Ok! Update!

I am currently residing in Jukjeon, Korea, and I couldn't be happier! The people are friendly, the students are very excited to have me, and the food is delicious. I get up at 7:30 every morning excited to start my day, which is a new feeling for me. We'll if that changes when I get internet at home, haha. To start, Ima post some pictures of my apartment. I was surprised at first by it. It opens up into a small kitchen with a sliding door opening up into the main room:

I'm still figuring out how to post additional pictures, so bear with me. Today will be kitchen day! [edit: the blog helper elf posted my pictures for me!] Wheee! So wednesday was education election day, so there was no school, but I came in to work anyway. There were a couple of other teachers here as well, just doing paperwork, but I ended up doing some impromptu english lessons with them and their kids. I taught one teacher about puns! yay!

So! Politics! Some Republican idiot says he has a secret list of socialists in congress. http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2009/04/bachus_tells_city_and_county_o.html

Seriously? A list of socialists? Doesn't this sound familiar? And doesn't the history of said familiar event suggest how backwards this is? McCarthy is not known as a hero, let's leave it at that. Of course, representatives will scramble for attention. This is all part of the Republican strategy of using and reusing defunct strategies. They want to try tax cuts for the rich AGAIN, they want to deregulate MORE, they want to shore up the base AGAIN, and apparently they want to engage in 50 year old scare tactics. They don't get it. The younger generation doesn't care about socialism as a bogeyman, it won't work. It will only appeal to the diehard and might i add, dying-out brand of conservatives. What, do they want to go for 100% in Oklahoma?

Honestly, the more disturbing thing than the fear mongering, is the idea that this congressman is actually worried about socialists. Really? Americans are concerned about work, they are concerned about feeding their families, they are concerned about having a future. But there is such a disconnect between peoples actual fears, and what gets played out in politics. Banning gay marriage will not fix the economy or save your job, or even affect you at all. Stopping socialism will not keep your family fed or provide you healthcare. *shakes head*

Speaking of the younger generation not caring, I just want to post this speech by Iowan House Majority Leader Gronstal about a bill to overturn the recent ruling in Iowa supporting gay marriage. Go you, Gronstal!

http://www.open.salon.com/blog/stellaa/2009/04/07/iowa_state_majority_leader_moving_speech_on_gay_marriage

GRRRRRR

Ok, so I haven't posted in a while.  BUT!  pretty soon this blog will become my Korea blog, where I'll post pictures of my school, class, any trips I take, etc.  That way I'll be unique just like all the other people teaching in Korea!  But yeah.  

EW EW EW EW EW!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29536263/

In response to the opposition arguments that the court should overturn Prop 8 because it strips fundamental rights from the minority: "What I'm picking up from the oral argument in this case is this court should willy-nilly disregard the will of the people," said Justice Joyce Kennard.

I'm sorry, willy nilly?  The supreme court is supposed to uphold the constitution, as well as the SPIRIT of said constitution.  The US Supreme Court ruled Brown vs. Board of Education precisely because the will of the majority violated the letter and the spirit of the 14th ammendment.  Prop 8 in California is no different.  It is a slight majority of those that participated in the election effectively stripping fundamental rights from an unpopular minority.  How is this possible??  Simple majorities are all well in good for things that we disagree on, like tax increases/cuts, spending, etc.  HOWEVER!  I believe the gay marriage issue is a different breed entirely.  What if the slight majority decided that Asians couldn't get married?  What if we as a state, enacted anti-miscegenation laws?  The reason that these examples are morally disgusting is not because of the racist attitudes or the fact that we as a majority don't find miscegenation appalling, its because they would be a denial of a fundamental right by a majority over a minority.  Anyone who says that these examples are dissimilar should take a long hard look at themselves and question whether their own opinions of the people involved are clouding their judgement of what the law should be.  

    This is of course beyond the fact that it really should be harder for a state to change is constitution.  The US requires 2/3 in order to propose change to the US constitution, and even then requires ratification by 2/3 (that's 66%) of states, but California needs only a simple majority in a simple vote?  I am sorry, but there is a reason our founding fathers saw fit to make it so difficult to change such a central part of our government and society: to prevent prejudice, passing opinion, and flashy expensive campaigns to sweep large changes in our government; in other words, to prevent EXACTLY THIS from happening.

   This means that the court's job is to be a safeguard against said changes, and if need be, reject the passing fancy of the populous in favor of protecting rights.    

