My Hero

I have a few heros. These are people that I look up to and who have served as a guide in my life. Some of these people I know, my grandmother for example, others are people who I have yet to meet. One of these people that I know by name only, but who has served as a guiding force is Biologist, Richard Dawkins.

As a Panthiest and a Premedical Molecular Biology and BioInformatics student, I find Dawkins' contributions to the scientific community and to society to be some of the most important of our day.

Dr. Dawkins seeks the rational and testable explanations to questions in science and philosophy. He is a wonderfully eloquent speaker, to whom I could for hours listen. He is also very controversial. As an example, he once said "I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils." I think there are many with this line of thinking who would agree .

One of my favorite of his quotes is, "We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

If you haven't heard of Richard Dawkins, please listen to NPR's Dawkins interview, "A Case For Athiesm."

Ouch! Reich-Wing Stung by Gay Reality Bee.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/12102006/80-132/birds-bees-gay-museum-exhibition.html

"OSLO (Reuters) - The birds and the bees may be gay, according to the world's first museum exhibition about homosexuality among animals.

With documentation of gay or lesbian behaviour among giraffes, penguins, parrots, beetles, whales and dozens of other creatures, the Oslo Natural History Museum concludes human homosexuality cannot be viewed as "unnatural".

"We may have opinions on a lot of things, but one thing is clear -- homosexuality is found throughout the animal kingdom, it is not against nature," an exhibit statement said.

Geir Soeli, the project leader of the exhibition entitled "Against Nature", told Reuters: "Homosexuality has been observed for more than 1,500 animal species, and is well documented for 500 of them.""

http://www.amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Natural-Diversity/dp/0312192398

Cow Clones

Well, unfortunately, even with all of my dietary restrictions because of medical reasons, it appears that I'm going to have to add another restriction to the list... meat and dairy.

Organically raised *original* meat is going to have to be the only meat option for this omnivore. The FDA has announced plans to approve offspring from genetically cloned animals. This is a *very* bad idea. http://www.organicconsumers.org/Toxic/clone.cfm

As of right now, there is not enough scientific evidence to show if eating the meat or dairy from second generation clones is safe. Cloning, contrary to what the name implies, actually changes the structure of the molecules in the cells of animals. Many times, cells from other animals (humans, worms, mice) are used in the cloning process. While we all share many of the same genetic code, no one is really sure how much of the structure that this process changes and if those changes will be safe for human consumption. Also, there are many ethical questions regarding cloning. I don't know about you, but I sure don't want to eat anything cloned with human DNA... just the idea of it makes my stomach turn. Fortunately, the process is so expensive right now that many farmers will not resort to this option.

Unfortunately, consumers probably won't know what they are eating once this hits the market. We have many genetically engineered foods on the market right now and few, if any, of them are labelled as such. I doubt that meat and dairy products would be labelled as second generation clones.

One of my fears about food cloning is more than just a personal aversion to the topic. I wonder if by changing the structure of molecules and cells, we will also inadvertently end up creating an ideal environment for new virus and bacteria to thrive. One small change in a protein could be all it takes for a mutated virus to find a binding site to a cell and enable it to reproduce.

There just hasn't been enough research into this area of "reproductive technology." Who knows if the offspring of these animals will be safe to eat.... the Food and Drug Administration sure doesn't.

An Idiot's Guide to Voting...

It's nearly election time again and some informed people and great masses of the uninformed will go to the polls to cast their votes. So, out of boredom and cynicism, I've composed the Idiot's Guide to Voting.

Idiot's Voting Rule #1
Read the Constitution and Bill of Rights *before* you vote for the first time or, if you have never read them before, read them before you go vote again.

Constitution and Bill of Rights... have a good read: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/continental/index.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm

If you haven't read the Constitution and Bill of Rights, then you probably don't have an understanding of how the government and laws are suposed to work. You probably also don't know what rights you are guaranteed by the Constitution and what rights you may not take away from others.

Idiot's Voting Rule #2
Know the roles of each branch of government and what powers they have and do not have.

Do not vote for the President because he is "pro-life" or because he is "pro-choice." The Office of Presidency has little, if any, power over the precedence of Supreme Court decisions. Single issue voters often have good intentions, but their energy would be better used writing to their representatives and congressmen who make the laws.

