2nd Presidential Debate

Okay, so I watched the 2nd Presidential Debate yesterday (recorded it). Although some pundits thought it was boring and less interesting that the first one, i beg to differ. I thought it was MORE interesting. Now, granted, the information both candidates put forth was not new, but i thought the value of it was to be found in not only the manner in which it was imparted, but in body language and attitude.

First of all, I felt that Obama was clear, articulate, and largely effective in imparting his vision for his presidency. McCain on the other hand, came off as a disrespectful, condescending, disingenuous BULLY. I mean, to refer to Obama with a jutted thumb and a designation of "THAT one" was bad form. It showed great disrespect. Meanwhile, Obama would sit calmly, composed, and grin mildly at the many insults McCain threw out. This made him appear presidential, and showed him to be graceful under pressure. McCain's constant use of the phrase "my friends" when he addressed the audience was insulting. I mean really. No one there was HIS FRIEND. He was trying to align himself with common folk, and it only came off as presumptuous and transparent. His attempt at humor might have brought amusement to himself (he laughed each time he said something he thought was funny) but it was met with mostly silence. This does not suggest he is in any way "in touch" with the voters. Hell, he even said something insulting and sarcastic to Tom Brocaw...

Brokaw: Obviously the powers of the treasury secretary have been greatly expanded. The most powerful officer in the cabinet now. Hank Paulson says he won't stay on. Who do you have in mind to appoint to that very important post?

McCain: Not you, Tom.

WTF?
More of the same ill-conceived retorts from McCain.

Early in the debate, McCain tried to blame Obama for the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae collapse. McCain pointed to Obama and said, "They're the ones that, with the encouragement of Sen. Obama and his cronies and his friends in Washington, that went out and made all these risky loans, gave them to people that could never afford to pay back," McCain said. On rebuttal, Senator Obama said, "I've got to correct a little bit of Sen. McCain's history, not surprisingly. ... In fact, Sen. McCain's campaign chairman's firm was a lobbyist on behalf of Fannie Mae, not me."

Another time, McCain made some reference to a famous quote to "walk softly and carry a big stick" and then accused Obama of having said he would "invade Pakistan." This is of course, not what he said. He said he would go after al Qaeda, the Taliban and Bin Laden in particular, with or without help from Pakistan. Never did he say a word about aggression toward Pakistan itself. To this fresh morass of spin, Obama responded, "This is a guy who sang 'bomb, bomb, bomb Iran,' who called for the annihilation of North Korea — that I don't think is an example of speaking softly."

Then McCain gave a laundry list of things Obama was "wrong" about, and added, with a high degree of disgust in his tone, "We don't have TIME for on-the-Job Training, my friends." And that again, Obama just "didn't understand" so many things.

Obama defended himself with this brilliant response:

Obama: Well, you know, Sen. McCain, in the last debate and today, again, suggested that I don't understand. It's true. There are some things I don't understand. I don't understand how we ended up invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, while Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are setting up base camps and safe havens to train terrorists to attack us. That was Sen. McCain's judgment and it was the wrong judgment.

When Sen. McCain was cheerleading the president to go into Iraq, he suggested it was going to be quick and easy, we'd be greeted as liberators. That was the wrong judgment, and it's been costly to us.

So one of the difficulties with Iraq is that it has put an enormous strain, first of all, on our troops, obviously, and they have performed heroically and honorably and we owe them an extraordinary debt of gratitude.

But it's also put an enormous strain on our budget. We've spent, so far, close to $700 billion and if we continue on the path that we're on, as Sen. McCain is suggesting, it's going to go well over $1 trillion.

We're spending $10 billion a month in Iraq at a time when the Iraqis have a $79 billion surplus, $79 billion.

And we need that $10 billion a month here in the United States to put people back to work, to do all these wonderful things that Sen. McCain suggested we should be doing, but has not yet explained how he would pay for.

