I haven't heard anything about their causeways across Pontchartrain.

US-90 in Biloxi, Mississippi. Nothing but the trusses remain across Biloxi Bay.

Treasure Bay Casino. We drove past Treasure Bay and thought about going into this one in our search for a good buffet. We drove on by, but remarked at the unique design. Before the hurricane, Jim Cantore of the Weather Channel gave several reports from the beach with Treasure Cove in the background. I thought the masts would be the first to go, but they survived; instead, it was the dock moorings and the body of the barge itself that gave way.

Grand Casino 1 | 2 | 3. This is the casino we decided on. Billboards along US-90 declared it's buffet the best in Biloxi, so we went. The yellow building is the Grand Casino hotel. In the first picture, the structure with the blue roof in the middle of US-90 is not the casino - it's the Kids Quest building. The casino itself was carried down the beach. You can see it in the second and third pictures.

And the band played on. It took a couple days to come around, but this ole cowboy has stopped playing guitar and talking up Social Security to take the disaster seriously.

Rumsfeld held a press conference today. At one point he compared the violence in Iraq to murder rates in American cities, implying that Iraqi cities are no more dangerous than those in the United States:

"We had something like 200 or 300 or 400 people killed in many of the major cities of America last year. Is it perfectly peaceful? No. What's the difference? We just didn't see each homicide in every major city in the United States on television every night. It happens here in this city, in every major city in the world. Across Europe, across the Middle East, people are being killed. People do bad things to each other."

Such deception and truth-bending sums up why I cannot stand that man. He's so deceitful and devious. On the surface, one can almost swallow that analogy smoothly, but turn on your brain, and it's obviously pure b*lls*it.

First of all, how can anyone possibly think Fallujah and Baghdad are equivalent to high crime U.S. cities like Detroit or Los Angeles? Are people regularly kidnapped and beheaded in Detroit or L.A.? Are there car bombings and assassination attempts? Is the U.S. military or national guard running aird raids or patrolling the streets in an attempt to regain control because rebel insurgents have taken control?

Second, the population of Iraq is 25.3 million. The U.S. population is 293 million. The population of California alone is 1.4 times that. The population of Fallujah is 285,000; the population of Los Angeles is 9.3 million; Detroit's is 911,000. Get what I'm saying? Rumsfeld's was not apples-to-apples comparison, and he knows better. He's a deceitful snake in the grass. In the past year and a half, 13,000-15,000 Iraqi civilians and over 1,000 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq.

Let me put it another way. In 2001, the murder rate in the United States, including the September 11 terrorist attacks, was 7.1 per 100,000. That's 20,800 murders. Using the 13,000 Iraqi civilian deaths figure, that's about 8,700 per year in a country of 25 million, or 34.8 per 100,000. In the United States, that would translate to 102,000 murders a year. And that's just what the United States and rebels directly instigate; it doesn't include murders committed by Iraqi civilians.

On Thursday, he told a Senate committee that if the election could be held in three-fourths or four-fifths of the country, but violence was too great for a vote in the rest of the country, "So be it. Nothing's perfect in life."

What?!?!?! That is unacceptable. Sloppy. Florida, anyone? The fundamental principles of a representative, democratic government are defeated if 20-25% of a country's people are not heard. And that's all I have to say about that.

Iraq Body Count

What once was an ornately detailed sand sculpture on the beach becomes an unrecognizable mound after the tide advances and retreats, a paltry shadow of its former majesty. I want to hold onto my sentimental treasures, but my new lifestyle will mean new people, routines and places. Like high tide washing over sand castles, the New replaces the Old, and memories fade with each day passing by like a new wave washing over the sand.

Yesterday was my last day as a GE employee. It's cool being able to say Friday the 13th is your last day.

As I walked around saying goodbye and best wishes to coworkers, there was a very present awareness I was seeing many of these people for the last time. I have a horrible track record when it comes to staying in touch with distant friends. After seven years with the company, I've known and become closer to many of these people than anyone else in my life except family. I hope it will be different with my GE friends, because some really are like family, but I know my own ways and habits. When I graduate from pharmacy school, I'll be in touch with only 4 or 5 of them if I'm lucky.

Being the sentimental introvert that I am, I also become attached to places, things, and daily events: Badging in and out of the turnstyles, entering my office, logging out of my workstation, turning off the lights and closing the door for the very last time. Even the signature smells of each building in Appliance Park.