Vote for a President for three reasons: 1) Who they may choose as a Supreme Court Justice should there be a seat to fill... 2) How well they will represent the Country and the people when it comes to foreign relations... 3) If they have leadership *and* humility (i.e. if they will subvert their own personal opinions to the best interest of the public)

Idiot's Voting Rule #3
Always remember that the government is made of and exists to protect a country's citizens and their rights... all of the citizens, even the ones you don't like or disagree with.

Idiot's Voting Rule #4
Know why you're voting and for whom.

Informed voting is better than not voting...
Not voting is better than uninformed voting...
Uninformed voting is a danger to democracy.

If you don't understand the language of a proposed law or ammendment, don't vote either way... skip it and move on. Read the ENTIRE law or ammendment IN CONTEXT. Often they will write laws where the first sentence or two sounds like a good idea, knowing that people won't read the whole thing. Unfortunately, the next few sentences may be a very bad idea, or may even violate someone's right's under the Constitution! Bad laws and bad ammendments cost tax payers a lot of money in lawsuits and court costs.

If you see a candidate on the ballot that you don't recognize, don't vote for them just because you like their name or because they are in the party that you identify with. This could easily turn into a bad decision. Research the candidates before you go to the polls and vote for the person you think will uphold the law and work in the best interest of *all* of the people... not just yourself. If you don't recognize the people running for an office, just skip it and move on. Not voting is better than uninformed voting.

Idiot's Voting Rule #5
Do not single issue vote.

You may feel very compassionate about an issue and only want to vote for the person who feels the same way about it as you do. Unfortunately, politicians know this and will lie about how they really feel just so they can get your vote. Also, for every decision that you feel is a good one that they make, there could be 10 bad ones.

Know as many sides of an issue, law, or amendment that you can find. There may be something that you didn't think about that will be an important reason why you should/should not vote for something.

Also, often times you may votefor a person because of a single issue, but that person cannot not do anything about that issue given the position for which they are running.

Idiot's Voting Rule #6
Voting is NOT an opinion poll!

Do not vote for something because it's your opinion that something should be one way or another. Do not treat the rights of others and the rights of yourself as if they are a Cosmopolitan Quiz of the month. Know your rights and DO NOT do anything to subvert the rights of others, they may one day subvert yours!

Do not waste time with questions on ballots that are opinion-type questions. If the branch of government cannot do anything about an issue, it does NOT belong on a voting ballot. It rather, belongs on an opinion poll.

Your rights should not be left up to the whimsical opinions of others!

Idiot's Voting Rule #7
Voting is not a popularity contest.

I really have heard people say, "Oh, I voted for so-and-so because I thought they were cuter."

Idiot's Voting Rule #8
If you have ever violated rule 7... grab yourself a gallon of bleach and a gallon of ammonia, lock yourself in the bathroom, mix the two together in the tub and JUST STAY HOME!!!

Actually, don't do that... it's rumored it will kill you... but DO STAY HOME!

If I Had Only Had a Penis...

In case it wasn't already confusing enough on who can get married in what state depending on if you're gay or straight... what if you're transgendered? I forget where I found this... but here it is in all of its glorious confusion and nonsense.

"Some people are aware that transgender individuals are often able to enter into a heterosexual marriage after undergoing sex-reassignment. What may be less well-known, however, is that a transgender person may also be married to a person of the same sex. That situation arises, for example, when one of the spouses in a heterosexual marriage comes out as transsexual and transitions within the marriage. If the couple chooses to stay together, as many do, the result is a legal marriage in which both spouses are male or female. Alternatively, in states that do not allow a transgender person to change his or her legal sex, some transgender people have been able to marry a person of the same sex. To all outward appearances and to the couple themselves, the marriage is a same-sex union. In the eyes of the law, however, it is a different-sex marriage because technically speaking, the law continues to view the transgender spouse as a legal member of his or her birth sex even after sex-reassignment. In short, marriage is a very real option for a variety of transgender people in a variety of circumstances."

Regarding Vic Toews

Here's a letter I sent in to my favorite news show, As It Happens. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Barbara & Carol,

I listen to your show at 5am in the States while driving to work. Normally, I am very pleased with the insights that your guests provide into issues about which I may not know much. However, this morning when I tuned in, there was a man proclaiming falsehoods as truths to further his agenda of discrimination and dislike toward gay people.

I am sick and tired of being told that as a gay person, I have no values or that I am destroying the institution of marriage or that I am not "pro-marriage." Just because my values differ from those of your guest, it does not mean that I have no values. Nor does it mean that I am destroying or in any way hold no value of the institution of marriage. In fact, I am "pro-marriage." I am for *everyone's* marriages. Not just those that resemble my own. Your guest should instead call himself "anti-same-sex-marriage" or "pro-heterosexual marriage."