Now, Sen. McCain and I do agree, this is the greatest nation on earth. We are a force of good in the world. But there has never been a nation in the history of the world that saw its economy decline and maintained its military superiority.

And the strains that have been placed on our alliances around the world and the respect that's been diminished over the last eight years has constrained us being able to act on something like the genocide in Darfur, because we don't have the resources or the allies to do everything that we should be doing.

That's going to change when I'm president, but we can't change it unless we fundamentally change Sen. McCain's and George Bush's foreign policy. It has not worked for America.

In fact, McCain spent so much time attacking Obama, that he had little time to relate his ideas about the challenges ahead. Obama at least stayed on message, and articulated with clarity his ideas. When McCain derided Obama for his statement that he would sit down and talk with our enemies (such as Iran), Obama was able to clarify this attempt at making him look weak. He said that we have learned that NOT talking led to many of the problems we have right now in foreign relations. He also admitted that it might not work, but that he would make the attempt and make it clear that certain behaviors would have to change, and if they did we could all work together toward common goals, but if not, the military options would still be on the table if necessary. This would give us more leverage in the international community because we would have attempted diplomatic solutions first. Something the BUSH administration has been staunchly against with Dubya's Cowboy Politics.

Another thing: McCain shook the hand of a Navy guy, thanking him for his service, and trying his best to personalize that connection. At the end of the debate, McCain AVOIDED shaking Obama's hand, and Obama got the message and didn't force it. Then McCain left early, while Obama went over to the retired Navy man and engaged him in conversation, as well as other members of the audience. McCain was long gone. This made McCain look petty, and again, disingenuous.

The polls agree with my assessment, evidently. McCain's numbers went down, and Obama's went up. Even Republican pundits were saying that Obama appeared "presidential" and McCain appeared condescending.

One thing i think we desperately need in the White House is an INTELLIGENT PRESIDENT who can communicate with clarity, and sincerity, and keeps calm under pressure. This would NOT be McCain, but Obama.

2nd Presidential Debate

Maverick AKA Reckless

Last week, McCain said he was working on the bailout proposal, but then said in another interview that he hadn't read it yet. He had not read it before or during the time he suspended his campaign. McCain said in his book that he wants to be the first one to make a decision--he makes decisions quickly and he sometimes pays the price for that--but that hasn't taught him anything.

He showed that when he selected--much to the surprise of pundits and colleagues alike--Sarah Palin as his VP, when this meant she would be one bad heartbeat away from the presidency, should he again get cancer as he has four times before, or suffer from myriad other ailments usually visited on those over 70. The running mate issue is usually not so onerous, but that's because most Presidents-elect chose someone who was qualified. Does any freethinking person REALLY believe that Palin is qualified or capable of being president? She may seem like "common folk" but i don't want my president (OR VP for that matter) to be "Common folk." I want them to be uncommon. And uncommonly able. I want them to be intelligent, discerning, experienced and rational.

Need an example of irrational?

How about not believing in abortion, but also not believing in sex education and birth control? Could there BE a better way to insure that all young girls become pregnant? One need only look as far as Palin's own 16 year old PREGNANT daughter to get this point. And what about Palin's statement that dinosaurs walked the Earth with man? Anyone who maintains that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, without acknowledging the empirical proof we have to the contrary, is not someone who has her head on straight. Does she know about our geologic column and the FACT of evolution and geologic time? Or does she just dismiss it as "not of God"? Never mind her hobby of killing endangered wolves, not to feed her family, but for the sheer joy of killing an animal. And never mind that she has to be hidden from the media because she's not capable of holding her own in any real question and answer session from a respected journalist (Couric). Never mind that she has to be "Trained" to debate, and has to "Cram" for the test of being Vice President. I believe one ought to be qualified beforehand. (And by the way, Governor Palin: the word is pronounced "new- clee-ur" not "newk-ya-lur"...didn't we just put up with that bit of insipidness for the last 8 years with BUSH?)

