Recently in Opinion Category

I have seen a few things over the past few days that have me concerned.  There isn't much I can do about any of it, but these events have my attention. 

First the price of gas continues to rise.  Even here in the south were the costs of living is much lower than much of the US gas is approaching $4.00 a gallon.  I think the $4.00 price is significant.  Up to this point increasing prices don't seem to be curbing demand but prices of $4.00 and up will make people think twice about the trip to Wal-Mart to get a case of Bud.  There will be a price, and I think it is soon, that will force people to stop driving.  I know $4.00 will certainly make me reconsider taking a trip out of town.  What is most concerning to me is that the prices continue to rise with no end in sight.  There are some realities here we need to face.  The first is that gas prices are unrelated to who is in the White House.  The Iraq war is not helping the situation, but prices would be high regardless.  It is time that people wake up and realize that prices are only slightly affected by our nation's government.  Increasing demand in other countries, like China, and inadequate processing facilities in the US are more directly related to the rising prices than Dubya.  The government could help the situation by reducing barriers to refining and production but even that will not stop the growth in demand all over the world.  Over time this is only going to get worse and as long as we are dependent on foreign oil supplies we are at risk.  We should be funneling BILLIONS of dollars in both public and private funds into alternative energy research in order to end our oil dependency.  As it stands, the "most powerful nation in the world" has a serious weakness that could few well lead to its destruction.

The oil crisis also highlights a larger problem which is the carrying capacity of the Earth.  We know oil is a finite resource, but even renewable resources can be exhausted.  What is the maximum output of foodstuffs that the Earth can produce given well researched agricultural methods and how many human can said food support?  Are we reaching that limit today?  I do not know the research on this topic but I am seeing evidence that we may be maxing out our production capabilities.  For example, there are reports of rice shortages in the US.

http://nysun.com/news/food-rationing-confronts-breadbasket-world

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/21/business/21crop.php

Again this points to a growing human population that is out of control.  What will nature's check to this untamed growth be?  Disease?  I find it very interesting how we are constantly hearing about outbreaks of untreatable infectious diseases all over the world.  Our medical science has not succeeded in wiping out disease.  In fact, it seems like we have actually succeeded in speeding up the evolution of certain diseases making them stronger than ever.  Anti-biotic resistant bacteria have been increasing for years.  How long until some bacteria mutates into a modern day black plague that decimates human populations around the globe?   This is a real threat only made worse by increasing populations and global travel.  Throw in food shortages making people weak and such a bug could travel very fast.  If you are not at least interested in such things, you should be.

Finally, I watch a show on The Discovery Channel this weekend that was concerning as well.  Expedition Alaska follows a group of scientists across Alaska as they research how the state's climate and environment are changing due to global warming.  Glaciers are melting at an alarming rate.  Methane gas is being released from the permafrost of previously frozen dead plant material is rotting in the increasing temperature.  Whole species of wildlife that are dependent on cold weather are faced with extinction.  I have no doubt the Earth's climate is changing.  I might argue that the cause is not man, but one can not argue that something is going on.  The Earth's climate changes before man and it will continue to do so long after we are gone.  What is so concerning is the speed at which things seem to be happening.  What little I saw of the show illustrated how what goes on in one part of the world will have an impact everywhere.  We don't know if the warming will continue or what the long term effects will be but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that we will be facing many changes within our lifetimes. 

I am not panicked by any of this, but it has my attention.  We may not have any control over global warming, but everything else we can do something about.  As a sovereign nation we need to be prepared to take care of ourselves and today we can not do that.  We have turned our farmland into malls and neighborhoods and import much of the basic food items we use today.  We depend on someone else to provide us with the energy that drives our economy.  Rising fuel and grain prices will continue to force our economy into recession.  Maybe we have reached the point where the earth just can't support the abundance of human life that has exploded over the last thousand years.  Again I don't know, but I am watching and listening. 

I just love that every day court cases are decided by out of touch, old, white, Christian males in the United States.  It practically guarantees fairness and justice because these men certainly are the wisest and most learned among us.  I have every confidence that our court system is based on the single principle that a complete understanding of the facts of a case will lead to a logical conclusion and a well thought out judicial opinion.