People who leave the company talk about life after GE. The corporate culture is pure genius. The gist of the message is that working for the company is a privilege. Achieving the company's goals is a service to humankind because achieving the corporate goals makes the shareholders wealthy, serves the customers better, and ultimately betters society.

Work has a way of seeping into the cracks and crevices of your personal life: Whipping out your wireless email device during a commercial break or while waiting for the popcorn in the microwave, signing into work from home to spice up an otherwise relaxing block of time, late night and early morning telephone calls with your team in India, mulling over a problem while in the shower. For someone like me who's leaving the 8-5+ workday routine for another lifestyle, the change is even more dramatic.

Now that I have all this time, I'm left wondering how to put it to equally good use on my own without an employer to give me a worthly cause. I've already felt drawn back in... this morning I woke up and realized I had forgotten to send a final email to my team leader explaining how I handled a change request for an application I supported. I'll probably send the email from home because my replacement hasn't been determined, and without the benefit of spending time with me before I left, having this information is the best I can do to help my replacement hit the ground running when they start.

Brings a whole new meaning to the phrase "get a life".

Renewable Environmental Solutions successfully tested its patented Thermal Conversion Process (TCP), converting turkey offal into petroleum, natural gas, and other raw materials. Under a new U.S. government program, others may follow.

Critics argue the process is not economically viable, may consume more energy than it yields, and cannot replace society's total energy demand. Since RES was making a test run, the critics are probably correct, while at the same time ignoring advantages of economies of scale and technological maturation. In this respect, the critics are penny-wise and pound-foolish. Perhaps you're familiar with the accountant jibe: an accountant knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

Valid points. But not all investments yield immediate returns. An investment analyst knows the highest return investments tend to be the most risky. What is investment risk? Simply a measurement based on time, magnitude of potential gain or loss, and other outside factors which tell the investor the chance that an investment's return will differ from the expected return. How does one determine an investment's expected return? Aha, that is the million dollar question, the test of an investor's muster.

Perhaps in the end, the critics will be proven correct, and the returns and net energy output to make TCP viable will never materialize. Or maybe they will. Such are the uncertainties considered by the risk calculation.

For the critics who say thermal depolymerization alone can never quench our thirst for energy and hydrocarbon raw materials, you're damn straight, but if we really are facing a bleak future without cheap oil, we can hardly afford to continue our wasteful lifestyle, and must find numerous solutions to balance the equation. Thermal depolymerization would be but one piece of a larger puzzle.

Critics of the ethanol-as-an-alternative-fuel industy make similar arguments about negative profitability and negative energy yields, adding that without government subsidies, ethanol would be several times more expensive than gasoline. I take a more moderate approach, arguing that perhaps the ethanol fuel industry hasn't matured (that is, become energy efficient) because the government hasn't properly motivated it.

Effective government funding comes in two phases: the investment, followed by the subsidy. Funding designated for process development, efficiency, and/or improvement is investment. Funding designated for offsetting a net loss and masking inherent process inefficiencies is a subsidy. It's a careful balance... first an investment to develop the technology followed by a period of decreasing subsidy while economies of scale and technological maturity develops. The goal is a self-sufficient process.

Petroleum serves a dual purpose in the fossil fuel society. First, it makes us go... it's energy. Second, it's a raw material, the source for countless modern conveniences ranging from plastic to paint to clothing to pharmaceuticals. Even with a limitless energy source to replace fossil fuels, our society would still suffer from an addiction to petroleum-derived hydrocarbon raw materials.

Energy sources are plentiful if we're crafty enough to find novel ways of exploiting the renewable sources, but hydrocarbon raw material (at least for now) seems to be the more difficult to replace of the two petroleum uses. So as time passes and cheap petroleum is harder (and more costly) to come by, we will develop and exploit new energy sources. For an encore, we'll look high and low for new sources of hydrocarbon raw materials. To solve part of the problem, perhaps we will turn to our discarded organic waste - the turkey offal, used tires, and mountains of plastic that otherwise take up space for generations to come.

Bio-remediation and other waste-to-energy technologies may consume more energy than they produce, but if they satisfy the greater need of raw material and the energy crunch is solved, it won't matter. Raw materials and empty spaces are cheap and plentiful enough that we consume both indiscriminately, but the demand and supply curves are moving to an intersection. If the energy crunch isn't solved, it won't matter, because civilization as we know it will grind to a halt. If the energy crunch never occurs, then RES and other bio-remediation companies are doomed investments, and the critics will have their day to say "I told you so."