Did McCain think that choosing Palin would gain the ticket all those female voters who supported Hillary? Like we'll vote for whomever has breasts? So yeah, McCain picking Palin does show he's a maverick. But in this context, that's not a compliment. Do you want a Maverick to have his finger on the nuclear button? Someone who has stated that he likes to make the quickest decision, no matter what the cost? Someone who is willing to stay in the Iraq war for a hundred more years?

McCain also revealed his maverickness again when he suspended his campaign to ostensibly ride in on his white horse and save the poor congress and the nation (though we have since learned the obvious--that this was merely political maneuvering and a blatantly transparent attempt to make himself look like he has priorities he doesn't truly have)--and then when he gets there, he doesn't even read the bill, (like he didn't read the "user's manual" for the five aircraft he ditched) and has almost nothing to offer to the conversation; he showed this maverick streak when he said he would not return to his campaign nor to the first debate until there was an agreement, (since he obviously isn't capable of multi-tasking) and then he goes to the debate after all. Do we really want a president who makes snap decisions without studying the issue fully? Don't presidents need to make informed decisions? Doesn't every thinking person need to do that?

But McCain has a history of making ill-advised decisions. When he was in the U.S. Naval Academy, there were only four other cadets who scored lower than he did. He was ranked 894 out of 899. His classmates referred to him as "McNasty." He rarely studied, and spent most of his time partying and drinking. Because of who his father and grandfather were (respected generals in the Navy) he was allowed to train as a Navy Pilot. He almost died several times in his plane because he didn't study as he should have and didn't know how to operate it properly. Once, he almost drowned when his plane crashed- (his own fault) because he didn't know how the release mechanism on his seat worked (again, his fault). By luck, he figured it out before he drowned. He was a "below par" pilot, and lost/destroyed FIVE planes. The fifth one resulted in his capture by enemy forces, which led to his being a POW. So before we pat him on the head or feel sympathy, we should first recognize that if he had been more responsible, he would not have been captured in the first place. When he returned, he was given a Commander assignment that he didn't earn, and used it to fraternize with subordinates and have affairs, which violates the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He was obviously not interested in his marriage; his wife (a former model) had been crippled in a car accident while he was away, and she was therefore damaged goods to him when he got home. He divorced her after falling in love with someone else.

One would think that a veteran would have a clear idea of what veterans need. But since he always had his needs met, because of his family name, his viewpoint is skewed.

According to the U.S. Veteran Dispatch,

"In 1979, while attending a military reception in Hawaii, McCain met and fell in love with Cindy Lou Hensley, 17 years his junior, who was the daughter of James W. Hensley, a wealthy Anheuser-Busch distributor from Phoenix, Arizona. McCain filed for and obtained an uncontested divorce from his wife in Florida on April 2, 1980 and promptly married Cindy on May 17, 1980.

He resigned from the Navy in 1981 and went to work for his father-in-law in Phoenix; where he used the opportunity to make powerful and wealthy friends in Arizona including banker Charles Keating and Duke Tully, the editor-in-chief of the Arizona Republic. Keating was later convicted of fraud, racketeering, and conspiracy and Tully was disgraced for concocting a phony military record of combat in Korea and Vietnam including medals for heroism."

The designation of "Maverick" is not always a good one when it describes a man who doesn't think things through, doesn't do the work required to be informed, and creates more problems than he solves. This is more accurately defined, not as maverick, but as reckless. How can he be depended upon to do what he says, and keep his word and be dependable, when he constantly changes his mind? This erratic modus operandi is dangerous when it exists in the highest office of the US. And we've already had 8 years of a president with "C" and "D" grades. As a president, those grades will again fall to an "F."

And his voting record on behalf of veterans in the senate?

"John McCain skipped close to a dozen votes on Iraq, and on at least another 10 occasions, he voted against arming and equipping the troops, providing adequate rest for the troops between deployments and for health care or other benefits for veterans."

