Creation Wins!!!

Brian Benson, an eighth-grade student who won first place in the Life Science/Biology category for his project “Creation Wins!!!,” says he disproved part of the theory of evolution. Using a rolled-up paper towel suspended between two glasses of water with Epsom Salts, the paper towel formed stalactites. He states that the theory that they take millions of years to develop is incorrect.

“Scientists say it takes millions of years to form stalactites,” Benson said. “However, in only a couple of hours, I have formed stalactites just by using paper towel and Epsom Salts.”

Scientists say it takes millions of years to form volcanoes. However, in only a couple of minutes, I have formed a volcano just by using a paper cone filled with baking soda and vinegar.

RIP SmarterChild

SmarterChild (7:47:31 PM): My brain is retired but send an IM to my friends GossipinGabby, Prof Gilzot and Sportsfanstan. Send POLL to IMSTREET to decide if SHAGGY is smarter than SCOOBY!

You will be missed as my two-second dictionary.

Homosexuality.

For apparent reasons, homosexuality has been an object of taboo for thousands of years. From the distinction of being unnatural in human reproduction—based in part from the stereotypes that such people may bolster, to religious values, to general uneasiness from the lack of exposure of such a prospect in human sexuality. While it is deemed unnatural to mammals of our kind, those mammalian species of domesticated dogs and cats (including cheetah and tigers), elephants, marmosets, rats, bears, buffalo, dolphin, bison, caribou, and racoons have been subject to an examination, and some animals from the listed have shown homosexual behavior - and what is surprising is that these animals aren't nearly all that have been put through such tests. The list continues with wallaby, foxes, gazelle, orangutan, warthog, porcupine, kangaroo, moose, chimpanzees, brushtail possums, spermwhales, sheep, rabbits, goats, gorillas, monkeys, zebras, Tasmanian devils, macaque, mice, reindeer, grey wolves, and antelope. What's even more surprising is that the entire list has barely begun in this explanation.

How does one deem this kind of behavior (if one could call it a behavior rather than a genetic trait) unnatural if all of those animals have been proven to have members of their respective categories engage in homosexual acts, tendencies, and, in some cases, desires? And while on the subject, mammals are certainly not the only creatures in nature to have displayed one or more of these same-sex mannerisms: the list continues further with birds, insects, invertebrates, reptiles, fish and amphibians. Chickens, gull, emu, penguins, ostriches, owls, parakeets, shelduck, heron, raven, swallows, hummingbirds, domesticated turkeys, geese, swan, storks, lorikeets, bluebirds and finches all have engaged in homosexual behavior and tendencies. This, again, is barely scratching the list of all of the birds that have been exposed to scientific study.

Would you like more examples? Weevils, beetles, flies, mites, butterflies, ants, cutworms, bees, wasps, crickets, stink-bugs, moths, spiders and milkweed bugs fit into this category. So do the desert toad, mountain dusky salamander, Appalachian woodland salamander, and black-spotted frog. And I'll be sure not to leave out the gecko, anole, whiptail lizard, bearded dragon, tortoise, wood turtles, snakes (including the red diamond rattlesnake, water moccasin, western rattlesnake, common garter snake and speckled rattlesnake). And we can't leave out the fish, which include the grayling, char, jewel fish, houting whitefish, least darter, Amazonian molly, blackstripe topminnow, salmon, platyfish, mouthbreathers and green swordtail.

With all of these in mind, I defy you to tell me that this kind of thing isn't natural.

"But is homosexuality a choice or are you born with it?"

That is something that has, I'm sure, baffled many people who claim to be attracted to the same sex. And while this could be argued in many ways, allow me to present one argument that I find particularly interesting: Homosexuality as a genetic defect. We receive hormones from each column, male and female, and which become dominant determines what gender we will become. As a person is born a transvestite, what if this mental tendency to be attracted to either sex is determined by what sex you become, during conception inside your mother? What if this idea of homosexuality (which also encapsulates lesbianism) is a defect of sorts like transvestitism? For you to subscribe to this notion, it would have to assume one thing: that sexual orientation isn't a preference that we come to make in our lives, but what we are born with.

Another theory I find interesting is that the likelihood of you becoming homosexual depends on how many brothers you have had that suceeded you. The theory is that the sperm from a male (that is particularly virile, I suppose) fertilizes the egg of the woman, and the woman's body releases antigens toward the blastocyst because it doesn't know how to respond to it at first. What it comes to mean is that the more children a woman has, the more her body becomes adept to handling it, of sorts—and thus, the more estrogen-enriched a successive brother becomes, the more chance it has of becoming a homosexual. For example: If you are a first-born child, you have the least likelihood, depending on the substances involved. If you are the last-born child from, say, a sibling chain of two or three, you have the most likelihood. Another study shows that the sexual orientation, among other things, of the child depends solely on the raising of the child. Some argue that if a person grows up from, say, a neglectful father and an overcompensating, but loving mother, that they will become homosexual. I have nothing to add to this assertion because that's basically all there is to it.