Now comes the investmen analyst's muster test. Will there come a day when demand will surpass supply of hydrocarbon raw meterial? History and economic theory tell us when the demand and supply curves have begun sloping as steeply as they appear to be sloping today, nothing short of a crisis, nothing short of demand outstripping supply can force the market to find alternative solutions and correct itself.

In the end, critics and pundits (including yours truly) be damned.

After my recent "poo-poo on Wal-Mart post," it's in the interest of full disclosure that I admit to shopping there and tell you about a recent Wal-Mart purchase. I purchased a hand mixer from Wal-Mart the day after Christmas 2003, December 26. For our wedding in July, Rachel and I registered for a nice mixer. But with seven months to go, I was mixer-less. Thus, my goal was to find the cheapest mixer possible.

Low Price Gold Mine
The local Wal-Mart Supercenter carries more product models than you can shake a flimsy, $0.84 made-in-China stick at. When it came to sub-$10 hand mixers, I had two choices:

• The $3.24 eco-friendly model resembled this
  
• The $4.88 no-brand "Made in China" electric 5-speed model... dubbed simply, HMR12-2.

Of course, I bought the HMR12-2.

Except for Wal-Mart itself and some antique stores, a hand-powered egg beater can't even be had for that price. In fact, even a single beater can cost over twice as much!

I searched unsuccessfully for Wal-Mart's HMR12-2 hand mixer on Google and the company website. The receipt went in the trash long ago, so I can't prove the price, but trust me, it really was $4.88. The closest I found was this 125 watt 6-speed for $7.99. The HMR12-2 has a 100 watt motor and no cord storage.

Fool's Gold
At $4.88, my mixer was designed to mix the batter for one cheesecake (recipe) and burn out. It didn't even last that long, though. Per the recipe, it beat the cream cheese till fluffy, beat in the sweetened condensed milk until smooth, and nearly finished adding the melted chocolate chips when the cheap motor gave out. I mixed in the eggs and vanilla by hand.

The American Monster
The American consumer economy is a ravenous beast. It must feed. Those capitalizing on the consumer economy use subtle tricks to exacerbate the feeding frenzy ever higher. Two examples of consumerism follow. They are presented as analogies to American dietary excesses.

• Cruise Vacation Consumerism
  The automotive industry wants to take you on a cruise vacation. On a cruise ship, the food is rich and filling, and it's everywhere. So you keep eating, even though you're not hungry. When the cruise is over, you have no idea how long it'll take to shed those extra pounds.

  Foreign competition forced the automobile industry to produce higher quality, longer-lasting vehicles. Demand for new cars and trucks decreased; manufacturers were punished for giving customers what they wanted. Solution? Lease programs! You can't help but admire how auto companies manage seemingly opposite marketing strategies. When you buy a new vehicle, the dealer guides your selection on quality, reliability and features. "It's built to last," they say in so many words. BUT in an instant, the dealer does a 180 and tries to sell you on a lease contract. The implication is subtle: "You really don't want to drive this old bucket of bolts longer than 3 years, do you?" And if you decide to buy, anyway, in 6-12 months they mail a steady stream of new car offers. Sure, your car is perfectly adequate, but don't you deserve the status of driving a new car?

• Chinese Buffet Consumerism
  Wal-Mart has also capitalized on our "use and toss" culture, but from a different angle. Wal-Mart uses the "Chinese Buffet" strategy: "all you can consume" at a low price, but you'll be hungry again in a couple hours. Marketers abandon the quality play when the game is price. For $4.88, I wanted the mixer to last until July; after that, I would have tossed it, anyway. As it is, I don't use a mixer that often; thus, the mixer managed to last four months until the day before Easter. I probably won't require mixing services during the next three months, and if I do, the eco-friendly model will suffice.

I was weak! I played into the hands of the consumerism I so detest! Might as well be heroin. And there's a greater danger at play... read about it here (or here until Yahoo expires the article, if you don't want to register with latimes.com), here, and here.