Specifically?

"September 2007: McCain voted against the Webb amendment calling for adequate troop rest between deployments. At the time, nearly 65% of people polled in a CNN poll indicted that "things are going either moderately badly or very badly in Iraq.

July 2007: McCain voted against a plan to drawdown troop levels in Iraq. At the time, an ABC poll found that 63% thought the invasion was not worth it, and a CBS News poll found that 72% of respondents wanted troops out within 2 years.

March 2007: McCain was too busy to vote on a bill that would require the start of a drawdown in troop levels within 120 days with a goal of withdrawing nearly all combat troops within one year. Around this time, an NBC News poll found that 55% of respondents indicated that the US goal of achieving victory in Iraq is not possible. This number has not moved significantly since then.

February 2007: For such a strong supporter of the escalation, McCain didn’t even bother to show up and vote against a resolution condemning it. However, at the time a CNN poll found that only 16% of respondents wanted to send more troops to Iraq (that number has since declined to around 10%), while 60% said that some or all should be withdrawn. This number has since gone up to around 70%.

June 2006: McCain voted against a resolution that Bush start withdrawing troops but with no timeline to do so.

May 2006: McCain voted against an amendment that would provide $20 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for health care facilities.

April 2006: McCain was one of only 13 Senators to vote against $430,000,000 for the Department of Veteran Affairs for Medical Services for outpatient care and treatment for veterans.

March 2006: McCain voted against increasing Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in FY 2007 to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes.

March 2004: McCain once again voted for abusive tax loopholes over veterans when he voted against creating a reserve fund to allow for an increase in Veterans' medical care by $1.8 billion by eliminating abusive tax loopholes. Jeez, McCain really loves those tax loopholes for corporations, since he voted for them over our veterans' needs.

October 2003: McCain voted to table an amendment by Senator Dodd that called for an additional $322,000,000 for safety equipment for United States forces in Iraq and to reduce the amount provided for reconstruction in Iraq by $322,000,000.

April 2003: McCain urged other Senate members to table a vote (which never passed) to provide more than $1 billion for National Guard and Reserve equipment in Iraq related to a shortage of helmets, tents, bullet-proof inserts, and tactical vests.

August 2001: McCain voted against increasing the amount available for medical care for veterans by $650,000,000. To his credit, he also voted against the 2001 Bush tax cuts, which he now supports making permanent, despite the dire financial condition this country is in, and despite the fact that he indicated in 2001 that these tax cuts unfairly benefited the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class. " (Veterans For Common Sense)

McCain, a populist? A veteran's champion? Um. No.

It would take far more time and space to examine the voting record of McCain or anyone else; but it's not necessary. I know I would both agree and disagree with his various votes. (AndI have a slew of suggestions about what should change across the board in that subject). What i have seen from McCain, though, in his fundamental character and in his choices just within the election paradigm this year, is enough to tell me he is not someone I want in charge. ANd i most assuredly don't want Palin in charge, should McCain keel over.

The president needs to be intelligent, discerning, decisive and most of all INFORMED. He needs to be an accomplished communicator, more willing to negotiate before engaging in conflict, more apt to take the high road than the road of baser instinct, more capable of bringing people together, rather than tearing them apart. He needs to prefer the input of others who are experts, and have proven their mettle and their honesty, and who might disagree with him, and then consider all the variables before making a decision. He needs to be educated and to have proven the quality of his education by his grades and his decisions after schooling. This describes Obama, not McCain. And a VP needs to be capable of being this kind of president, should the president die or become incapacitated. This describes Biden, and most assuredly not Palin.

A McCain-Palin team is frightening on so many levels. Starting with the fact that he is of the same party as George W. Bush, who has almost single-handedly ruined America.