Wait, who the fuck am I kidding here?   Some of the statements made by judges in this country prove our judicial system is full of pompous, blowhards that have no idea what they are talking about and are incapable of looking at a case based on facts and not opinion.  Take, for example, the current litigation surrounding some the Harry Potter books.  I read the following statement today which is quoted from The Times Online.

"District Judge Robert Patterson Jr said that he had read the first half of the first Harry Potter novel to his grandchildren, but found the "magical world hard to follow, filled with strange names and words that would be gibberish in any other context."

This District Judge found Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone hard to follow?  How in the hell can he understand legal opinions, legal precedent, and written law if he can't follow a story that my 4 year old has no problem understanding?  I won't argue with the "strange names", and "gibberish" as that is all true but any work of fantasy fiction is going to have such things.  Try reading Lord of the Rings.  That book is considered one of the greatest books of the English language and it is full of words that didn't exist before Tolkien put them to paper.  Would this judge consider that classic work nonsense?   Even given that there is a lot of "gibberish" in Harry Potter how is the book hard to follow?  It's not.  The judge's REAL problem with the work is that he has no imagination and thus doesn't enjoy or relate to the material.  Since he doesn't like it, it is very easy for him to dismiss the book.  I wonder if Rowling's banker find the book/books so easy to dismiss.

I don't care what happens with the litigation.  Rowling is not a struggling writer and Scholastic is not a struggling publisher.  If they want to produce a guide book then they just need to do it.  Do it in a way that makes the book the choice of fans.  The creator and publisher should be able to product a book that exceeds anything a third party could produce which would beat the other lexicon in the market.  However, I also understand intellectual property and copyrights have to be defended or they can be lost.  In this sense the case has merit.  It can set a precedent for fair use and thus I am interested in the ultimate outcome no matter which way it turns out. 

What concerns me most is that the judge is making critical statements on the artistic merit of the work instead of looking at the legal issues in the case.  The content of the work is only relevant when it comes to deciding what a third party can use in derivative works.  The quality and relevance of the content itself should not be under discussion.  If the books contained nothing but logs of Rowling's bowel movements it should not matter.  If someone then wanted to make a derivative work from such logs then the judge should give opinions on the legal fair use of the original source material and not make any statements on the literary value contained therein.  Judges are supposed to "stick to the facts" and how they relate to the written law, legal precedent, and legal traditions of their jurisdiction.   The fact that this particular judge can't follow the plot of the book is a whole other concern but I don't think a judge needs to understand the plot of a novel to decide on fair use issues. 

This illustrates a growing problem with the US judicial system.  Our judges don't understand much of what they are tasked with giving judgments on.  I see judges woeful lack of understanding in cases regarding the RIAA, DRM, software licensing, and just about anything related to the internet or digital media.  They constantly make uninformed statements which make it clear that they do not have the understanding needed to make fair and equitable judgments.  I am concerned that the evolution of technology that I use and take for granted every day is and will continue to be hampered by judges and attorneys that are unable or unwilling to learn about the subject that will be monumentally affected by their actions. 

Maybe we need age limits for judges?

I am often presented with an argument for God that is based on the idea that science can not provide an answer to the origin of life.  Creationists would have us believe that the lack of a definitive, scientific explanation of the origin of life is evidence for the existence of God.  This leap of logic is utterly absurd.  Let me explain.

Let's say I don't know how rainbows are formed.  In fact, let's say that NO ONE knows how rainbows are formed.  The lack of knowledge of water droplets and their effects on light does not mean that rainbows are formed by magic.  Lack of understanding of optics does not give any weight to the idea that rainbows are somehow born from leprechaun gold.  That kind of "either/or" logic does not make sense with rainbows and it does not make sense with the origin of life either.  No one has to accept one theory because a competing theory does not exist.  Not only that, but it is also fair and valid to criticize any theory without having an opposing theory to put in its place.

For example, I don't know how massive construction cranes are erected.  I realize it must be a complicated process but I can not explain how it is done.  However, I can say that I am pretty darn sure that it wasn't created by magic.  In fact, I can ridicule anyone who thinks it was created by magic because that theory is ridiculous and completely without any evidence or historical precedent.  Not knowing how cranes are built doesn't lead me to accept magic as the only possible answer to the question. 

It is therefore ludicrous for someone to tell me that God must have created life because I can't explain it otherwise and then get offended when I critique such an opinion.