The Fudge Truffle Cheesecake (recipe) was excellent, by the way. Despite my chocoholic appetite, even I had to take a break after a few bites. Note - the recipes calls for a chocolate cookie crumb crust. If you use a ready-bake crust from the store, you'll have extra filling. I used a ready-bake crust, thinking that's what the recipe called for, and poured the extra batter into a springform pan and baked for an hour under the main cheesecake to protect it from the oven heating elements (also used a water bath). The extra batter was overcooked, but steam from the water bath prevented cracking... it turned out to be a delicious flourless chocolate cake instead of a cheesecake - ah-ha, I always wondered how those were made! Use this recipe for the crumb crust if you prefer to use a springform pan and avoid the extra batter.

Arnold Schwarzenegger and Ralph Nader were on Meet the Press this morning. One thing I've said before about Schwarzenegger and still say today: I like him. He complements his political opponents and seeks collaborative government. This is more than I can say for Bush, Jr. I dis Bush frequently, but that doesn't mean I dislike Republicans. I strongly dislike Bush, simply not because he's a Republican, but because his style of leadership is to divide Americans, alienate our allies, antagonize our potential enemies into becoming our bona fide enemies, deceive and distort facts, and pillage our environment. I disagree with most Republican ideology, but don't necessarily dislike people who identify with the label "Republican."

Fiscally, Schwarzenegger's a no-nonsense balanced budget kind of guy while remaining sensitive to civil rights, social, and environmental issues (I wish he had a more progressive stance on gay marriage, but I say the same of most Democrats). For example, he believes California should stop spending money it doesn't have and turn the tide on the deficit. Once accomplished (easier said than done, I'm sure), freeing California from interest payments galore, there will be enough money, he says, to fund more programs than California borrows to fund today. Spending money you don't have is not good, okay? All together now: governments shouldn't make deficit spending a habit. Now for an example comparing personal and national finances. Not all debt is bad. Buy a house, go to school, start a business, and you'll probably go into debt. This debt is "good." You assume debt so you can make a high yield investment requiring more capital than you have. The theory is that the returns will exceed the interest and inflation rate; in other words, the benefits should exceed the costs. FDR's New Deal deficit spending was a good example. On the other hand, if you borrow money to supplement your lifestyle or live above your means, the debt is "bad" if you're not in a better financial situation after the debt is repaid. It's no different for a government. Now, sure, cyclical businesses utilize short-term debt to finance operations during downturns, just as a government sometimes must do during times of recession, but it's just that - short-term debt. Debt which finances a government through recession should be repaid in the next boom.

Ralph Nader... wow. Faced with popular opposition to his presidential candidacy, he said the corporate-controlled two party system was a mockery of democracy, and maintained his right to run for president. You know, he's absolutely correct, he does have a right to run, but just because you can do something does not necessarily mean you should. Discretion is the better part of valor. When this country unites to pursue a more progressive agenda, then it is time for Nader. But not now, not when we have a such a popular (albeit declining) president who succeeds by polarizing the nation instead of bringing us together. The 2004 presidential campaign will show we're still a nation trying to decide between conservative and progressive values. For now, the divisions within the two camps must wait for their day, a time when the nation has decided which philosophy it wishes to pursue. Love it or hate it, such is the nature of the two party system. But as for Nader's assertion that the legislative and executive branches of our federal government are strong-armed by corporate interests, oh, yes, I think he's absolutely correct.

This morning I took a friend to the airport. Afterward I picked up breakfast at McDonalds and pulled into work at 7:45, less than 5 minutes before sunrise. To the left the sky was a richly warm, Impressionist orange-red glow with hints of cloud bottoms catching the early sunlight. A surprise was high in the sky to the right - a rainbow, mostly red with muted greens, indigos, and violets.

If you're lucky enough to see one while flying or simply turn your back to the sun while spraying a misting water hose on a sunny day, you may have noticed full rainbows are not arches at all, but circles. To see a full circle rainbow, water droplets must be visible in a 42 degree angle all around the light rays. Viewed from terra firma where the ground usually allows that 42 degree angle only from above, most rainbows appear as just that - bows - the tops of circles.

The unrisen sun, bent around the earth's surface by the atmosphere, formed the rainbow this morning, striking the rain sheets approaching from the west, and I could see maybe two-thirds of the circle, certainly enough that the color bands began arching inward before diving into the horizon. The rainbow was absolutely beautiful, arching higher in the sky than I had ever seen one go, and I had to slow down the Prius so I could lean down close to the steering wheel and look out the window high in the sky to take it all in. The parking lot where I work is large, and it takes about 2 minutes to drive through the labrynthian lanes to a parking spot. In only two minutes the clouds moving in from the west had obscured the rising sun.