============

REFERENCES
*"John McCain:Unfit to serve as Commander-In-Chief: The spoiled son of military privilege got a free ride throughout his military career despite repeated instances of sex scandals and screw-ups" Ted Sampley. U.S. Veteran Dispatch. January 27, 2008 http://www.usvetdsp.com/jan08/mccain_military_record.htm

*"McCain's Voting Record: He Does Not Support Our Troops and Veterans." Veterans For Common Sense. http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/articleid/9559

*"McCain Profile: At the Naval Academy" Dan Nowicki and Bill Muller - Mar. 1, 2007 10:52 AM. The Arizona Republic http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/mccain/articles/2007/03/01/20070301mccainbio-chapter2.html

Maverick AKA Reckless

Self Sufficiency: It's not Just for Survivalists Anymore

Most Americans do not realize that we have the oil and natural gas resources right here under our own soil. The burning question, in light of recent historical events is: why the hell haven't we been using them? Considering the negative aspects of our dependence on other countries along with their conflicting ideologies,* we are in dire need of some common sense about the dangers of globalization. We should be tapping our own resources while being aggressive about developing our alternative energy options, with an eye toward moving away from petroleum products altogether, and then making aggressive lateral moves toward cleaner energy production and products.

For example, most of our products involve some use of petroleum for things as widespread as product packaging. This can be solved by something as simple as shifting a large sector of our agricultural focus on the cultivation of Industrial Hemp. Hemp can be used for so many things, that it would completely renew our independence and could very well save our economy. We can use hemp for packaging our products, for shopping bags, nutrition, clothing, shoes, biofuels, paper, car parts (to include the actual body of the vehicle), household decorative items and furniture, and many types of fabrics and upholstery, fiberboard (and potentially replacing wood completely, as hemp can be used for boards, bio-crete, and insulation)--almost anything we now make from wood or plastic can be made from Hemp. It grows well without pesticides, herbicides or fungicides; it produces more pulp per acre than timber, and does not require harmful or otherwise toxic additives to create these products.

Twenty six other countries cultivate Hemp, and are benefiting greatly from it. And why are we not cultivating Hemp already? Partly it's because most Americans do not understand the difference between hemp and marijuana. These are two different plants. And all the drug-fear arguments, upon closer scrutiny, are revealed to be not only negligible in light of hemp's benefits, but often completely erroneous.

Instead of seizing this opportunity to develop alternatives like Hemp, Compressed Natural Gas, Wind and Solar energies, we continue to rely on other countries who maintain their position with their hands around our throats. I fail to see the logic in continually placing ourselves in peril politically, economically, environmentally and personally by imposing our beliefs and ideologies on other countries with differing beliefs. It is not our place to recruit the world at large to the pervasive American belief-systems. It is only our place to work toward equitable and cooperative interaction when we have to, but not encouraging situations where our livelihoods or security depends on the actions and beliefs of other countries. We are not going to change their minds. They are just as committed to what they believe as we are.

I say live and let live. Self sufficiency is the crucial point here. WE have the wisdom, the resources, the education, the skill and the spirit to refashion America into a strong, independent nation that can remain capable of self sustainment, and still be a world leader when necessary. But any decisions we make based on imposing our own ideologies on others should be curtailed, if not removed entirely. The only reason this has not been so is that globalization has led us to a situation where we have dependence on these other countries for our own well-being. If we remove that dependence, we not only place ourselves in a stronger position internationally, but we ensure the stability of the United States--which would then be under our own control, and not the machinations of politics and agendas. It would once again make America the Land of Opportunity, instead of the Land of Broken Dreams.


Refer to these wonderful sites for more information:
http://hempglobalsolutions.com/why1.php
http://www.hempline.com/applications/composites/
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/ncnu02/v5-284.html
http://hempbasics.com/

===================
*for an excellent treatise on the grave dangers of these ideologies, refer to Sam Harris's Excellent book, The End of Faith.

Self Sufficiency: It's not Just for Survivalists Anymore

"Here, Hold my Brain while I Vote..."