What follows is something along a similar line.  Ben Stein has taken part in a creationist propaganda film and has taken to the airwaves to defend his opinion.  That's fine, but he makes the same mistakes that many creationists make in using evolution's lack of answers to the origin of life question to back up Christianity's position.  Not only does he fail to understand the theory of evolution, but he applies the theory to all the wrong questions.  Evolution was never intended to explain the origin of life.  It explains why there are so many different species on the planet, why they share similar traits, and how specific lifeforms can adapt to there surroundings.   The following video tries, quite successfully, to refute some of these foolish ideas.

 


Please, if you want to make arguments for God, at least try to be compelling in your discourse. Using God as a "fall back" theory just doesn't cut it.

I was watching the local news last night and saw a story that got my blood boiling.  It was a report about high school dropout rates.  In the report a Birmingham area resident complains that her son did not finish high school and thus can not go to college.  As you might expect, this is the same kind of person you might expect to see on the news talking about how she heard a freight train coming right before her house got blown away.  You can see the report and some of the video I saw over at Fox 6.  The video link is down to the right.

What made me so angry was not that the news station found an uneducated mother or that the station continues to reinforce inaccurate stereotypes of people in the south but that this mother did not take any personal responsibility for her son's failure to graduate high school.  She blames the schools for such failure.  That pissed me off to no end.  I recognize that our schools could be MUCH, MUCH better but to blame the education system for a child not graduating high school is ridiculous.  If I could meet this mother I would love to ask her a few questions.  I would also like to know if the genius reports at Fox 6 ever thought to ask any of these questions.

1.  Throughout your son's life were you involved in his education?  Did you monitor his progress?  Did you consistently work with him to get his school work completed?  Did you encourage learning in the home?  Did you read to him and encourage him to read?  Did you take advantage of learning opportunities outside the home?  What exactly did YOU do to be sure that your son grew up with a respect for learning?  What exactly did YOU do to see that your son took advantage of the education opportunities offered to him?

2.  Were you involved at the school?  Did you participate in any parental organizations?  Did you go to parent/teacher meetings?  Did you volunteer to help out at the school in any way?  What actions did YOU take to ensure that the school was giving your son the basic education that we supposedly guarantee every citizen of this country? 

3.   What did you do as a parent for the first 16 or so years of your son's life that would have helped him graduate high school?  Other than feeding, clothing, and housing him did you make any effort to see that your child could think critically, understand logic, or or understand the consequences of decisions?  Did you make your son responsible for the choices he made in life?  Was there any level of discipline in your house? 

I could go on, but I think you get the picture. 

Academic success begins and ends in the home.  You, the parent, are responsible for ensuring that your child has the basic skills to support themselves in life.  So, when your kid drops out of high school then you had best look at yourself and figure out where you screwed up.  What choices did you make that resulted in your failure as a parent?  Once you can answer that question only THEN can you turn the critical eye to the schools, the government, the teachers.  I personally believe that if parents would be more involved in the lives of their children and take the time to instill a love and respect for learning in their kids the dropout problem would disappear and we would enter a new era of academic achievement.  What is happening, however, is that there is an increased vilification of education.  Ask a child what is more important, going to college to become a scientist or getting an NBA contract and I bet (and I have not empirical research to prove this) that the NBA comes out on top.  Learning is not valued any more and this attitude starts with us, the adults and parents. 

Take education seriously.  Do it for yourself but more importantly, do it for your kids.

I started out the day writing a rant about how I can't stand to see parents who ignore their children.  I am sure you have seen those parents who seem to have children as an accessory.  I have seen this more and more since Emily has been going to pre-school.  There are some parents I NEVER see talk to their children.  They move them from place to place like one would move a handbag but they never actually interact with the child.  These parents also seem to hang out together so when you are at an event they let their little devils loose on the world while they stand over in the corner and talk about their new haircuts and their husband's golf game (I guess, I don't really know what these twits talk about).  However, I don't really want to talk about those people.  They annoy me, but they aren't worth the time.