So it goes with life's everyday miracles on a Monday morning. As if controlled by the flip of a switch, the rainbow blinked out. The warm, orange-red glow in the east was replaced with the cold, flat, dismal gray of overcast rain clouds. It was as if the day had made a false start, remembered it was February, and immediately corrected itself, hoping no one would notice.

I walked into work.

I post gasoline prices on LouisvilleGasPrices.com, part of gasbuddy.com, and read the message forums there. Most topics are light-hearted or, at least, seem that way to me. Occasionally, though, I get drawn into the conversations.

What drew me in today was the need to clean house within the Pentagon to remove fundamentalist religious bigots leading occupation forces in the Middle East who make incendiary public comments against Islam, a house-cleaning campaign which Donald Rumsfeld has refused to do. In fact, Rumsfeld appointed one of the bigots, Lt. General William Boykin, as Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence to track down Saddam, bin Laden, and others.

So here's the scene: Someone pointed out Rush Limbaugh must be blushing now for his "war on drugs" comments throughout the years in light of his own drug addiction. Someone I'll refer to as "Off-Topic Dude" redirects the thread by quoting Dennis Kucinich for a peace and love quote he made (see below), as if that somehow vindicated Rush. Then someone else quoted Bush as saying God made him president to fight the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which, to "Off-Topic Dude's" credit, isn't exactly true. Then "Off-Topic Dude" comes back with this post:

No leader said god told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.

However Kucinich said : "I am running for president of the United States to enable the goddess of peace to encircle within her arms all the children of this country and all the children of the world."

Kucinich is on drugs

Okay, that did it - I could stand the ridiculous lines of reasoning within this gasbuddy.com message forum debate no longer. Someone would make a valid anti-conservative point, and "Off-Topic Dude" always came back with "Kucinich bad!" I was like, okay, already! That might be a weird statement. Either it's been taken out of context or the senator's election rival must have been that much worse if he won the election.

In the interests of full disclosure, I must admit that one of my main development points is maintaining focus on the big picture. All too often, I get tangled in the web of distractions and completely lose sight of the primary goal. Psychologists and counselors tell us that the behaviors/habits we dislike most in other people are the very same traits we dislike most about ourselves. It's the whole "don't worry about the splinter in the other guy's eye until you've removed the log from your own eye" philosophy.

Well, I never claimed I was completely perfect, so I couldn't resist taking "Off-Topic Dude" to task. And I am working on my development needs. Honestly, I am. That's why when I was able to see the big picture, I couldn't resist posting this in response:

Off-Topic Dude -

Nice. Page 1 from the Conservative playbook: whenever a conservative public figure gets into trouble, IMMEDIATELY fire a shot off the bow at the liberals. How does that statement by Kucinich justify Rush Limbaugh's hypocrisy?

Correct, no leader publicly said God told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, watch this... I'm about to use your own tactic against you - not once, but twice by quoting the same person - except instead of digging up a quote by someone who doesn't even change the direction of a national political party or campaign, I'm going to quote a high-ranking Pentagon official who's calling the shots in Afghanistan and has been praised and protected by the Bush administration in light of his remarks which are causing an uproar in the international Muslim community, and ultimately causing people to die.

Ready? Here comes the first one: "the god of Muslims is nothing but an idol" by Lt. General William Boykin. He's a leader, and Rumsfeld is emphatically defending him for his statement.

Here comes the second: Boykin also presented a photograph from Mogadishu, Somalia with a dark spot on it and said it showed "the principalities of darkness. . . a demonic presence in that city that God revealed to me as the enemy."

Here's the source: UK Telegraph

So, on your Kucinich quote, what's your point? He brings up the rear of the Democratic candidate pool. In the polls he has, what, maybe 2% of the primary vote? He's not representative of Democrats across the nation, in all likelihood won't get the nomination, and doesn't influence the direction of the Democratic campaign. He's not shaping public opinion or leading a military occupation force like Rush or Boykin. He hasn't shown himself to be a hypocrite like Rush, and he's not causing civil unrest and people to die like Boykin.

You pick obscure Democrats and quote odd-sounding things they've said. Likewise, I can match you ironic quote for quote and action for action by prominent Bush administration officials and others near and dear to them, such as Boykin, Rush, and Ashcroft, who are causing real harm.

Next time a prominent conservative says or does something truly destructive, let's evade the issue and find some near-unknown yahoo who calls him-/herself a Democrat and make another attack, as if that somehow justifies the atrocities and issues at hand.