I sent around an email quoting Eve Ensler, the American playwright, performer, feminist and activist best known for "The Vagina Monologues." In it, Ensler delineates the many frightening beliefs for which VP candidate Sarah Palin is known. After an exhaustive list that includes Palin's devout creationism stance (which would include believing that the earth is only 6,000 years old, and evolution is a myth). Ensler elaborates:

"Sarah Palin does not believe in evolution. I take this as a metaphor. In her world and the world of Fundamentalists nothing changes or gets better or evolves.

She does not believe in global warming. The melting of the arctic, the storms that are destroying our cities, the pollution and rise of cancers, are all part of God's plan.

She is fighting to take the polar bears off the endangered species list. The earth, in Palin's view, is here to be taken and plundered. The wolves and the bears are here to be shot and plundered. The oil is here to be taken and plundered. Iraq is here to be taken and plundered. As she said herself of the Iraqi war, "It was a task from God."

Sarah Palin does not believe in abortion. She does not believe women who are raped and incested and ripped open against their will should have a right to determine whether they have their rapist's baby or not. She obviously does not believe in sex education or birth control. I imagine her daughter was practicing abstinence and we know how many babies that makes.

Sarah Palin does not much believe in thinking. From what I gather she has tried to ban books from the library, has a tendency to dispense with people who think independently. She cannot tolerate an environment of ambiguity and difference. This is a woman who could and might very well be the next president of the United States. She would govern one of the most diverse populations on the earth.

Sarah believes in guns. She has her own custom Austrian hunting rifle. She has been known to kill 40 caribou at a clip. She has shot hundreds of wolves from the air.

Sarah believes in God. That is of course her right, her private right. But when God and Guns come together in the public sector, when war is declared in God's name, when the rights of women are denied in his name, that is the end of separation of church and state and the undoing of everything America has ever tried to be."


When i received a quick response from one person on my email list to whom i sent this information, i saw this even more frightening statement:
"she just got my vote. I believe in guns."

I firmly believe in the right to bear arms--I'm a single female who currently lives alone and I want to be able to protect myself if necessary; and though i have friends who are hunters, I have never had the stomach for it, and am fine buying my meat already prepared for me to cook--I do believe that some animals are here to feed us. It's part of the food chain...BUT.......There is a profound difference between gun owners who use them for protection or to legally hunt in order to provide for their families and thin out overpopulated herds of animals that cause great distress to our ecology, and hunting merely for sport. What does Palin do with the wolves she kills? Make wolf-burgers? Both wolves and polar bears are endangered. What would be the point of hunting then, other than her own sick satisfaction in killing an animal?

And don't even get me started on the creationism/fundamentalist aspects. I strongly believe that extreme religion is anathema to all of us --refer to the repeated violation of our constitution by those who want to teach "creation science" (an obvious oxymoron) in our schools, and the most vivid and horrifying example that has cost us over 500 billion dollars and the lives of thousands of people after 9-11.

Here's some informative tidbits about Palin from Grizzly Bay
which has been online since 2007, long before Palin was selected as VP candidate. Go to the original page for verifying links off this information...

All facts below about Sarah Palin are backed up by links to credible news sources

1) She is opposed to abortion even in cases of rape and incest (even if victims are children)

2) She offered a bounty of $150 for each left front leg of freshly killed wolves

3) She is presently under investigation in Alaska for abuse of power

4) She strongly supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

5) She promotes aerial hunting of wolves and bears even though Alaskans voted twice to ban the practice

6) She used $400,000 of state money to fund a propaganda campaign in support of aerial hunting

7) She is a champion for big oil and her campaign slogan has become "Drill, baby, drill!"