What I would like to talk about is how I love being with my daughter.  Sure, sometimes I'd give a toe or two to have her not talk a mile a minute, but over all the best thing about my day is spending time with my child.  I pick her up from school almost every day which means we usually have about 2 hours of time just for us.  We listen to podcasts while driving.  Sometimes we sing, horribly of course, but loud and joyous.  We tell jokes, talk about space, and all kinds of other wonderful and fantastic things.  I couldn't imagine going through my day without spending part of it just being a dad.  I know taking time out of the day to be with my child is important to her development but it is also important to my sanity.   No matter how bad my day sucks the moment I get to play Candy Land, Uno, or DDR with Emily all the crap I deal with on a daily basis washes away.  There is something recharging and refreshing about interacting with someone who doesn't have a jaded view of the world around them.  While I know this is all fated to change, I can't help but enjoy each moment of our time as we scream towards the rebellious teenage years. 

One of the great and sometimes embarrassing things about being a parent is that children will often "say the darnedest things".  My daughter is no exception.  She is VERY good at picking up phrases and loves repeating them at the most unexpected times.  What makes this little fact of life even more troublesome is that I have a habit of exposing her to things that I probably shouldn't expose her too.  Nothing bad mind you, but according to my wife they are not "age appropriate".  Take for example one of her favorite podcasts "Ask a Ninja".  The podcast is basically exactly like what it sounds like.  It is a ninja answering questions.  As you can guess, this is a comedy show and it is pretty darn funny at times.  At the end of each show are advertisements for sponsors. 

My daughter, you see, has become adept at memorizing ads of all kinds.  So, as we were on our family outing Saturday night to a basketball game, I ask Emily to tell her mom about the ninja show.  At that point she repeats back the entire advertisement for the Ask a Ninja online store including correct tonal inflection.  If you watch the podcast at the link above you will see the add.  It was one of those priceless and unexpected moments in life.   The "you're welcome ladies" line was particularly well delivered.  I laughed so hard that I started to black out.  Honest.

She knows her mom gets a little agitated when she parrots back advertisements and I could actually see the smile on my daughter's face as she was going through the script.  Emily knew it was going to be funny and did it for our benefit.  She is awesome that way.  She loves making us laugh and she does it often by singing jingles.  The jingle for the local payday loan company was a personal favorite of mine "PayChex pays you money" or the refrain from the structured settlement lawyer, "It's MY money and I want it NOW!", and even the Nationwide song, "Nationwide is on your side!", are all apt to come out at any moment and personally I find it hilarious.  I don't know what it says about my parenting when it comes to TV, but that's another issue.  She knows it sort of gets under mom's skin but it makes dad laugh so she keeps doing it.  It's those little moments that parents who don't spend time with their kids miss out on.

Even though I desperately look for breaks from being "Dad", I absolutely love being a father.  I would take the opportunity to stay home with her full time in a heartbeat.  I don't understand people who will do anything and everything to stay away from their children.  That attitude and those people represent everything that has gone wrong with our society and I would just assume not be around them.  I wonder if that is as much a part of me wanting to home school my daughter as her education.  I don't really like to be around most other parents.  I don't know about them, but I look forward to the limited amount of time I can spend with my child during the day.  Maybe if other parents felt the same way the world would be a better place.  For me, however, it is T-Minues 9 hours until the next exciting round of Hi-Ho-Cherry-O!

Have a good Monday.

The election this year will be difficult for me.  As an atheist, I don't see much in the Republican party that interests me.  Obviously Huckabee and Romney are off my list.  I honestly don't think McCain is the right guy and I highly doubt Ron Paul will get the nomination.  Paul would get my vote, even though I don't agree with his stand on foreign policy.  The fact that he at least seems to understand freedom and personal responsibility is enough for me to give him a chance.  Sadly, he can't seem to get the press he deserves.  The media has decided he is not a contender and thus he won't be. 

On the other hand, I certainly can't vote for for this:

So yet another school board, this one in Pinellas County Florida, has decided that intelligent design must be taught along with evolution.  Superstition has thus become part of the curriculum.  While I am not surprised that a theory of creation with NO BASIS IN SCIENCE is being forced onto a student body, what does surprise me is a statement from one of the board members.  Board member Peggy O'Shea suggests that discussions on the origin of the universe are just too controversial to be important.  I wonder if she has a doctorate in thinkology. 