A couple other Boykin quotes from the same article I didn't include in my post, which I will include here to further illustrate why this guy is a disgrace to every U.S. taxpayer:

• "Why is this man in the White House? The majority of Americans did not vote for him. He's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this."

• In January, he told Baptists in Florida about a victory over a Muslim warlord in Somalia, who had boasted that Allah would protect him from American capture. "I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real god and his was an idol," Gen Boykin said.

• In the same month, Gen Boykin told an Oklahoma congregation that Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were not the enemy. "Our enemy is a spiritual enemy because we are a nation of believers. . . His name is Satan."

And the best one of all, which I wish I had included in the message forum:

• Gen Boykin told NBC that he would be curtailing his speeches to religious groups. "I don't want to come across as a Right-wing radical," he said.

Woo hoo! You might not want to come across that way, Boykin, but a wolf in sheep's clothing is still a wolf, if not a more dangerous one.

Boykin apologized, and naturally, all is again well within the Bush administration... "Shhhh, boys! You can privately be bigots and fundamentalists if you want - in fact, that's what many of us within this administration are - but don't ever admit it in public! As long as you don't don't say anything to make the American people suspect your radical beliefs are affecting your judgement, it's a gray area, and we'll see to it that no one can prove your true intentions!"

Next Tuesday Seattle residents vote on Initiative 77, an innocuously-named proposal to place a 10 cent tax on espresso-based drinks to fund childcare for low income parents. This would set a dangerous precedent by sending the message that it's okay to single out products for taxation.

I can appreciate the theory behind what they're trying to do: espresso drinks are luxury items consumed mostly by the upper middle class and upper class; Seattle intends to use sales of espresso as an indicator of wealth, and thus tax higher income individuals via their discretionary spending. But I disagree completely with the approach. In the interests of full disclosure, I am an espresso addict, but not a frequent coffeeshop patron because I usually brew my own lattes.

A flat sales taxes is one thing, but I oppose Initiative 77's concept because it seeks to tax a single product whose production and consumption does not affect the problem being addressed. For example, cigarettes and alcohol increase health care costs; owning property means you benefit from the services of the local fire department and public school system; burning gasoline and driving cars increases environmental impact and wears out roads... gasoline, cars, property, cigarettes, and alcohol are taxed because they increase costs government entities must absorb. Now, whether those tax revenues directly benefit the expenses they were imposed to fund is another question, but it works out at the level of total expenses verus total revenues.

In the case of Initiative 77, the production and consumption of espresso beverages is not related to low income families' need for childcare. Therefore, the government should not single out espresso and tax it. It just doesn't make sense.

As a liberal, I agree with the theory behind Initiative 77, that higher income individuals should carry more of the tax burden. And to an extent, I can appreciate with Jesse Ventura's opinion that people should be taxed according to the lifestyle they choose to live, not their incomes (that is, eliminate income tax and increase sales tax). My only concern is that individuals and especially corporations will find loopholes in sales tax laws. For example, today there are only state sales taxes, which don't apply if the buyer and seller make the purchase from different states (that is, via mail order, purchase order, or online), but do apply if both buyer and point-of-sale are in the same state - such policies favor corporations over individuals. If there were a national sales tax, what taxation would occur if buyer and seller were in the U.S. and another country? I suppose an extensive taxation policy such as the European VAT tax (which I believe the buyer pays even through mail-order and online purchases) would close most loopholes.

But let's not fool ourselves: sales tax has a high transactional frequency - it occurs whenever a purchase is made, and is easily noticed. Income tax withholdings are more transparent on a paycheck, and have their highest visibility that one time a year when filling out tax forms. There seems to be an impulsive, irrational trait of American culture: if given the choice between no income tax with a high sales tax on every purchase, and no sales tax with a high income tax paid annually, I think they'd opt for the income tax, even if the sales tax plan resulted in less taxes paid per individual. What really matters from a financial perspective is the bottom line - how much does it cost? But as a culture, we focus on the wrong quantitative variable - we focus more on number of transactions than the total expense to our pocketbook. That just doesn't make sense, either, but that's another issue altogether.

And on the opposite end of the political spectrum, a couple of friends have forwarded the MillionforMarriage petition seeking legalization of same-sex marriages and human/civil rights protections for the gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender community. If you agree with their cause, please consider signing.

