Perpetual Pets

I think I've stumbled upon an amazing discovery, a new infinite energy source just waiting to be harnessed. I need to work out a couple of kinks as far as determining what's the best way to actually obtain the energy, but I'm sure that will come in time. I'm talking of course about the power of pet hair.

Now theoretically, no pet should be able to produce any more fur than the amount of food and water that they consume. However, as many of you pet owners already know, pets are walking violations of the laws of physics. Somehow they manage to produce fur at a 10:1 ratio to the food that they consume. I should know, I feed them every day, and therefore am well aware of how much food they've managed to consume. Somehow 50lbs worth of animal (two cats and a dog) manage to generate around 2 tons worth of hair. I've converted a riding lawn mower into a house vaccum and I still have to empty the bag three times just to do the top floor of the house.

People who currently own multiple pets or have owned several different pets can also attest to the broad array of "vintages" of pet hair available. The three pets I have are kind enough to provide me with three different "vintages" of fur. Freya, the crazy dog, supplies long thin hair in both the black and white varieties, ensuring that no outfit will be safe from it's wrath. It does, however, have the decency to ball itself up into little dust bunnies rather readily, making cleanup easy enough. Silas, the "feed me!" cat, leaves very thick brown and tan striped fur EVERYWHERE. Seriously, if you don't like cat hair, stay away from him because if you fall within a 5 ft. radius of him: Bang! Insta-Fur coating. Nikko, the "climber" cat, leaves these fine orange striped hairs, but only in small quantities. However, they're so fine that they're impossible to just brush off of any clothing, it takes large swaths of duct tape to get any of this stuff off.

Pet fur is just one of those things you have to get used to if you want to be an animal owner. Unless you're a fan of one of those ugly hairless things, you learn to deal. Sometimes you question why you would ever want to put up with it, but then your cat climbs up into your lap, starts purring, and almost immediately falls asleep in the cutest pose possible. Which is all well and good. . . .
. . . until you need to use the restroom.

Pot, Meet Kettle

So the usual explanations for lack of a post; work sucks, no free time, blah, blah, blah. Honestly, the biggest issue has been Kerri's roommate fiasco, which is going to have to be a separate Soap Opera like post.

Some of you may have already come to this conclusion, but I have a rather deep interest in politics (shocking eh?). It started back when I took debate in high school where it escalated to enormous proportions, then rappidly tapered off during the college years. Since leaving school, my interest has been slowly returning, a trend that I've found to be rapidly accelerating in the last few months. I think the growing discrepancy between where the American political climate is headed, and where I want it to be is the primary reason for my concern. (according to the political compass I am a Libertarian (politics) Left (economics) thinker, whereas G.W. is an Authoritarian Right thinker - actually I score out right about where Gandhi and Nelson Mandela are.)

My largest frustration right now is that there are just so many things to talk about right now that I don't know where to start. The American political landscape is currently full of strongly contested issues, and instead of resolving any of them, we keep jumping further and further into the conflict. The largest problem I have is that the contests are mainly about whether to maintain the status quo, or to procede down a more conservative/authoritative path. It's a strange place for America to be, as I remember 10 or so years ago, the "status quo position" belonged to the conservatives. The pendulum has indeed shifted, and it seems to be swinging even more rapidly every day.

However, there's a huge hypocrisy I see to all of this. The same leaders that are currently trying to turn the U.S. into a more authoritarian/conservative/religious nation are the same ones that decry the authoritarian/conservative/religious nations of the Middle East. The only real differences are (A) The size of the nations, (B) The economic/political/military clout of the nations, and (C) The religion in question (Islam vs. Christianity). I'm intruiged to hear a justification for the dichotomy between what our leaders are attempting to foist on the rest of the world (by force if necessary) and what they are attempting to foist on us.

I don't feign to know what the real course of action we should be taking as a nation is. However, I do know that whenever two or more people are involved, extremism in anything is going to lead to problems. I'd love to see the American public vote a more moderate legislative body into place, a legislature based on people who can think about issues intelligently and logically. Instead, politicians are becoming chosen more and more by their view on specific issues, encouraging people to vote on a compartmentalized context. "Well the canidate is for issue A, but against issue B. Issue B is more important to me, so I guess I'm voting for the other guy."

I know it's a pipe dream (and an oxymoron) but I wish we could return to rational politics.

Things That Make You Go GRRRRR!

What the hell is this?

Am I the only one out there who doesn't completely buy that the exclusion of Gay men is based solely on the fact that they have a higher risk of HIV? I can't help but think that some of the socially conservative people out there are actually starting to believe that a predisposition to homosexuality can be something found in one's genes. Following the logic train on down the track, if homosexuality is hereditary, and it is currently impossible for gay men to impregnate each other, then maybe the best way to stop the "spread" of homosexuality is to prevent gay men from donating sperm.

Honestly, it seems to me that the whole HIV explanation is really just a straw man argument used to justify what is really a social agenda type policy. Conversely, if HIV is the true reason for the policy, is the FDA starting down some sort of slipery slope. . .. one that could be used to justify even further social agenda type policies. For example, Africans have by far the largest percentage of overall HIV cases worldwide, so how long will it be before the FDA disallows sperm donation from blacks using similar "statistics".

I'm intrigued to see if they can actually provide any information on how many actual cases of HIV infection via sperm donation have happened, homosexual or not. Odds are, there either are no such cases, or the sample size is extremely small. Yet, this is the same FDA that has recently approved several drugs without proper testing, resulting in multiple deaths from improperly explored side effects. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, and I don't think it's the fish.