Not a Sign of the Apocalypse

Because it's Friday and because I feel in a very Who-y mood, I give you the Doctor Who Fan Orchestra and their performances to date. More than a little fitting that a collaborative performance of "New" Who music is performed by participants at various points in time and space.

If You're Gay, You Must Read This

Even when he is linking to other quality content from his quality content, Mark Shea speaks the truth.

Oh, you're probably wondering about that title, huh? Bear with me.

In earnest, though, I think Mary Kochan has a point here. In fairness, it's a point I have made before. It's also the reason I'm baffled as to why every group with a pet advocacy isn't also pro-life. And yes, I'm looking at you, gay people.

Here's a reality that Donald McClarey would bristle at: whether you are for "traditional marriage" or "marriage equality" is absolutely irrelevant if you're not also unequivocally pro-life. Also moot before the question of life is whether we ought to build a society driven by market forces or civic paternalism. SOPA? Doesn't effing matter, bro. NDAA, TSA, and what the hey? They can't lock you up, grab your crotch, or whatever else it is they plan if you aren't alive in the first place.

Honestly, people: the right to life is the tap root. It is the mother of all rights. It is, as my political science professor would likely chuckle to read me say, the conditio sine qua non of basically the entire premise of polity qua polity. You can't actually have an authentic society without acknowledging the right to life - hell, you can't even limp along with a shit society for long without it. You go from a kingdom of ends to a kingdom of means, where everyone is a tool for everyone else and nobody is a person to anyone.

I've made it known that I don't put a lot of importance on the idea of keeping homosexuality out of civil marriage, because I think it's a stupid fight (more on that another time, if you will); but I think it's a fight still more foolish when the wholesale dehumanization of the fundamentally innocent and defenseless is a fact of daily life. That's my critique of people on "my" side of the fence.

Of course, this is also precisely why I think that if you are for "marriage equality," then you should also be pro-life.

Wait...what?

You heard me. Are you gay? Do you think that gay folks ought to enjoy legal recognition and benefits - should they be minded to obtain them - to which they are not currently entitled under the law? Are you convinced that there is a contingent within society that is hell-bent on denying you what you see as fundamental human rights?

Fine, then go ahead and pursue your goals and your agendas. Just know this - if your opponents are really as full of hate as you think they are, what do you think will stop them from coming up with a way of testing for homosexuality in utero and essentially abortion you people out of existence? Seem far fetched? Probably, at the moment. But in a day when babies are literally commodities to be ordered to spec and discarded if they do not meet certain "quality" metrics, what makes you so confident that being gay isn't going to go out of style or become disfavored at some point? How can you be so certain you won't be the next Down's Syndrome - in other words, in a situation where only a micro-minority survive until birth?

I would submit that, as absurd as you might deem that scenario, you would be wrong. And even if you aren't wrong about this, specifically, your fundamental human dignity - the one that doesn't give a crap about whom you're buggering, or what, or where - is compromised without reference to the sexuality (the importance of which you've inflated beyond all reason). The right to life, once compromised for some, is compromised for all. It is not a slippery slope; it's the rutting Hoover Dam, and rather than an erosion of the right, abortion is a ton of TNT sitting at the base. If you're sitting at the top, you may not notice right away that there's a hole at the bottom. But in time - and not too much time, in historical terms - you're going to notice. Mark my words.

So maybe it's time for you to get your head out of your partner's ass - sorry, couldn't resist - and think about where things are going. Maybe rethink your priorities. But don't wait too long. There might not be a society left to impart recognition to your union if you wait too long.

Warning: Brief Moment of Excessive Awesomeness Ahead

You're welcome.

Ask Me How Sick I am of This

Any number of characters in the cow manure pit that is political punditry whom I know to be capable of stringing English sentences together have been driving me up a wall this election season over just one single thing. Okay, so they're driving me up a wall over a whole mess of things, but this one thing over all: nobody seems to be able to rub more than two or three words together to denigrate Ron Paul's foreign policy. The most common permutations are "It is foolish" or "It is stupid," while as far as I can tell in reality it is neither.

What exactly is this keh-RAY-zy foreign policy that takes the politically-opinionated class' verbosity away? The sloughing off of foreign entaglements? The shuttering of bases in every corner of the world? Admitting that, were we to talk about America's "sphere of interest," we would not be talking about the sphere that is our entire planet? The curtailing of a military and military-industrial complex against which a hero of WWII and president famously warned? Let me ask you exactly what kind of crank you think said these words:

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

I know, nuts, right?

Truth be told, I'm starting to think that the comparisons between America and Rome are becoming more apt. We've gone from a country that acknowledged military power as a necessary evil to one that idolizes it as the epitome of manliness. Even those of us who should know better are little more than cheerleaders for the legionnaires. And it's this militaristic idolatry that leads me to the conclusion that it's not the self-evident foolishness of those like Ron Paul that leaves the talking heads with a dearth of words; rather, it's their inability to form an argument against an ideology that does not recognize the ground from which they would sally forth. Or perhaps it's from which they would courageously launch their unmanned drones, these days.