My belief is that all humans are entitled to human rights, and all citizens of and immigrants in the United States are entitled to equal civil rights. The preservation of human and civil rights is pre-eminent above all else. Even Christianity, under whose ideologies many people oppose civil rights legislation for GLBT persons, teaches equal treatment for all people is the second greatest commandment, second only to loving God... and the Bible says this twice, where it also appears in the Jewish Torah.

Those who know me would be shocked to find me quoting the Christian bible... I have a big chip on my shoulder vis-a-vis Christianity because of hypocrisies I've seen amongst the Christian soldiers, "marching as to war," and generally dispensing with logical thought. But when I read the Christian bible, I must admit Christian moral ideology such as what I'm discussing in this post matches closely with my own. Yes, Jesus was a social liberal. I must also admit that in the same way many Christians judge and look down on the GLBT community, I judge and look down on those very same Christians. I guess I'm just as much of a hypocrite as the religious zealots who have perverted Christianity, and I'm no better than them for allowing their poison to get under my skin and run me off.

How's that for humility?

I'm fired up again after receiving a mass email from a college friend. First, I will confess to being a conservative in my university days, followed by a steady slide to the left after graduation. After delving into the philosophies of the Left and the Right, I had to admit everything I thought I stood for politically was in opposition with my core ideologies. Oh well... live and learn.

Yes, I used to be a Republican, so I understand the party's views and beliefs, even if I don't share them, and I support their right (no pun intended) to speak out. When it comes to spreading lies and misinformation, however, I don't care which hand describes your political persuasion - IT PISSES ME OFF!

Argue ideologies: Good. Express your opinion: Good. State facts supporting your views: Good; take those facts of out context: Not cool, but determining what's in and out of context is a gray area, more art than science, so okay. But whenever I encounter shameless distribution of misinformation and blatant lies my blood roils in vexation. In a democratic society where everyone is entitled to express their opinion, the integrity and accuracy of information are crucial. The information technology industry hit the nail on the head with its familiar adage: Garbage In, Garbage Out.

My rather radically religious right-wing friend apparently hasn't figured out I've started speakign with my left hand. Or maybe she has, and she's trying to convert me back via mass emailing of blatant lies propagated by prejudice, hatred, and anger from especially radical elements of the radical right. When I say "prejudice," I mean it in the narrow-minded sense of the word, not the racist or xenophobic senses. To be clear, it's more along the lines of the Jerry Falwell/Christian Coalition brand of radical conservatism, definitely not the David Duke brand.

One would think she'd learn: everytime she includes me in a politically or religiously motivated mass email full of lies, I first go to snopes.com to determine if it's an urban legend, and if it's not there, I do my own research in pursuit of the facts and respond with the facts in a reply all email. I'm sure it annoys the other recipients, but in my opinion, the original email is just as unwelcome and annoying, so it becomes a question which is the greater evil: lies or truth? Enough said.

I discovered the value of snopes.com when she sent the email about Hillary Clinton defending the Black Panthers in a 1969 murder trial (in fact, I've written about my friend's propensity for disinformation before). Like any powerful tool, the Internet can do great harm or great good depending on how it is used: not only can the Internet be used to spread malicious propaganda, it also has the power to dispell the very same falsehoods.

After granting me a (nearly) two year reprieve from her mass email distribution list, she's at it again, this time with an email blaming Democrats for taxation of Social Security benefits and allowing new immigrants to receive Social Security payments without paying into the system. Okay, as I've said, my political viewpoint moved from the Right to the Left after an honest assessment of my personal ideologies to determine which was the better fit. The claims in the email did not match my ideologies, which align closely with ideologies of the Democratic Party, so a red flag immediately went up, especially the second paragraph which takes a potshot at Democrats while simultaneously claiming to be non-partisan in an attempt to appear disarming to the reader! I must admit the skillfulness matches WWII propaganda - the brazenness is impressive! Here is the first half of the original email (which is followed by a lengthy ideological argument not quoted here because I'm not attacking ideological views since they are opinions; again, I'm only going after the lies. Interestingly enough, however, after the lies are dispelled, the ideological rant falls more in line with the Democratic Party!):

Here is a message that might help make sense of the nonsense in
Washington.

This really crosses party lines. Don't get put off by the Democrats vs. Republican part first. Read till the end. It is important.

Q: Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it in the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic-controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which party put a tax on Social Security?
A: The Democratic party.

