A Little of Each, All of Neither

I mentioned in my post regarding Iraq that I was not a democrat or a republican, and I thought I best explain that before the election. Not to say that it would become completely irrelevant after tomorrow, but politics certainly takes a back burner in most people’s minds after Election Day.

Most people in this country identify themselves politically by siding with a political party of choice. Unfortunately in this country, there’s effectively only two from which to choose, so it becomes a very polarized electorate. However, I seek out some sort of middle ground. I’m not a Democrat or a Republican. My voter registration information does not declare me as either, nor do I belong to any formal organization. I don’t attend meetings, I don’t donate money to any candidate, and I don’t volunteer for any campaigns. To call myself a member of either party without any level of participation above the ballot box would be a flagrant overstatement.

Beyond campaign participation and general support, I do not necessarily agree with either party on enough issues to substantiate supporting them in all cases. For a broad example, I am generally left leaning on social issues and more right leaning on economic ones. (i.e. support stem cell research and free trade) Few candidates stand on this kind of platform, and seldom is it regular in any one party.

Additionally, I can’t possibly agree with the Republican Party as a whole as they sit right now. Even though one of this party’s charter members was the much respected Abraham Lincoln, today they seem tied up with cronyism, sex scandal and a blunder of foreign policy. So many GOP politicians seem so much more focused on their own wallet than the direction of this country. Tom DeLay and Dick Cheney are great examples.

The Democratic Party isn’t much better. While they may not be locked in scandal, they frequently seem completely unable to organize themselves. So much of their political base has been fragmented by groups that do or do not support the Iraq war, and those that may or may not believe in “the defense of marriage.” What’s more, as the Republican Party has sabotaged itself so many times in the last five or so years, the Democrats have routinely failed to take advantage. Lacking organization and a spine, they don’t seem able to stand up for anything. They have sat silent through so many prime opportunities. That kind of political apathy makes them no better than their opposition.

I’ve never been a fan of the polarizing effects of a two party system. I much prefer the multi-party structure that is commonly found in the parliamentary systems of Europe. Germany, for example, has a solid government that allows for more than two political views to be expressed. Unfortunately, that is not an option in America.

In the mean time, I’m just going to stick to the issues and vote for candidates that agree with my line of thinking. I don’t go out of my way for red or blue. Colorblind voting, I’ll call it.

The Chipotle Blend

I love Chipotle. Who doesn't? Since moving to Columbus I've had thier delicious burritos on a number of occasions. Nevertheless, I've developed a solid idea that could maximize my tex-mex burrito experience.

The Chipotle burrito is pretty wide. (I'd say 4 or so inches across maybe, by two inches? That's 8 square inches!) Which is too wide to get a bite that encompasses the entire girth of the tortilla. Because of the way the burrito is made, the distribution of ingredients is uneven, and a bite of any one section of the burrito yields only one or two flavors. Often the rice is on one side, the cheese in the middle and your meat on the other end. Usually the salsa of your choice only spices up a third of the burrito to boot.

What I propose is an extra step in the burrito creation process. After you pick out your ingredients, everything should be dumped into a bowl and stirred gently to create an even burrito distribution. The burrito ingredients can then be re-integrated with the tortilla for your eating pleasure. I propose the name "Chipotle Blend" for the new product.

Think of it- spice mixed with meat, rice mixed with cheese, and all of this blended together for a cornucopia (horn of plenty) of flavors and deliciousness. Chipotle, I'm waiting by the phone for you to call and ask me to go on a national tour demonstrating my new product.

Make the check out to: Taste Wizard Tyler

Stem Sold

Stem cell research is becoming one of those "hot-button" issues this election season. It seems that more liberal candidates support the study, while conservatives have made an effort to block research. President Bush himself used his first ever veto to block a congressional act allowing research. (Finally he uses a veto... I guess it shows how aligned Bush and the Republican congress are!)

Why is this such a big deal? It seems like any medical effort that could be made to save lives and fight diseases such as cancer, Parkinson's and heart disease would be a shoe-in. Well, it's complicated. But here's the short of it:

Your entire body is made up of cells, but there's lots of different kinds. Skin cells, heart cells, nerve cells, bone cells, etc, are all a little bit different, because they have different functions. They can't be interchanged to help heal other body parts not of their same type. (i.e. a skin cell put in your brain won't regenerate neurons lost from a stroke) Stem cells aren't any specific type of cell. Or rather, they're any type of cell you want. Follow me on this.

A stem cell is like a blank piece of paper that can be written on with a pencil. However, the pencil has no eraser. Stem cells can be conformed to be nerve cells, heart cells, or whatever else is needed, but it can't work backwards. So theoretically, we could use stem cells to create heart cells and help someone with heart disease. Easy enough, right? Sort of. Adult humans do have a limited number of stem cells in their bodies which can be used, but the process isn't as effective or promising as the alternative.

Embryonic Stem cells (or ES) is the same concept, but the cells are obtained from an embryo, where all the cells are dividing to become different body parts. Cultures of human embryonic cells can be used for this research, and this is the most controversial idea surrounding stem cells. The political problem arises when people believe that stem cell research requires the "murder" of a baby to access these cells. This really isn't the case. Most stem cell research is done using embryonic cell lines that were already created for the purpose of in-vitro fertilization. After a successful fertilization, the remaining embryonic cells are set to be destroyed anyway, so using them for research is a lot better than nothing. Furthermore, the embryo that is used is at its very earliest stages of development. We're talking 32-64 total cells. A far cry from the 50-75 trillion cells it takes to make a living, breathing human.

