Are entomologists really worries about bug noises? This article seems to describe growing concern over an exceptionally large brood of cicadas, the "locusts" that fill summer and autumn nights with their buzzing from the trees. Why are they so concerned? The cicadas don't eat leaves, destroy crops, spread disease, summon demons or cause vandalism. They just buzz. I guess the entomologists were so fascinated with their communications or eating habits that they just never got around to napping in a hammock, lulled to sleep by the background noise of the cicadas. I say we find a way to have a cicada bumper crop every year!

I can foresee a whole new legal market opening up - that of lawsuits from people who buy wrecked cars from the U.S. and then sue the previous owner, the junkyard the insurance company and the guy who does the buying and shipping when the cars explode or the brakes fail or the radio causes deafness or whatever. You just know that if members of our litiginous society were engaging in such a practice, such lawsuits would be shot around left and right.
Apparently, at least for the time being, these Central Americans are happy with their totaled BMW's and Mercedes. Just wait till these rebuilt vehicles fall apart in some Nicaraguan jungle and the driver gets post-traumatic stress from being ambushed by cocaine smugglers. All because the jury-rigged vehicle he was in didn't come with a warning label: "Caution! This previously wrecked vehicle may cause death, mayhem and destruction of you, your family and assorted bystanders on the sidewalk. Rebuild at your own risk."

Well, I decided to go see The Passion of The Christ to see what all the hubbub was about. I'm still trying to figure out what all the hubbub was about. As you've certainly heard, there's no shortage of gore in this flick. It gets to the point that it's almost laughable. Particularly creepy is the scene where Mary kisses Jesus' feet while he's hanging on the cross. She comes away like a film vampire, her lips stained with blood. Ew.
If you're going to see TPOTC, I'd strongly recommend that you read the book first. I mean, at least read the gospels so you can get an idea of the whole point, because the movie delivers none. For instance, why did the Jewish priests and leaders hate Jesus and want him dead? Some of the irrelevant flashbacks might have been better used to expose Jesus' history with the priests and how they viewed him as a threat to their authority.
I did like that the film was entirely in Aramaic and Latin, eliminating all the silly accents and King James Bible thee's and thou's. In addition, I thought Satan was a nice touch, if I can say that, along with his little celebratory dance at Jesus' death. He was appropriately icky.
As for anti-Semitism, I can only say that I wish the film had a point as concrete as that. I left the theater with the visions of blood and ripped flesh in my brain without any idea why it was there. Anti-Semitists will still be anti-Semitists after seeing it, and non-anti-Semitists will be no different either. Non-believers and non-Christians will leave the theater knowing no more about Jesus Christ that they did when thay walked in.

Sports Illustrated's Swimsuit Edition is now a crime. This kid got busted doing what millions of kids have been doing since the Swimsuit Edition first graced Americas shelves. Showing his friends. Big deal. I wonder how many of the teachers and officials at his school did the exact same thing? Only he gets suspended.
The principal said he had never seen the Swimsuit Edition before and was shocked. Yeah, right! Give us all a break! You get racier pop-up ads and spam on the internet. To think that this poor kid has to undergo the hassle of getting suspended (or the alternative - 2 days at the school for bad kids) is ridiculous.
When I was a 12, someone brought a Hustler to class. It made the rounds while the teachers back was turned until someone got busted with it. Were there any suspensions? Sentences to the bad kid's school. Visits to the principal? Scourgings and lashings? No. The magazine was simply taken away by the teacher and never seen again. I'm sure the teacher is still whacking off to Hustler today.
People brought the Swimsuit Edition all the time. It was openly shared. The teachers and coaches would take their turn gazing at the pages and then pass it on to one of us. It was encouraged (probably because I was at an all-boys school)! Be thankful your kid is reading the Swimsuit Edition instead of Modern Satanism. Go out and buy him a new pack of Kleenex.

Well, here's two more kids who are gonna die thanks to the intervention of American surgeons who decided to do a little human experimentation. Haven't they learned yet? These poor kids don't live through these separation surgeries! What's the point? If they just left them alone they'd probably have a better chance. And if they died of their conjoined-ness, they're still no worse off than after their “treatments” with these Dr. Frankensteins who have God complexes.
Besides this, how many hundreds of thousands of dollars are being spent on the survival of the weakest, when this same money could be used for hundreds or even thousands of people who could actually benefit from its use? If they want to medically help people, how ‘bout giving a few thousand doses of vaccines or vitamins or antibiotics?
Wanna know why they don’t? Because you don’t get your name in medical journals and announced on the news when you give out vaccinations all day. When you try a high profile stunt like chopping apart conjoined twins, you get all the fame and accolades and tenureship at universities. And when the twins die? “Unavoidable complications.” Betcha the complications could have been avoided by not trying such a hopeless experiment to begin with!