From the article at Tampabay.com:

"O'Shea suggested that parents who object to evolution being taught to their children might be able to opt them out of that day's lesson. "I'd probably ideally like to keep it all out of the classroom," she said. "If it's going to create this much controversy, how important is it?""

Not only is the origin of life just too controversial to be important, apparently it is ok for students to "opt out" of parts of their education that they don't agree with.  That sets one hell of a precedent don't you think?   Maybe I don't agree with coaches teaching math...can my child opt out of that?  How about if I really think that faster than light travel is possible?  Can my daughter then opt out of physics?  Wait, what if I am a communist?  Can my children opt out of American Government, Economics, and Civics?  Really Mrs. O' Shea?  Really?

Look, those that want to learn about "Intelligent Design" already have a place to get their fill of such nonsense.  As far as I know, most churches are open 7 days a week.   I am sure someone there would love to teach a class on magic.  Public school, however, is not the place to study superstition as the basis of the universe...unless it is in history or sociology class.  Do you insist on this "evolution is just a theory" argument?  That's fine with me.  Just about everything we know is a theory.   That is a solid, scientific approach to a scientific argument.  We also theorize that the sun will come up every day.  There is no way to PROVE this is true because we can't observe every day both past and future, but all evidence points to the sun rising (it actually doesn't rise...but we won't get into that today) every day and thus we accept it as true.  Let's keep mythology where it belongs...at the church.

And since we are talking about the origin of the universe let me make a point.  Do not try to argue with me that everything has to have a beginning.  That is a regressive argument that only allows me to negate your point.  Usually the argument goes like this:

Theist:  "If you believe matter and energy are the basis of the universe, who created them?"

Atheist:  "Why do they have to be created?  Why can't they just be?  Science says matter can neither be created or destroyed so maybe that is all there is?  Even before the big bang all matter and energy existed but just in a very compressed state."

Theist:  "But where did it come from?  Surely some intelligent force created matter and energy."

Atheist:  "No, I don't need to believe that.  I can believe that matter and energy are the beginning and end.  Those things have always existed and always will."

Theist:  "But it all had to start somewhere."

Atheist:  "Ok, you argue that there has to be a beginning.  You also argue that some intelligence, God, created matter, and energy, and the universe.  So, I ask you, if you insist on there being a beginning to EVERYTHING, who created your god?"

Theist:  "Oh no, God is God.  He has always existed and always will."

Atheist:  "Funny how I have to accept your God as a possible beginning with no creator, but you can not accept matter and energy as the beginning.  If you insist on everything having a creator then there is no end to the creator, creation chain."

Theist:  "But I know God created everything."

Atheist:  "Prove it."

Theist:  'Ummm...aahhh...The Bible....umm...personal revelation...umm...ahh....faith or something."

Atheist:  "Stop right there.  I seem to have an urgent appointment to go bang my head against a wall.  We'll talk later."

The whole "Someone must have started the whole thing" bit doesn't work with me.  Don't try it.

*****Updated at Bottom*****

Things annoy me.  A lot of things annoy me.  I am an easily annoyed person.  Odds are, I annoy others.  It's ok though because it works in my favor given my occasional anti-social tendencies.  However, since this is my website I get to talk about how others annoy me. 

Today's piece of annoying idiocy comes direct from the south.  Today I am talking about the failure to pronounce words correctly.  I am not talking about long words, words with three or more syllables, or even words with a foreign flair.  No, I am talking about normal, everyday words that should not give any one a problem.  Let's get started.

#1.  Athlete.  The funny thing about this word is that so many people who mispronounce it are actively involved in sports.  Athlete is a two syllable word pronounced ath-leet.  It is not a three syllable word pronounced ath-a-leet.  That second "a" just doesn't exist.  If you hold a teaching certificate and pronounce the word with three syllables you should be fired and your certificate revoked.  You know who you are.

#2.  Bulb.  Jeebus this one should be easy folks.  One syllable and only three different letters.  Using standard pronunciation notation, the pronunciation for this word is buhlb.  Please don't forget the "l".  Bub is not acceptable.  If you walk into a store and ask for a "bub" and really mean "bulb", don't be surprised if the guy behind the counter doesn't know what you are talking about.  Sound it out Frank.  I have faith you can do it.

#3.  Ask.  Look, I am not going to say much about this one.  An ax is something you use to cut down a tree not a way to get information. Stretch that s sound if you need to... Assssk.