What do I believe? Simple. That every human decides what they will become from their own accord—but this decision is also influenced by things such as (and as I've mentioned before), religious indoctrination, the background of which you live, your peers and society around you in general, the acceptance of said peers and your family (but mostly the people who raised you), among other things, I'm certain. My belief is that we are not chosen to be anything in life, and that, as life tends to be a random thing in general, that we come to accept what best suits us. Consider: do people who have an attraction to children come into life born that way? Do people who have an attraction to animals? Do people who have attractions to themselves? For you to say you don't believe people are born in these fashions, you must also reject that people are born gay or straight—and for you to do that, you would be affirming my point.

Everyone is decidedly different, and everyone has a different preference. I believe there is no status quo of what sexual orientation one is supposed to adhere to, because, as everyone is different in their own ways, even orientation is a matter of preference. Before I end this post, I know anyone could argue "but if homosexuality is a matter of preference, how come those animals you mentioned engaged in it naturally?" And for someone to argue this, they would confirm that is a natural process, even disagreeing with my position. Humans have both of the virtues of reasoning and introspection. The study of animals proves that the homosexual process is a natural event, but to say that they prove homosexuality is a trait that one is born with admits one thing: that being gay is something out of the control of someone else. As this argument compares animals to humans, you cannot assume one over the other: either I'm wrong and homosexuality is an innate characteristic, thereby absolving any who is one of any judgment—or I'm correct and animals engaging in such acts is a natural thing, observed on the basis of nature itself, and that the entire orientation comes from a personal preference.

Either way, should gays be discriminated against?

Landay Cometh

I'm establishing a new day of the week, in dedication of myself.

There will now be eight days in a week, and Landay will occur after Wednesday and before Thursday.

Your average week will proceed as such: Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Landay, Thursday, Friday, Saturday

Every week of October 31st will skip Landay as it is known by any other means, and Landay will instead replace whatever day October 31st lands on - and thus, Halloween will also be Landay.

Be sure to use the White Out on your calendars!

I Have A Realization

Ask anyone around you about slavery in the United States and the sentiment is usually looked upon as one of two things: morally reprehensible by the greater spectrum of our citizens, or a great detriment to the country for the attempted abolishment of it. The former conclusion is of no surprise when it is pondered, as it has become a textbook staple of the United States—and one that our leaders have fought for, including President-Elect Barack Obama (represent). This utopian concept of racial equality is conceivably derived from the American Dream; our very own aptly-named Statue of Liberty is a symbol of freedom and, of course, personal liberty - with the lifestyle pursuits of the members of the United States, of which, becoming attained through free choice and determination. This is known as the pursuit of happiness, and the idea is sufficiently presented where the term "American Dream" was coined in the first place:


"The American Dream is that dream of a land in which life should be better and
richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability
or achievement. It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to
interpret adequately, and too many of us ourselves have grown weary and
mistrustful of it. It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a
dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain
to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by
others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or
position." —James Truslow Adams, Epic of America

With this concept in mind, it is easy to imagine an equal America, but not everyone agrees to this concept. In the latter position I've mentioned, I am referring to those with a racial bias who have inhabited their place in this country through their Constitutional freedom of speech - and their unmentioned-but-assumed freedom of expression. First off: supremacy based on a heritage. As I understand it, racial supremacists come in at least two groups: those who want to enslave the peoples of their disdain, or just exterminate them. These dispositions can spring from anything - and, now that I think about it, the reasoning for either of these ideals encapsulate a wide range of things. While I could devote an entire blog post to describing these types of people, the act of slavery itself is what I wish to discuss - and thus no subject regarding the issue will have prominence over another. As I make this digression, some of the reasons I referred to are subject, but not limited to: baseless dislike, traumatic events and background.

And finally, my point begins: As you may know, in the 1600s, debted bondage was widely accepted in the United States and practiced predominantly in Virginia—this was for the caucasian people from England (and perhaps even some from our very own Americas) who couldn't afford to travel across countries. During this time, tobacco was the biggest cultivation available, and proprieters of the country ended up literally buying the physical exersions of the people who required funds; these debts were not always limited to a requested wage, however. Some of the people would work for the debts that they owed - and in rare cases the exchange was obligatory. It was customary for the masters to scold and punish their 'employees' as slavemasters would - and it would come to no surprise that these indistinctive-looking people could make a runaway with a great ease, as they tended to blend in with the freed people in the populated city, who greatly resembled them. When Africans came marching from their rice and cotton fields, their dark skin attracted our American ancestors, as this race couldn't blend in.