According to this report, there is a problem with the government censoring information from scientific findings in the spirit of Cold War Soviet Russia. Now this isn't especially hard to believe, given the recent revelation that "misinformation" on WMD's in Iraq was all the CIA's fault and not the administration's doing at all whatsoever, honest to goodness.
The scary thing is: what information are we not hearing about?
There could be little green Martians crawling all over Spirit and Opportunity, but do we see any of those pictures? No way. Is there a simple cure for cancer, diabetes and warts? Maybe, but we don't have that data. Perhaps it's the government censoring of data that limits what meteorologists can tell us, resulting in the wildly inaccurate "forecasts" we get. And you just know we're not getting the full story on marijuana use.
So now anytime we see news of scientific breakthroughs we'll have to wonder, as Paul Harvey says, about the rest of the story.

No Big loss.

I know that this flu thing is a big huge deal, epidemiologically speaking. But please can someone come up with a better name than H5N1? Maybe the "sexy flu"? Or the "death fever"? "Melting eye syndrome"? Anything would be cooler than H5N1, which sounds like a math formula.

Presidential hopeful John Kerry poked fun at President George Bush's presence at the Daytona 500 race the other day. Now I don't have much opinion on politics, or John Kerry, or George Bush or even car racing for that matter. But I do know style when I see it. And let me say that Kerry's style was just plain poor. Was he really taking issue with Bush's efforts to stay in touch with the American people? Do the people really want someone who stays holed up in an office day and night pondering policies and economic strategies? What will Kerry have to say when Bush participates in the annual White House Easter egg hunt this year? If Kerry gains the Presidency, will he have the Easter tradition and all other public "fun" appearances banished so he can meditate on national issues? Will he decline to throw out the first ball of the season so he can discuss foreign policy? Will he just say no to lighting the White House Christmas tree because his presence is needed at a Cabinet meeting? I hardly think so.
Regardless of what the public thinks of the President's politics, it is still an office rooted in "by the people, for the people." The people like race cars and Easter and so on. A leader who loses touch with those whom he leads is no leader at all.

According to Representative Joe Pitts (R-Pa), "it is unethical to tinker with human life," he said in reference to human cloning. This was sparked by the recent news that scientists in Korea had managed to clone humans, forming embryonic blastocysts from which stem cells could be extracted.
Now I'm not saying I'm in favor of human cloning, but his comment raises numerous gray-area questions. After all, what consists of 'tinkering with human life'? What about other forms of medical research, such as human drug testing, or experimental surgical techniques? In attempting such high-risk procedures such as removing the extra head from that child in the Dominican Republic, it would be difficult to come up with a term other than 'tinkering,' given that the surgery had never been performed before on a patient like her, in addition to the fact the child didn't survive, which is no better an outcome than had the procedure never been attempted.
What about human testing of new drugs? How is that not tinkering? Oh, that's right, those people receive monetary compensation, so the almighty dollar makes everything OK. Besides I'm sure our representatives aren't complaining about the human tinkering that went on to result in their Viagra prescriptions!
Oddly, two of the scientists in Korea said they were the target of violence, even though they were engaging in research for disease treatment and not in reproductive cloning. It seems to me that if there were to be an acceptable use of cloning, it would be reproductive cloning, perhaps for couples who couldn't have kids. Such embryos wouldn't be destroyed, but allowed to mature, then nurtured and loved. Why is there such vehemence against that?
I think those who make these sweeping statements should evaluate their own ideas before embracing or decrying any new research.

It was reported that Google, the online search engine, is hampering free speech. Non-profit group Oceana bought ads out on Google linking clickers to websites denouncing Royal Caribbean because of its problems with pollution, which Google pulled later, sayind they didn't want ads defaming the cruise line.
Google is a privately held company. It is their right to exclude ads they don't want. How is this inhibiting freedom of speech? Google is not campaigning against Oceana, trying to get a cease-and-desist order out on them. Google does not receive federal funds, obligating it to comply with First Amendment rights. It is not a school, forming the minds of the future leaders of the world. It is a private website company, with full discretion over how they want to run their business.
If, for example, someone submits something to my website, BurningTiger, that I don't want on there, I have full editorial discretion to not put up. I'm not violating anyone's rights. They can putit up somewhere else.
Oceana has its own website promoting their interests. If they want Google to display their website, why not design their website and pay the search engines so that it pops up higher in search results? Do they really believe that simply buying an ad entitles an entity to anything they want? Remember that freedom of speech rights apply to Google too, giving them the discretion to say what they want on their website, and judging from the ridicuous opinions so proliferate today, some things are better left unsaid.

Finally, Barbie and Ken, childhood's most obnoxious couple, are splitting up! It's about freakin' time. That bitch has been using the boy long enough. Who do you think has been paying for all the fancy dream houses, Barbie cars, jewelry, hair and outfits? Poor Ken! And do you think he ever got a piece of ass? Of course not! Despite all the perverted positions and whatnot we used place those two in when we were kids, the poor boy never got a nut. He doesn't have any! She's the ultimate cocktease, leading him on when she knew perfectly well he wasn't getting anywhere. Now we know where women learn that stuff - it's designed into their toys!
Now supposedly she's off to have a wild affair with Blaine the Australian surfer dude. Typical female. Here's some advice Blaine: RUN!
Where's Ken gonna go now? Probably off to come out of the closet and have that long sought-after affair with G.I Joe. Of course, don't ask, don't tell, Joe! But I guess we all suspected it of Ken all along. Besides, being with that bitch is enough to drive anyone over the fence!