#4.VCR.  This is just initials.  Say the letters and you are done.  V...C...R...  that last letter...say it like a pirate..."Argh".  Nope, it is not Argh-ah.  I am actually glad to see this piece of technology die just so I don't have to hear someone mangle its name again.

There is one more that I hear around the office all the time and I can't think of it right now.  I will update this post when it comes to me or I hear it in conversation.  These words are mispronounced by people young and old, black, white, red, and blue, and by people of varying education levels.  I don't get it.  While I am known to be a lazy writer, poor speller, and pathetic grammatical editor, I do TRY to do things correctly.  However, when I hear these words come out of some peoples' mouths a cold shiver runs down my spine.  Am I wrong?  

What mispronunciations get under your skin?

*****UPDATE*****

So I remembered what the other one that bugs me is...

#5.  Error.  Being a technology professional in Alabama, I hear this one a bunch.   Error should be pronounced er-er.  What I often hear, however, is era (eer-uh).  Now, this one is a little tricky because both words have two syllables.  They mean very different things.  An error is a mistake while an era is a period of time.  If you ask me to "take a look at this era on your computer" I think you just found out something interesting about the Romans or something, not that you crashed IE because you were looking at porn.  Note the double rr, the o and the final r in "error".  They need to be pronounced. 

That will be all.

I have pretty much lost the Christmas spirit.  At least the view of Christmas that seems to exist in modern, American culture.  Now, I am not talking about the whole birth of Jesus thing.  I never really cared about that too much, even when I believed in God.  I understood that meaning of course, but to me it was always more of a historical basis for tradition much like Halloween has its roots in Celtic ritual.  I understood it the same way I understand why men's and women's shirts have buttons on different sides.  The origin was always a historical footnote in my mind.  Those people that observe and respect the origin of the holiday I can respect even if I don't believe in their faith.  The Christmas spirit I am talking about, however, is really better defined as consumerism, greed, class warfare, and poor fiscal responsibility.  Don't quite get that definition?  Well, allow me a moment to explain.

Christmas today is nothing more than a contrived event designed to separate money from people's wallets. From the ridiculous Black Friday insanity to the constant media coverage of the "buying season" to the pervasive question of "What do you want for Christmas?"  the holiday has been transformed from a season of "goodwill towards men" to one of "I gotta get my stuff".  We run around like lemmings snatching up foreign made plastic junk so we can exchange it for more foreign made plastic junk at awkward family gatherings where everyone is just waiting for the first insult to be thrown out so the real fun can begin.  Of course there is also the need to prove our social standing by buying more expensive foreign made plastic junk than the rest of our friends and family so that we can walk around the rest of the year comfortable in the knowledge that Yes, we are success and everyone should damn well know it.  The need to prove our membership in a certain economic class is so strong that we even go so far as to purchase things that we can't afford on easy credit terms which only results in said gifts costs more money over time.  Of course we also feel the need to give these meaningless gifts so we can guarantee we get similar meaningless expensive foreign made plastic junk in return.  It's the American way.

What's the point?  Why is getting up at 4 am the day after Thanksgiving to go out and save 50 bucks on a DVD player to give to your sister so damn important?  Couldn't that time be better spent actually having a conversation while sitting at the breakfast table with the people you rarely get to see?  What inherent meaning does that DVD player your sister opens on Christmas morning convey?  Is it an adequate substitute for all of the time you don't get to spend with the important people in your life?  I don't think so.  I suspect that it is a way to appear like you care about someone while really all you are saying is "Here is something I bought on sale.  I figure you can use it or take it back and get something else for yourself, but really I just want you to see how much cool stuff I can buy.  Please accept this gift in lieu of of us actually doing anything meaningful together." 

At this point in my life I don't understand the Christmas season.  Why should we as thinking adults break our backs and our wallets to buy stuff for other people that we all could just buy for ourselves?  Why is it that any gift that has meaning but no resale value is often looked upon with disdain?  What is more valuable, a new XBOX 360 or the hand bound book of pictures of everything you have shared with your family over the last year?  Come January 1 do you remember who gave you that new iPod or do you remember the painting you cousin made of the time you went swimming in the creek behind your grandparent's house?  Put simply, the worship of consumerism that has become Christmas sickens me. 