And thus the era of racial slavery began.

Consider: How morally reprehensible is the act of debted bondage if it is a means to make currency? Given, the lifespans of our first-known slaveworkers often ended within 8-10 years of reaching the plantations—and this was brilliant for the employers because they could legally work their property to death as to get out of paying them anything - or just simply trade them off to someone else who could, as this was in the stipulation of becoming a slaveworker in America—but with all of this considered, that was a very long time ago, and I can see a plethora of ways where this whole idea of modern slavery is implimented to this day. I've mentioned one way in a previous post, involving corportations and prison sentences, but - as I see it - the very act of doing an exhausting job for nothing greater than minimum wage (which often isn't enough), and seemingly having no option of escaping the job without losing what little progress you've made, would be a very modernized form of bondage for wages.

Do note that I'm not an advocate of the negro slavery that occurred in this country. The whole of this was abolished with the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865, and someone could make any amount of claims to the contrary, but please drop what is finished. When it comes to claims of certain races being in poverty derived from racial bias, take notice that white people have been in poverty for longer periods of time and for lesser reason than even blacks. (citation: this guy). I could continue on for paragraphs more, but I feel it unnecessary; I feel my point has been made, and I can safely conclude that slavery, as it used to be, has been eviscerated from the United States of America - at least for the most part. For anyone to claim that white citizens, such as myself, owe them something for the acts of my ancestors, which were entirely out of my control, do not only subject me to something that I shouldn't have anything to do with (as I'm not a supporter of black enslavement at all), but manages to be as consistently annoying and clingy to the past as a proselytizing war veteran.

Whoa.

Pokémon has a Japanese version?

You'd never know in America.

. . .

Seriously.

Not kidding.

Unimportant Reasonings

The URL of mine is a reference, of sorts, to iota - spelled with my preference to "ae." It assumes reading it won't make an iota of a difference in how you think, because my text is simply not thought-provoking or remarkable—which may or may not be true.

The title is a reference to the Valley of Hinnom, which is a gorge inside of Jerusalem where the carcasses of murderers and thieves were burned. The Bible describes it as a place where some of the bodies of said criminals, who got caught within places like the crevices or hung on limbs (and not burned in the fires below), were consumed with worms that don't die (from said fire).

It's a metaphor describing a place where my own thoughts can either fester, or perish, from my own jurisdiction - but rather than a valley or ravine, it is more like a relatively shallow apperture, because I tend not to think about things enough to such an extent that I'd want to post them. "Where logic becomes dissected and misconstrued" is simply another self-defeating assumption.

Finally, the defecating stormtrooper: it demonstrates a single entity - myself - which is most often looked upon as a collective, in a particularly brooding state. It speaks multitudes about the nature of this blog, and even myself in general. Stormtroopers are most often portrayed in massive groups; this is entirely symbolic of my past tendencies of plagiarizing mannerisms about other peoples' personalities to garner a general appeal. The act itself portrayed is indicative of a brooding, contemplative nature as he gazes at a magazine—and just as he's taking apart the meanings and nuances of the pages of the magazine, so too did I with my own personality.

Lanza's Gambit

Lanza's Gambit is a suggestion posed by the American pseudo-philosophical Lanza of aeota.blogspot.com that even though the existence of a religious person's stupidity by wholeheartedly believing in something without any evidence of existence in the first place cannot be determined through reason, he should "wager" as though said stupidity exists, because doing so has the potential to be correct, and he certainly has nothing to lose if it isn't.

Amoral Morality

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Evil?

Good men?

What are these preconceived notions that some men are inherently good, or that evil exists at all? People under the presumption of a guideline of morality can adhere to this guideline, but what is it that makes the establisher(s) of this ethical code good in doing so, and abiding by these regulations? Where is the starting point of what this concept of "good" is, and how can we know what the true essence of morality is—if it exists at all? This is a form of idealism that subjugates itself and the denizens that reside under it into the form of a code of conduct in society that every person capable of judgment and cognitive thinking must abide by in order to strive through the interpretation of the social paragon of what is presumed to be an unwithering axiom of humanistic decency and an outright expression of base morality in thinking and actions.