Reuter's reports that France's ban on religious items in schools may also result in compulsory attendance to sex education classes (which some students find offensive) and comply with class programs in history focusing on the Holocaust (which some students, and others, deny happened).
My problem is not the specifics of these attitudes. In fact I applaud the students having such deeply held beliefs and passions, whatever they are. My question is: why can't American students have some damn beliefs? Who decides what they're going to believe? Television and the ACLU. And by "beliefs" I don't mean kids whining over other kids not understanding them because they're gay or black or whatever. Boo freakin' hoo. What do kids worry about? Their friends liking them? What happened on "The Real World"? Partying? You never hear about American kids having real opinions on real issues. Check out their blogs if you don't believe me.
These French students are reacting to real issues, ones that affect the whole community, now and in the future when these schoolkids grow up and start running the world. Whatever their ideas may be, right or not, at least they have them!

I was determined not to write about the Super Bowl/Janet Jackson/Boob fiasco, but now that coverage of this stupidity is taking up precious space on my AvantGo subscription, I must air my complaints.
MSNBC reported on Feb. 7 that the FCC has received more than 200,000 complaints about the "wardrobe malfunction." An overwhelming number? Not really, when you consider that this number makes up less than 1% of the American population. At any given time, I'm sure you can find way more than this percentage who are pissed off about something else (and something way more worthwhile).
The same article also reported that the Parent's Television Council has counted more than 24,000 complaints. Again this is less than one one-hundreth of a percent of the nation! Who cares? Just because these loudmouths have nothing better to do than gripe to entities who can't do anything about it, do the rest of us have to suffer their woes? I mean really, what are the FCC and the Parents Television Council going to do about a 2 second breast flash that happened last week? Have their kids truly been that traumatized by the event? I'm sure they don't run screaming every time one of these God-fearing moms whips out her own boob to feed little Junior.
While we're at it, has anyone called anybody to bitch about the streaker that presented himself on the field of the Super Bowl? I mean, that was full frontal freakin' nekkidness, but nobody's whining about that. What gives? Even if it didn't make it to national TV, did anyone indignantly leave the stadium, fragile rugrats in tow, demanding their money back? Is there a huge campaign underway by the Bowl-goers to file complaints to the NFL, AFC, Budweiser, GoldenPalace.com and the Department of Homeland Security? I didn't think so. Rather, "delight and hilarity" was the order of the moment, according to this source.
Besides, if you consider the way TV has been going the last decade or so, everyone knows that sooner or later, everything will be on broadcast television. Boobs, butts, genitalia, gay sex, and cuss words. Get used to it. Or find something else to do. Please.

Well, the latest patient to suffer from craniopagus parasiticus has died. No not by natural causes, but because of the perpetuation of modern medicine's insistence on attempting to thwart Darwinian rules. Charles Darwin gave a name to what everybody kinda knew already, namely that it is the fittest who survive. After all, who wants the genes of the weakest being passed down to future generations?
But modern medicine does not want to acknowledge this basic precept, instead spending billions of dollars and man-hours striving for survival of the weakest. It is hopeless cases like these that medicine spends the most time and effort on; this girl's parents couldn't afford the $100,000 surgery, so who do you think is paying for it? The article doesn't say anything about that. I guarantee you that it is you and I who are being overbilled on our insurance premiums to pay for this little doomed experiment.
Otherwise, just look at the countless dollars being spent on keeping vegetables alive, housing and "treating" the insane, and the work to keep alive people with hopeless conditions from cerebral palsy to renal failure. While these incurables get big wads of cash flung at them for "research" and "treatment" (yeah, right), reasonably healthy people like me have to go without regular checkups because I can't afford the co-pay on my insurance plan!
The newest craze: survival of the weakest. Darwin is spinning in his grave.

Now we hear that Yahoo! is planning on selling music. I guess that projects like this and iTunes and the new and "improved" Napster are an OK compromise in the RIAA's ongoing megalomaniacal aspirations to make money from every note that the human ear can hear (any ear, everywhere). My reason for supporting the peer-to-peer networks on which one can download all those illegal files for free is basically - you get what you pay for. If the RIAA would find and promote some artists that might be worth listening to, people would be more inclined to pay for their music. Instead we have music from overhyped, undertalented "artists" like the lip-syncing queen Britney Spears and couldn't-be-a-bad-boy-if-he killed-someone Justin Timberlake as well as Ja-Rule, C-Murder and other alphabetically enhanced idiots.
While these artists continue to be paid incomes greater than the national budget of some nations, (by the way, where does that money come from?) the undiscovered independent artists who actually create quality music from scratch, no less, languish in the backwater venues and have to work odd jobs to make ends meet. What is ironic is that these quality artists are the ones who often don't mind having their work downloaded for free in the interests of simply promoting themselves and getting it "out there."
99 cents a download for the latest from Jessica Simpson? Fine, I guess. I just hope you get your change. otherwise, go to http://www.iuma.com/