Let me be honest for a moment, I have very much been a part of this ritual most of my life.  I love getting new,shiny, electric things.  As a child, teenager, and young adult I looked forward to Christmas as a time to "rack up the loot".  It was great and in someways fun if not always at least a little disappointing.  I look back on myself then and realize how pathetic that attitude was.  I, like just about everyone else in the US, bought into the the gimme, gimme, gimme, mentality and only now realize what was really important during that time which was just the days where I could be around my family.  As an adult who has seen family members pass away and will see many more leave as the years move on I realize that time is much too short to spend it chasing a consumerist hunger that can never truly be sated. 

So, you could say I have lost the Christmas spirit.  While there is still something special about a child and Christmas (and Christmas as it relates to children is a separate issue that I feel differently about), the joy of the season when it comes to adult family and friends no longer exists for me.  The game of buying, getting, and giving, is no longer enjoyable.  In fact, it is painful.  I want to give gifts but gifts with meaning that say something special and not just "you won't believe the sale I stumbled into at Target".  In fact, I'd much rather skip the whole buying thing and use that same money to fund a winter vacation where everyone gets together in a cabin, lodge, or rental house and just has a few days of fun and relaxation together.  Seems to me that those memories might last just a bit longer than that DVD of Pirates of the Caribbean 3.

If all of that means I am a Scrooge, well then Bah, Humbug. 
 

I am becoming increasingly concerned over the image this website reflects back on me.  I often voice strong opinions about subjects that I am passionate about and I worry that such a constant combative position is giving people the wrong impression.  Generally I don't care about what people think about me, but I am starting to wonder how such opinions may come back to me out in the real world.  If I seem angry and argumentative here will people who know me only through this site be less likely to engage me in conversation if such an opportunity arises outside of this contrived environment we call "the internet"?  If I have some fun talking about deviant behavior do I engender a reputation that is off putting or frightening to potential new friends?  Do I hamper my ability to be a respected professional in my career or industry by being rude, crude, and lewd with this hobby?  Do people who read the drivel I write here write me off as a childish boor?

My interest in this subject is growing as I prepare to enter the post-graduate school phase of my life.  I am also deeply interested in where this site is going in the future or if there is any need to keep it running.  It all started as a way for me to play with blog, forum, and database software.  I never intended for it to become an outlet for my opinions, beliefs, frustrations or be a destination site for anyone (and for about 99.99999999999999999999999999% percent of the worlds population it isn't).  It was just something for me to mess with when I was bored, but I look back over the totality of what exists here now and see that it covers almost 5 years of my life including the birth of my child, the serious and trying times during her surgery and recovery, my reintroduction to the academic world, the highs and lows of my career, the joys and frustrations of fatherhood, and my recent shift to vocal atheism.  Those are all very important and life changing events that are recorded for the entire world to read but none of that in part or in whole says anything about who I really am and thus I have to question why it has to exist at all.  

I renewed the site for another year yesterday which is what brought the question of "why" to my mind.   I have met a few unique, intelligent, and interesting people through the blogosphere (I really hate buzzwords but this one works...) so I guess that is something positive that has come from the experience and I would like the opportunity to hear from and meet more however, I still wonder how much damage I may be doing to my reputation by allowing the more base part of my nature to be the most visible part of my online personality.  I guess the question always comes back to "why blog?" and even though I continue to do it, I can't answer that question because the one that follows "what should I blog about" is even harder to answer.  If the answer to the first part is "to vocalize thoughts I can't or won't say in public" then I guess you, constant reader, will be subject to the same content in the future.  However, if the answer is "to tell the world I am here, I exist, and I am important" then maybe I should take the time to increase both the quality of my writing and the importance of the subject matter.  Finally, if the answer is "to entertain"...well...get ready for more dick and fart jokes!  I am not sure where this site will go over over the next few days, weeks, and months, but at least I have a year to figure it out.

Thanks to all of you that continue to come and read what I write (even if you NEVER LEAVE A COMMENT!).  I hope you find something that makes you laugh, makes you think, or even gets you mad.  Any reaction means I have done something interesting and I guess, when you get right down to it, that is why I keep at this even when it seems like I am wasting my time.

Here's to another year.