There is a fault in this design, in that this strict ideal of morality is subjective by something as simple as a change of surrounding. For instance, is the country of Yamen immoral for having an age of sexual consent of nine years old? Are Switzerland and Germany immoral for allowing the sexual intercourse of and the pornography of animals (who are, like the underdeveloped minds of small children, incapable of consenting)? This could very well be the case for anyone in the United States, where our moral guidelines contradict the above activity, but who are we to determine the ethical status quo of other people—or to deal absolutes about ethics in general? One cannot argue in the defense of these matters contrary to what they've been raised to believe - simply because there is a locational bias of ethics that parents place on their offspring.

For someone to know of what is moral would assume that there is anything in this categorization to speak of in the first place; if a lot of people subscribe to one set modus operandi, does that make it legitimate, or correct? Not necessarily—it could very well make all of those people equally delusional—which is often the case with many things. We are humans, and we are capable of conceptualization, judgment, personal reasoning and convictions, but let's assume you subscribe to the theory of evolution: did our hominid primordials, who were presumably incapable of any of these things, create such a guideline of morals that they followed? The safe answer is no, because how could they have? Just as we are humans whose minds desperately seek answers to questions that we don't know said answers to, we have established these codes.

Just as we've established these codes, we have established the laws to said codes which we also must abide; they're both two sides of the same coin. Don't think so? Consider: Slavery in the United States began in 1607, after British colonists settled Virginia, and lasted until the Thirteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution was ratified in 1865. From the year 1654 until the Thirteenth Amendment, slavery was considered a legal practice—in fact, some would argue that it was immoral to let African American, lesser 'savages' go free as normal citizens. Was it an act of morality for the Philadelphia Convention to pass this amendment, or is was it an act of morality in the first place to keep the assertion of lesser humans as slaves to be controlled? While slavery in the United States has downgraded, would it be moral or immoral for men in Saudi Arabia to treat their women as slaves? There, where if a married woman gets raped, she is stoned to death for adultery. How is this not a base definition of slavery in itself?

What makes something moral or immoral, if anything?

Nothing.

At least, not as far as I can tell.

Consider: Is it moral or immoral for big-business corporations in America to seize control over prisons where people are convicted based off of minuscule drug crimes and, in some cases, outright racial discrimination? The NLRB does not protect prison-based labor, and the aforementioned corporations aren't even in any type of obligation to pay minimum wage. Among these corporations are J.C. Penney, Toys R Us (of all places), Trans World Airlines, and Victoria's Secret. These mandatory sentencing practices sometimes have the audacity of making the convicts pay for their prisonary room and board, which are cut straight from their wages, if any wages are even present. Ask yourself: is it much of a moral improvement for big businesses to gain the benefits of human labor - and for such minute charges? This is nothing more than a modernized system of obligatory labor—something that I'd call gradual slavery.

Ultimately it is up to you to decide what ethics and morals are.

Just be careful, because they might change.

Beginnings (Shortcomings)

Details about myself are probably unimportant from your position because it is a decided fact that those who hope to get to know me never will; this is due partly to the fact that I'm an insecure person, and that I'm often quite picky when it comes to deciding on which people I can legitimately consider a friend. This is often interpreted by my peers that I'm merely an unpopular, and perhaps even an unlikeable person, and while these simple token descriptions are adequate in a commoner populace, they're much too simple to describe me, and shouldn't even be considered until the end of this measly post is absorbed.

First and foremost, the description of "friend" must be properly examined—not as the popular vote sees it, but as I do - or, at the very least, as I tend to. Any person can examine a dictionary and nitpick a definition when describing something, but when it comes to matters of personal preference or of mental emotions toward another person in general, the subjectivity can be quite overwhelming. Anyone can place the title of being a friend on another person, by nearly any means of positive relativity or any semblance of a common preference of their company, but it takes a contemplative mind to carve out their own meaning to this extension of association.

For me to explain to you what it means to be my friend would require a lot more time than I surmise you're willing to sacrifice in order to read the entirety of this post, and as such, let me try to sum it up as quickly as possible so that I can move on to more important subjects: to be a "friend" of mine, as I've always perceived it, requires for you to have some kind of consistent behavior, attitude, or feeling toward me. While this has an outward appearance of being a very generic trait - which, it very well could be - I should point out now that I don't necessarily choose my friends so much as they just happen. With this in mind, I am often liable to befriending someone who will have nothing to do with me; this often succumbs with disastrous results.