My wife and I were married in Niagara Falls, ON on December 22, 2003. We wanted to get legally married by a minister even though we knew the marriage would not be recognized by our federal government nor our home state of Wisconsin. We believed, and still do believe, that it was important for us to have our marriage sanctioned by an authoritative body. We proudly display our marriage certificate which is framed and hung in our family room. We also understood, because of the way the laws work, that we cannot get divorced. If for some reason our marriage took a wrong turn, we would just have to work it out. In order to get a divorce, one of us would have to immigrate to Canada and live there for at least a year before we could file for a divorce. Our home state of Wisconsin, as well as the surrounding states, does not have the authority to grant us a divorce for a same-sex marriage performed in Canada. This was the second reason why we chose to marry in Canada. We had to be certain that when we said "until death do us part," we meant it.

Your guest stated that religious persons opposed to homosexuality are forced to perform our marriages. This is simply not true. We had a tough time finding a minister who would perform our marriage. We were turned down by every Christian minister that we contacted. They said, rather curtly, that they could not perform our marriage because it was "against their religion" or that it was "against God's law." After we completed our pre-marriage counseling here in the States, we eventually found that we would have to be married by a minister who was not of our faith - a Unitarian minister. He wrote a wonderful ceremony for us and even included some of our favorite Bible versus.

Also, the woman who worked in the chapel in which we were married took the cross down off the wall on which it was hanging before our ceremony... to which my thought was "Who do you think you are? How dare you make the judgment that you can take Jesus away from me!" It was infuriating, but I did not make an issue of it because it was to be a joyous day, not one filled with argument.

Your guest also stated that marriage has always been between "one man and one woman" and that the so-called "activist judges" (funny how they're only 'activist judges' when one disagrees with them) were re-defining marriage by allowing gay people to marry. This is simply fallacy.

Defining marriage as "one man and one woman" would actually be redefing it. To your guest I would ask, "How many wives did Abraham have?"

Marriage has historically been between:

• one man and many women (or as many women as the man could afford - remember, women were chattel)
• one woman and many men (only a couple of cultures exist with this history)
  
• one man and one man (as in marriages between Japanese men - these marriages were considered the purest form of love, or as in Emperor Nero and two of his husbands, or as in Diocletian and his husband, or as in Khnumhotep and Niankhkhum - who shared the title of Overseer of the Manicurists in the Palace of King Niussere during the Fifth Dynasty of Egyptian pharos)
  
• two people of the same sex (as in the many Native American tribes that celebrate formal marriages between two same-sex "two-spirit" people)
• two women (as in "Boston Marriage")
• a man and a woman (arranged marriage for political or geographic reasons)
• and more recently, one man and one woman (marriage for love)

It has not been until relatively recently that the institution of marriage was considered, in the West, only to be (by some) 'one man and one woman.' Even in the early days of Christianity in premodern Europe same-sex marriages were celebrated and sanctioned. Furthermore, it was not until recently that people could marry out of love rather than some economic or pollitical arrangement. As to how recent, my great-grandparent's marriage was arranged... and they passed over only about a decade ago.

If *anything* has destroyed the historically defined definition of marriage, it has been the idea that one can marry for love and that once that love ceases to be as strong, one can easily obtain a divorce. By your guest claiming to "protect marriage" by barring gay people from it (oh... wait... I thought he was claiming to be protecting religious freedom... well... anyway) he is in fact, doing it a great disservice.

Your guest is doing nothing to protect my marriage... whcih I value greatly. If your guest were truly interested in "protecting marriage" then he should protect all marriage - from divorce. Your guest would be better suited to protect marriage by attempting to toughen divorce laws and by advocating for pre-marital counseling.

Your guest also stated that it was necessary to "protect children." I would ask your guest how revoking my wife's and my marriage would possibly protect our children? I would think that they would have a hard time grasping why and how any religion of love could possibly be protecting them by either taking away recognition of their parent's marriage or by making it possible for teachers to say mean things about them and their parents in class.