8) She believes creationism should be taught in public schools

9) She believes man-made global warming is a farce

10) She is opposed to listing the polar bear as an endangered species because it might limit oil exploitation

11) While mayor of Wasilla she tried to fire the city librarian because the librarian refused to censor books

12) She supports the Alaskan Independence Party which seeks independence from the United States

13) As mayor of Wasilla, she made rape victims pay for their own forensic evidence kits

14) She is opposed to listing the Cook Inlet beluga whale as an endangered species

15) She obtained her first passport just last year (2007)


Photos of Palin's Killings

Let me say that I am neither Democrat, nor Republican--I am an Independent. I choose my candidate according to whether or not they are best suited for the job of healing this broken country. So this is not a partisan argument. But the level of ignorance this email pronouncement ("she just got my vote. I believe in guns.") illustrates, is, i believe, part and parcel of the thinking (or NOT thinking) present in far too many people in our society. The more cogent points get missed, the deeper ramifications get overlooked, and the skills of discernment and wisdom are shockingly absent. The scariest part of all? These people are allowed to vote.

"Here, Hold my Brain while I Vote..."

What is her motive?

This is a question on a certain type of test. I pose it here, and any who wish to answer, may do so in the comments area below the post....after I get a few answers, I will post the information about what it is and what the answers suggest..

HERE'S THE QUESTION:

A woman, while at the funeral of her own mother, met a guy whom she did not know. She thought this guy was amazing. She believed him to be her dream guy so much, that she fell in love with him right there, but never asked for his number and could not find him. A few days later she killed her sister.

What is her motive for killing her sister? [Give this some thought before you answer]

What is her motive?

BIG NEWS!!!

I was just offered a publishing contract for my novel, Plethora.

I'm excited. All that hard work paid off!

Details pending.

(I still await word from another publisher about a different book.)

BIG NEWS!!!

Bigfoot, BigLie

Yeah, what a shock.

Bigfoot, BigLie

Remains to be seen

Today, there is supposed to be this big announcement about the Bigfoot carcass allegedly found in the woods in Atlanta area. The men who have him in a freezer say they say two other Bigfoots (Bigfeet?) dragging the body through the woods. They procured the thing and dragged it out themselves. They are quoted with some big talk, like how everyone will be sorry if they are skeptical. I'm anxious and curious to know the truth. But I don't believe it for a minute. Remains to be seen. (literally).

Remains to be seen

What I'm up to...

I'm moving to Boulder, CO at the end of the year. Have three friends moving there at the same time, too. That's convenient. I'm really looking forward to it.

Meantime, i'm going through everything and getting rid of as much as possible. Too much to pack and move this time.

Also working diligently on one of my current books: "Supernatural Hypocrisy: The Cognitive Dissonance of a God Cosmology." Probably my hardest project so far, but i felt I had to do this for me and maybe for anyone else out there who struggles with such things.

Also waiting to hear from two publishers about two of my books. Wish me luck.

What I'm up to...

Told you it's about the Oceans.

In a previous post, i lamented the way we hyperfocus on space exploration when the oceans on our own planet offer humanity so much. Here's some more evidence i was right.


Cancer-inhibiting Compound Found Under The Sea

ScienceDaily (Aug. 10, 2008) — University of Florida College of Pharmacy researchers have discovered a marine compound off the coast of Key Largo that inhibits cancer cell growth in laboratory tests, a finding they hope will fuel the development of new drugs to better battle the disease.

The UF-patented compound, largazole, is derived from cyanobacteria that grow on coral reefs. Researchers, who described results from early studies today (Aug. 7) at an international natural products scientific meeting in Athens, Greece, say it is one of the most promising they've found since the college's marine natural products laboratory was established three years ago.

An initial set of papers in the Journal of the American Chemical Society also has garnered the attention of other scientists, and the lab is racing to complete additional research. The molecule's natural chemical structure and ability to inhibit cancer cell growth were first described in the journal in February and the laboratory synthesis and description of the molecular basis for its anticancer activity appeared July 2.