But that's the thing: the only way for me to befriend someone is for them to have a consistency in their attitude, as I've mentioned above. This is because my subconscious tends to judge people in absolutes, and their mannerisms, behavior, and any other factors literally become ingrained into my thought processes to such an extent that I can apply judgment. This judgment ends in a ranking system of sorts: friendship being the highest, then acquaintanceship, general neutrality, and finally, general dislike. As much as my highest merits are accompanied with a strong respect, and often an ordained admiration, all of it can be harshly questioned with something as seemingly-minuscule as a foreign change in personality.

I wouldn't call it a fault of mine so much as it is a mannerism, but what this means is open to any interpretation, as is the definition of being a comrade itself. Something I reckon might be interesting for you to know is that, for the longest time, I didn't comprehend my own personality. This, like many things about me, can be associated with a lot of people—but, as I'll clarify, I used to want desperately to fit in with my peers. For over four years, it was as if I were in a continuous, perpetual state of depression that was only comforted with my occassionally-forgetful mind, but - just as the tide on the shallow end of a river tends to get higher - so did my depression; coming to this wave of realization, a few things hit me at once: I was like a leaf, floating down a dominant stream, and I let the statements and opinions of people I shouldn't have even cared about envelop me in such a way that my emotions were rampant and swirled together like the unleashed potential of a before-dormant typhoon.

These people . . . devoid of the emotions that I experienced, had managed to do something to me inside that I never realized was possible. I saw the error of my thinking, but still I couldn't manage to shake neither the guilt of the lingering experience or the requirement in my own perceptions that I had to fit in. And, shamefully as I admit it today, I started doing the one thing that I now despise. Like a chameleon adjusting to its environment, I willfully changed my personality in an attempt to adhere to some self-perceived 'popular code of conduct' that surrounded me, and, as a result of that, I got lost in an amalgam of falsified character traits and the crushing impact of a thought processes' worth of sundry emotions.

It was only recently did I come to the realization that none of those people mattered to me in any sense of the word more than the few friends that I had garnered. In these friends, it became apparent to me that I had a secure deposit box of sorts to place my frustrations, the whole of my thoughts, and basically anything else that would seem inconsequential to anyone else by any other means; I knew this would have to be done intelligently, as anyone would, because, as I've pointed out, my true friends can't be chosen. At that point it was up to my own judgment alone to select who to confide in, if anyone, and I ended up doing so. As luck would have it, and much to my surprise: hitherto at least, I have not regretted doing so.

But, with that now far gone and aside, the question must be answered: who am I? While I realize that would take a vast amount of time to answer, again, I'll try to sum it up as briefly as possible, utilizing the base amount of vocabulary that I know in doing so. Now, before I describe who I am, there needs to be some kind of order involved; "where do I begin?" is a cliché statement often referred to by people in this generation, writing in this type of medium, but the question to onesself is warranted when you have no idea of where to begin to describe yourself.

I'm not to be taken very seriously most of the time. In fact, most of the time, especially when I throw jesting insults at people, it is usually out of respect, or, at the very despicable, an attempt at humor. There is a stark difference in a jesting type of insult and a specifically brazen, hateful insult with an intention of hurting ones' feelings—and this difference must be discerned if one has any hope of remaining my comrade, by any means. While it can be misconstrued as an unnecessary requirement, what I'm referring to is that it must be discerned for, at least, other people, as I won't change my ways (again) for the benefit of people I don't care for. So, to make a long story condensed: if you are my friend, and if I begrudge someone I don't like, get over it. And if you do one day become my friend, those people are much more lenient to my behavior, and I would graciously accept holding off on doing something unsettling for them, more than likely.

More about me? What else is there? I'm not a particularly complex person, and some people might argue that I'm not even an intellectual. I do not claim to be either, and I do not pretend to be either - at least, as I'm making this post, on the day of Monday, December 1st, 2008. One thing that should be accentuated about me, in my new understanding, is that I have a fondness for hearing of negativity about myself - specifically the kind that isn't accompanied by evidence. What do I mean by this? It brings me a great joy to know that I've gauged some kind of reaction out of someone, for I would rather be hated than nothing at all, and it's only a plus that the baseless, rage-fueled feedback brings some humor with it.

What do I look like? How old am I? When is my birthday? My favorite color? All of these simple questions and others give you no insight into the workings of my mind. These outward appearances and minute tidbits about me wouldn't bring you any closer to me than examining a chipped-off piece of a clay sculpture would bring you to an understanding of the sculptor's intentions of the statue, or the inspirations that may have been derived in creating it. And while these questions may be good stepping-stones in forming a relationship by any other means, these shallow, impossibly inconsequential aspects about someone do not interest me.

Who am I?

You really wanna know?

. . . I'm Spiderman.