Your guest also stated that people who disagreed with same-sex marriage should not be forced to recognize them. This is a very dangerous and slippery slope on which I hope Canada does not tread. Here in the States the idea of a "consiencous objector" status for persons who disagree with *anyone* for *any reason* has been brought into light... or into darkness in my opinion. This would essentially create the type of "religous protection" your guest seeks. It could, and has been, used to deny basic (and necessary) medical proceedures to; single moms, gays and lesbians, persons of differing faiths, persons preceived to be of different faiths or sexual orientation, persons of differing ethnic background, and persons of questionable legal status. While this has not been publicized, it has personally happened to me and to some of my friends. This might seem avoidable if one lives in a large city like Toronto. One could simply go to a different medical provider. In rural areas of Canada however, there are people who would be caused great harm and who would have to go through teh painstaking and expensive process of trying to find a doctor in a geographic area not their own, who will treat them.

Also, this opens the door for discrimination in the workplace. Religious businesses or even a corporate institution that is headed by a person of a faith that disagrees with homosexuality (or any for any other reason they feel is wrong) would be allowed to fire someone because they do not agree with the person.

It would place children in danger because teachers would be allowed to teach their class that a certain child's family is worth less or that their family is somehow immoral. These children could be the endless subject or ridicule and persecution by other students. This bill would do serious and real harm to many families across Canada.

A friendly warning from one of your southernly neighbors... It's already happening here, this isn't hype, don't go this route.

What your guest is really looking for is a legalized free pass to discriminate. He is looking for a way to spread his way of how he thinks the world should be and to persecute those that do not fit his definition of what is right. To your guest, I would ask how a Jesus, who loves and welcomes all, would respond to this action? I would ask if God will judge me for whom I love, or him for whom he hates and harms?

Your guest also mentions that he would like to see a review of how same-sex marriage affects society and marriage. This is simple... count the percentage of divorces that have occurred between opposite-sex couples and the percentage of divorces that have occruued between same-sex couple in the time frame in which same-sex marriage has been legal. If it's anything like it is here in the states... there's a lot more straight marriages ending in divorce.

Also, studies here have been done that show that the states that are most opposed to same-sex marriages and who proclaim to rate "family values" and religion as their most important values, also have the highest divorce rates. Interestingly, the only state that allows same-sex marriage, Massachusetts, has the lowest divorce rate in the nation. Now, how is it again that my marriage is somehow a threat to the institution?

Finally, I would ask, rather beg, that you *please, please, please* invite a guest on your show to discuss the *real* history of marriage, not just the recent Western history of marriage. It is important that people are informed and that they do not remain ignorant regarding this topic.

As always, I'll be listening attentively.

Happily (gaily) Married,
ShayShay
----------------------------------------------------

Pro-What?

I'm sick and tired of the hypocrisy and the labeling of things with names that are exactly the opposite of what they mean.

Take, for example, the gubernatorial debate that happened here in Wisconsin on Friday between Doyle and Green...

Green stated that he makes "no bones about it," he's pro-life. He also did not dispute that he opposes abortion in *all* cases. Green also says that he does not support the use of tax dollars to "destroy living human embryos."

Then, Green turns around and voices support for the death penalty.

Pro-life should mean just that. Not just pro-embryo or pro-fetus. Pro-life should mean pro-all life. If you label yourself as "pro-life" but are for the death penalty and/or for war, you're nothing but a hypocrite. What you should call yourself is anti-abortion... not pro-life.

To go even further, I should hope that anyone who *does* call themselves pro-life is also a vegetarian. Life is life... it should not matter if it is human or other animal. It should also not matter that you consider your life to be of greater value than that of other animals. I'm sure that the dear that hunters shoot value their lives more than the lives of the hunters. If you were to ask the dear, I'm certain that it would consider itself in the definition of what it would mean to be pro-life.

It is the ignorance of self-importantance that is promoted by religion that makes humans think that they should value themselves more than any other of Earth's creatures.

And... just for the record... I'm pro-choice and an omnivore. I personally wouldn't get an abortion unless it wasn't my choice to conceive a child. But I don't feel that I have the right to impose my belief system on everyone else. As for eating meat. I'm allergic to all kinds of grains, so meat is a huge staple in my diet. I do not consider myself more important than any other animal on the planet... we all have a purpose... but I will gladly eat a tasty bit of meat and live knowing that something may one day decide that I also look like a tasty bit of meat.

You may ask how I feel that I can be critical of other's beliefs when I do not wish to impose my beliefs on others. The answer is simple. I won't impose *my* beliefs on anyone else, I *will* impose someone else's beliefs on themselves. (And I like it when others point out to me when I fail to live by my own standards. It forces me to re-evaluate myself and my beliefs.) If you believe in something, then believe in it. Don't pick and choose. Don't be a hypocrite. Have reasons to back up your belief... or at the very least do not label yourself falsely as pro- something you're not.