Q: Which party increased the tax on Social Security?
A: The Democratic Party with Al Gore casting the deciding vote.

Q: Which party decided to give money to immigrants?
A: That's right; immigrants moved into this country and at 65 got SSI Social Security. The Democratic Party gave that to them although they never paid a dime into it.

Then, after doing all this, the Democrats turn around and tell you the Republicans want to take your Social Security.

And the worst part about it is, people believe it!

So I set out and found the facts from my new friends at BuzzFlash.com, complete with a sample response to repudiate the original email's claims:

Q: Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it in the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic-controlled House and Senate.

FALSE

Rebuttals can be found at:
Cato Institute
http://www.socialsecurity.org/
SSP Report No. 24 p. 6

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98jul/socsec.htm
"The Social Security Trust Fund is an accounting fiction."

http://www.aarp.org/bulletin/departments/2002/news/0405_news_1.html
"Trust Funds: A Healthy Picture"

Q: Which party put a tax on Social Security?
A: The Democratic party.

FALSE

Ronald Reagan signed a bill taxing Social Security benefits.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html#1983

"In the early 1980s the Social Security program faced a serious short-term financing crisis. President Reagan appointed a blue-ribbon panel, known as the Greenspan Commission, to study the financing issues and make recommendations for legislative changes. The final bill, signed into law in 1983, made numerous changes in the Social Security and Medicare programs, including the taxation of Social Security benefits, the first coverage of Federal employees under Social Security and an increase in the retirement age in the next century."

Q: Which party increased the tax on Social Security?
A: The Democratic Party with Al Gore casting the deciding vote.

TRUE, But Misleading

The answer is misleading because it does not mention any specific bill on which Al Gore cast the deciding vote. It may refer to the VPs constitutional power to break a tie vote in the Senate. Thus the reference might be to the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 in which the VP did cast a vote in the Senate to break a tie. This Act was a huge bill that covered everything from agricultural commodities, licensing of radio spectrum, luxury automobile taxes, fuels, banking, Medicare, etc., etc. The bill passed in the House by a vote of 218-216 and in the Senate by 51-50.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:HR02264:

|TOM:/bss/d103query.html| H.R. 2264 Latest Major Action: 8/10/1993 Became Public Law No: 103-66.

Q. Which party decided to give money to immigrants?
A: That's right, immigrants moved into this country at 65 and got SSI Social Security. The Democratic Party gave that to them although they never paid a dime into it.

FALSE

1972 Public Law 92-603, enacted October 30 "Other Eligibility Provisions Citizenship and Residence. The individual must reside within one of the 50 states or the District of Columbia and be a citizen or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence or permanently residing in the United States under color of law." The SSI (Supplemental Security Income) and the automatic annual COLA (Cost of Living Adjustments) based on the Consumer Price Index were pushed, signed, and implemented during the Nixon administration. So immigrants first received SSI under the Republican administration of President Richard M. Nixon.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/ssi.pdf

Bill Clinton signed legislation barring immigrants from receiving SSI as part of The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html

As for my college friend, well, seeing this sort of stuff from her makes me think she's been misled. If she truly dislikes the Social Security legislation described in the email, then hopefully when she discovers the political party she affiliates with signed most of it into law, she will embark on a voyage of self-discovery and realize she's really in cahoots with the Democratic Party on this one. Yeah, I held the Democrats in disdain at one time, but once I overcame my own misconceptions and opened my eyes, wow, everything started making sense.

Cool concept: Flash Mobs. I learned about them after two recent events in New York and London.

By coincidence, I'm planning to use a modified version of this tactic in response to the numerous botched service maintenance visits I've had with the Prius at Oxmoor Toyota's less than capable service department. It's been 10 days since the fiasco that pushed me over the edge, long enough to cool off and come down to earth. I still firmly believe Steve Smith couldn't manage a service team to save his life - independent of my opinion, his incompetence speaks for itself. Steve Smith is also such a common name, hard to single out - my apologies to the innocent Steve Smiths out there. Such a pity his name isn't more identifiable so he couldn't hide in the relative anonymity of its commonness... Horace Finkelsteinmen or Humphrey Cababblesworth III. But I digress.

My meeting the next day with the service department manager revealed the corporate culture of Toyota's customer service division. I met with the manager of the service department the next day, and got the sense my complaints were going to be ignored, or at best, nullified by their 95+% customer satisfaction (if you don't return the mail-in service s