"It's exciting because we've found a compound in nature that may one day surpass a currently marketed drug or could become the structural template for rationally designed drugs with improved selectivity," said Hendrik Luesch, Ph.D., an assistant professor in UF's department of medicinal chemistry and the study's principal investigator.

Largazole, discovered and named by Luesch for its Florida location and structural features, seeks out a family of enzymes called histone deacetylase, or HDAC. Overactivity of certain HDACs has been associated with several cancers such as prostate and colon tumors, and inhibiting HDACs can activate tumor-suppressor genes that have been silenced in these cancers.

Although scientists have been probing the depths of the ocean for marine products since the early 1960s, many pharmaceutical companies lost interest before researchers could deliver useful compounds because natural products were considered too costly and time-consuming to research and develop.

Many common medications, from pain relievers to cholesterol-reducing statins, stem from natural products that grow on the earth, but there is literally an ocean of compounds yet to be discovered in our seas. Only 14 marine natural products developed are in clinical trials today, Luesch said, and one drug recently approved in Europe is the first-ever marine-derived anticancer agent.

"Marine study is in its infancy," said William Fenical, Ph.D., a distinguished professor of oceanography and pharmaceutical sciences at the University of California, San Diego. "The ocean is a genetically distinct environment and the single, most diverse source of new molecules to be discovered."

The history of pharmacy traces its roots back thousands of years to plants growing on Earth's continents, used by ancient civilizations for medicinal purposes, Fenical added. Yet only in the past 30 years have scientists begun to explore the organisms in Earth's oceans, he said. Fewer than 30 labs exist worldwide and research dollars have only become available in the past 15 years.

HDACs are already targeted by a drug approved for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma manufactured by the global pharmaceutical company Merck & Co. Inc. However, UF's compound does not inhibit all HDACs equally, meaning a largazole-based drug might result in improved therapies and fewer side effects, Luesch said.

Since 2006, Luesch and his team of researchers have screened cyanobacteria provided by collaborator Valerie Paul, Ph.D., head scientist at the Smithsonian Marine Station in Fort Pierce. They check the samples for toxic activity against cancer cells and last year encountered one exceptionally potent extract — the one that ultimately yielded largazole.

To conduct further biological testing on the compound, Luesch and his team have been collaborating with Jiyong Hong, an assistant professor in the department of chemistry at Duke University, to replicate its natural structure and its actions in the laboratory.

Luesch said that within the next few months he plans to study whether largazole reduces or prevents tumor growth in mice.

Luesch has several other antitumor natural products from Atlantic and Pacific cyanobacteria in the pipeline.

"We have only scratched the surface of the chemical diversity in the ocean," Luesch said. "The opportunities for marine drug discovery are spectacular."

Told you it's about the Oceans.

Obama on faith and politics

This video might have won my vote in November.

Obama on faith and politics

Kissing Hank's Ass

Kissing Hank's Ass

Love Archetype

I had five dreams about her again last night. I wasn't thinking about her when i went to sleep, nor the whole day before. But again, i dream about her. too often. And it's always the same. She is in some way being nice to me. The dreams always feel so good. So why am i complaining? well, because it's a dream and not real. I never did get that closure with her. She never was nice to me.

It's complicated also by the fact that in all these dreams, the "nice:" gets mixed in with the romantic, and she is kissing me, hugging me. I don't think we've ever actually made love in any of these dreams, but there is always the strong suggestion that's where it's going.
Ten years is a long time for someone to remain buried in your subconscious, only to be resurrected in nocturnal worlds. I'm not still in love with her. I'm not even the same person i was then. I don't want her back. I want that feeling. And she's the only one I had the feeling with. The only one i was so deeply in love with. And so she remains an icon...an archetype in my brain.

I made the mistake a couple of months ago of seeing those old memories in video and photographs and text. And that's when it started. And so I dream of her. And when i wake, i don't want to wake. I want to go back to sleep and dream of her again. Her touching me, smiling, laughing, kissing me, and being nice.

Love Archetype