I'm all-for stem cell research. I think the possibilities that lie within a handful of cells vastly outweighs the claim by a few that we're murdering babies for the benefit of a few. Much of the opposition (frequently the religious right) claim that "life begins at conception". I disagree with that statement, especially when there are fewer than 100 cells in question.

Even if not everyone agrees that we should allow embryonic generation for the purpose of research, it cannot be denied that the medical possibilities that could be unlocked are powerful and numerous. At the very least, researchers should be given full access and permission to utilize embryonic cell lines that already exist to further understand what possibilities may await. Perhaps then we can more fully understand their potential and develop a strong case for additional embryonic research development.

Most Saints Day

Today is November 1st, what the Catholics call "All Saints Day". Something about this fascinates me. Saints are supposedly among the most important people who ever lived. Being Sanctified is more elite than being called "Sir", "Dr.", "Your Honor", "Mr. President", or probably even "Pope".

I thought it was odd that all the saints would have to share one day until i realized how many of them there are. This list on Wikipedia clearly shows that there are many, many saints. The article also states that in Roman Catholicism there are "10,000 saints and beatified people." So even if they were divided up equally each day (and not exempting time for Jesus' Christmas and Easter) 27 saints would have to share each day. So i guess it only makes sense that they should all combine for one Saint-tastic hollapalooza on November 1st.

I figured the most stand-out saints would get their very own day, but I'm curious as to why the ones that do were selected as such:

St. Patrick: Patron saint of excuses for drinking.
St. Valentine: Patron saint of chalk flavored candy hearts with out-dated messages written on them. (Fax Me!)

Perhaps we'll stay, but not on this course.

Many of you have probably heard Bush's standard go-to phrase when talking about the plan for Iraq. When asked about an exit timetable, or when he figures the mission will really be accomplished, he insists that no timetable is necessary and the United States will "stay the course". When reports inquire upon the ultimate goal of the mission, his response is to the effect of "victory".

This ambiguous and arbitrary rhetoric may be acceptable to the jingoistic crowds of America immediately following 9/11, but is no longer enough today.

The occupation of Iraq needs to be working towards some specific conclusions or it will fall apart and become one of the most disasterous foriegn policy farces in recent decades. Being that most Americans understand that the efforts being made at present in Iraq are ineffective, Bush is finally recognizing this fact and is changing his rhetoric to reflect that.

The administration has decided to Cut and Run from 'Stay the Course'. The media wizards and press represtentatives in the White House are no doubt working on creating new nomenclature to express the same ideas in a new way. In the mean time, Bush has already denied ever saying "stay the course" at all:

“Listen,” Bush insisted “we’ve never been ‘stay the course,’ George. We ... will complete the mission. We will do our job and help achieve the goal, but we’re constantly adjusting to tactics.”

I can't wait to see The Daily Show's take on this. I'm sure they will have a long montage of clips with Bush using those very words.

As for me, I certainly disagree with "stay the course". However, the media term designated to oppose the Bush plan, "cut and run" does not appeal to me either. Invading Iraq was certainly a mistake. The entire operation has been longer, more expensive, and more costly than ever expected, not to mention the missing weapons of mass destruction. But leaving now would not solve the problem. If the United States was to pack its bags and return home tomorrow, Iraq would likely fall into greater chaos than it is in today. Like it or not, the fact is simply that we're already in this mess and we can't just sweep it under the rug.

For the U.S. to save face and remove itself from such a volatile situation, a timetable must be established. Major landmarks must be set for the slow but sure removal of troops, the establishment of an Iraqi peacekeeping force and a stable government that can withstand the conflicts of differing cultures and ethnic groups. Guidance for development should come not from the U.S., but instead from the U.N. (if they'll take it) which could utilize a multilateral peacekeeping force to encourage stability, growth and development in the new Iraq. Washington must accept that the U.S. is not capable of winning "hearts and minds" in the Middle East by itself, especially not on the track we are on.

A new plan for Iraq is needed, and we need it now. The Bush administration has made it very clear that they have little intention of changing their current plan, whether you listen to today's rhetoric or yesterday's. This is why I'm voting Democrat this election. Not because I am a Democrat (not a Republican either. I'll explain another time.), but because I'm simply voting for change. We need some new people with new ideas and new strategies in Washington to try to solve this Iraq debacle. The ones there now sure aren't doing it.

One in a Billion? 8.259 Billion?

We've all used the phrase "one in a million" before. Often it describes someone really special; someone who stands out amongst everyone else you know or ever met. I'm thinking that this particular saying is outdated, or at least not quite as flattering as it used to be.

Today's current world population is roughly 6.55 Billion. To say that you're one in a million would mean that as unique as you are, there's 6,550 others equally as special as you. To put that into perspective, realize that there's only 1,800 or so players in the NFL, 793 billionaires, and 43 U.S. Presidents. So to say someone is a good as a professional football player, you'd have to say they are 1 in 3,638,888. To be as suave as a billionaire: 1 in 8,259,773. And do be presidential caliber: 1 in 152,325,581.

It sounds saddening at first, realizing that one in a million isn't what it was, but odds are you'll never run into the other 6,549 people anyway! And according the global average of 7,900 people per square mile (in urban areas) you're the most special person in 126 square miles! Think of it that way!