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujUQn0HhGEk

Long Rant about Solis Confirmation delay

GOP-ers may block Solis confirmation

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17538.html

The US is in economic turmoil.  It is a cake we've long been baking in the oven, and the fact that the GOP is insisting on blocking a labor nominee because she might be pro labor, is rather disgusting.  The story is that she is not willing to answer the question as to whether she would support the "card check" bill, in other words that she would take the side of unions in her position.  I don't think there is any doubt where she stands.  She has a working class background, and has consistently been a champion for labor, I think we all know she's going to support the legislation.  The fact that she says she cannot speak for the legislation is TYPICAL for nominees on contentious issues (we all remember Alito's confirmation hearing, among others), so this blocking is just a way to pressure democrats and put them in a bad light.  It's the same reason why players argue the ref or ump.  There's no way the ref is going to change his call, but you might get a break later on. The only problem is the ref is the electorate, and you're not going to score any points with an electorate that is increasingly hispanic and who recently voted for a rather liberal congress and president.

    Now, I've tried to understand why someone would be against the labor legislation, but I really can't.  Spoken simply, the current way a union might unionize in a given company is by waging a secret campaign among the workers of the company, having them sign "cards" (hence card check) stating their willingness to have the union negotiate on behalf of them.  After gathering about 30% of the workforce, the union can legally hold a ballot to determine their right to negotitate.  Typically, the union will wait until it has %50 percent, because there is a large attrition of workers being fired or pressured out of support for the union, and they want to make sure that a majority of the workers at the company are supporting them if there's a fight.  What the union then does is hold a "secret ballot" in which the workers vote for the union to take over their negotiation rights, held on the grounds of the company, subject to pressures from the company and "sweat sessions".  Now what the bill would do is cut out that last provision and have the union instead collect cards of %50 of the workers.  This essentially removes one barrier from forming a union, a barrier that is unethical and unneeded.  

     If you are a business, I can sort of understand why you might want to kill this legislation. In general, labor is the largest cost in any business, and if you reduce that cost, you can possibly keep your sheets in the black.  So, in the short term you save some money on payroll and benefits.  In the long term you contribute to your own doom, and the overall collapse of the U.S. economy.  Now, I know that sounds like hyberbole, but I am really quite serious.  If we look at the problems of the economy, we can see that its root lies in two things: the rotting away of the middle class and the proliferation of ridiculous credit.  As real wages go down, expenses go up, and benefits dwindle, workers can't afford much spending.  Without consumer spending the economy goes belly up, so how did our economy last so long with workers becoming increasingly unable to afford things.  Enter credit.  Credit in theory allows workers to buy necessities and large ticket items in the short term, to be paid off in the long term with the benefit of said items.  An example might be someone taking out a loan to get a car, which he can then use to have a wider range for commuting.  In reality, however, credit tends to just tie people up.  People buy things they simply cannot afford, driven by the seduction of advertising and Mephistophelesian contracts.  So, people start paying for everything with credit.  They take out loans to pay for loans and cards to pay for cards, all continuing a trail of mounting credit to cover up the fact that the cannot afford things, and so they continue to consume.  It's no wonder that our economy has collapsed, then, when the largest source of credit (people's houses) and the banks resonsible for doling out credit dry up.  The alcohol leaves the system and America is left with a giant hangover.  

     So how do unions play a part in this? Unions are a way to have actual stability, not false stability through credit.  It is a truism, or at least it should be, that if you want to do well, pay your workers enough to afford your product.  As it is, our economy has demonstrated that it is not willing to do so on its own, so obsessed with short term profit as it is, and so the workers need to fend for themselves.  

    So what if Solis supports the bills?  That means she's not living in the gilded age. Republicans need to take a long look at whom they represent, who they're protecting.

  

http://www.thinkatheist.com/photo/i-can-haz-evolooshon?context=featured

Oh my goodness yes.

And so the madness begins. . .

So, this is what a "blog" is, eh?  Very interesting.  Well, My name is Jeff.  This is my blog.  As king of said blog, I decree that I shall use it to post my thoughts, writing, interesting videos, and links to interesting articles.  Pretty much all things of an interesting nature.  I have spoken! Harrumph!

I'm feelin' a bit punch drunk this early in the morning, so I shall start with some madness.  http://www.timecube.com/

I found this website while researching for a story, it is the blog of a man by the name of Gene Ray.  He, as you might be able to tell, is simply mad, schizophrenic most likely.  What is interesting, however, is reading along and following his "logic".  If you read it long enough, it starts to make sense.  Perhaps your mind just sort of accepts his parameters of his logic, and you soon cease to notice the unusual grammar and dime-turn logic.

Now, once madness finds a friend, then it ceases to be madness, yes?   Scientology comes to mind, but I have a truly less scary example.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsonomy

Don't you just want to find out about Marsism now?  Mmmmm cheese and beer!

By the by, here's the wiki list of pseudosciences that I used.  Any and all innaccuracies in this post can be blamed on this website as well as an abundance of laziness on my part.  Whee!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pseudoscientific_theories