Whatever way you slice it, I'm seeing a depressing lack of engagement around the fundamentals of foreign policy. Everyone is straining to outdo each other to jam us still farther down the sorry rabbit whole of entanglement, until we truly become Trey Parker and Matt Stone's Team America: World Police.

So here comes a challenge that I expect to go unmet: somebody give me a detailed argument in favor of the position that Ron Paul is foolish or insane on foreign policy. I'm not promising you a series of Lincoln-Douglas style debates (does my head look as big as Newt's?) but I have been wanting a discussion on this topic so badly for so long that I am ready to argue and ultimately to lose, if that's what it takes. Confirm I'm right, prove me wrong, whatever it takes, I just need to have it out on this one.

Although based on my past efforts to engage on this, I'm not holding my breath.

Just the Start of Another Week in the Great White North

...Yup. It's pretty much like that.

Suddenly I Think I Know What H. G. Wells Was Getting At

Okay, so the prospect that an octopus isn't satisfied just sitting, waiting for me to go into the water so that it can drag me to a cold and watery death, and is also fully capable and willing to crawl out and chase me down on land, is pretty terrifying in and of itself. I would even say that, if it were a somewhat larger octopus, it would not only play to my inherent discomfort with writhing things, but would qualify as at least semi-apocalyptic.

But wait! There's more. Not only can octopus kind now come after us on our own turf, but apparently they can edit the way their bodies build protein molecules to enable them to better withstand extreme environments; so if we, say, tried to defend ourselves by sheltering in colder climates, or by inventing a freeze ray, or something along those lines...it basically wouldn't matter:

Low temperatures hamper certain proteins that allow the nervous system to send signals. When a nerve cell fires, protein channels in its membrane open or close to allow various ions in or out. And when the electrical charge across the cell membrane returns to normal, the ion channels that let potassium ions out shut. But frigid temperatures can delay the potassium channels’ closing, hindering the neuron’s ability to fire again. So researchers hypothesized that species inhabiting frigid climates have modified their potassium channels so they work better in the cold.

[...] The pair recently tested their suspicion by comparing an octopus species that lives in frigid Antarctic seas with another dwelling on a Puerto Rican reef where the water ranges from 25° to 35°C. To their surprise, they found that the potassium channel genes in the two species had almost identical DNA sequences. Next, the researchers inserted the genes into frog egg cells, which then manufactured each protein and installed it in their plasma membrane. This procedure allowed the researchers to measure the electrical activity of each species’ channel.

Oh, as they say, crap. Or, as you might also say, just the latest...

Weekly Sign of the Apocalypse.

And You Thought Your Day was Trying

A New Friday Feature

So "God's Grandeur Friday" was great and all, but it feels so 2011. I wanted to try something else for 2012. But what to do? Hmm...

Well, the way I approach these sorts of questions, I looked to the times for inspiration; and it being 2012 (the year the world ends according to those plucky Mayans, don'tcha know) and no less auspicious a day that the first Friday the 13th of that weighty year, I thought that we could do something like...

The Weekly Sign of the Apocalypse

Yes, I know this might seem a lot like what a certain other blog has been known to do on an entirely-too-intermittent basis, but it's the year for this kind of thing. And I'm doing it in Comic Sans, which makes it that much more apocalypse-y. At least, the way I interpret things, the Internet seems to believe that this is Satan's personal font of choice; and when was the last time the Internet was wrong about something?

So anyway, signs of the Apocalypse. Where am I going to find one of those? Oh, wait, I know: here.

If you're one of those people who clicks on a link and finishes reading later, then you already know what I mean. For the rest of you, I should caution you that it combines two already unholy things - the CW Network and reality TV - to create a monstrosity that is, somehow, unholier than either. I refer to what amounts to the lovechild of a classic party game and professional wrestling:

The 10-episoe series, created and executive produced by Phil Gurin, Richard Joel and Deena Dill, is described as a high-stakes, high-octane musical chairs competition in which 20 daredevils race head to head through five obstacle course-style eliminations as they each compete to claim a chair — to the sounds of a live band.

I'm sorry, but that just doesn't seem right. It makes Most Extreme Elimination Challenge seem lighthearted. It's exactly the same kind of show, but unlike the aforementioned MXC, which aired on what can only be described as a cable channel that specializes in shallow drivel, it's airing on a broadcast network which...oh.

So maybe it's not exactly a new horseman, but it is a familiar horseman dressed in a much more ludicrous outfit. I stand by my assertion that it is yet another road sign along the carpool lane to our doom.

Well That's Done With

So I just voted. We'll see whether it bears fruit.

A Question for Democrats

Speaking of election guides, I find myself desperately in need of answers to two questions: First, who came up with a "lesser-known presidential candidates" forum? Because that is a darned cool idea. Second, is it the fact that the fairly hard-to-overlook fellow in the video below has somehow been overlooked that makes him no threat to Obama? Because anyone who's running on zombie preparedness, oral hygiene, and a pony for every American (I know, right? A pony!) should be able to give ol' Barry a serious run for his money.