When Abortion Becomes Ironic

So conservatives and the religious devout are typically completely opposed to abortion, period, the end. But if anything would truly test how much they are opposed to abortion would be the 100% accurate isolation of the gay gene. Some people think it would be the greatest thing if scientists ever found the gay gene because it would be empirical proof that homosexuals are genetically born gay. I, on the other hand, think this would be the worst thing to happen to gays. (There have been possibilities that the gay gene has been isolated, but it is more probabilities that the switch for a certain allele to be triggered to activate homosexuality is only slightly higher in homosexuals than in heterosexuals)

I was discussing this with my friend Scott, and we came came to the conclusion that if the gay gene was isolated the homosexual population would dwindle to almost complete nonexistence. There still is a tremendous amount of homophobia in America (and parts of the world), and if the gay gene could be isolated, then parents could always check if their child will be a homosexual. If the fetus is positive for wearing assless chaps at future gay pride parades, then they will have a higher incentive to abort the fetus.

This scenario will be more typical in conservative and religiously devout families. Heck, churches and congregations will probably even get the point where they will encourage families to test for the gay gene and abort if positive in order to avoid produce offspring living a life of "sin". Next thing the sides switch : pro-choice liberals will be protesting in front of abortion clinics (though there will probably be clinics specially for gay abortions) against abortions and for "murder". While all the pro-life religious conservatives will be justifying it to themselves that it's okay, because we don't want a child living in sin.

And that would be one of the more sad and disgusting possibilities of irony in our age.

Helter Skelter Pt. 2

Following the bombing of the Prime Minister's office in Oslo, Norway on July 22 the news media could only seem to point the finger at Muslim extremists. They claimed it could be Al Qaeda retaliating for the assassination of Bin Laden or the publishing of Danish press for the cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad (the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoon). Then it turned out to be a white, Christian conservative named Anders Behring Breivik.

That must have been a shock. It had to been something along the lines of the DC sniper back in 2002. Everyone thought it would have been a white man, considering the long list of white males sniping people off. What a shock it was when it was found out that the sniper was black (regardless of his Islamic extremist views). I recall several years ago a comedian commenting on this event saying something along the lines of, "Way to screw it up for the rest of us!" What a shock it must be for Christian conservatives to find the Oslo bombing and youth camp shooting rampage having been committed by a white Christian conservative. But that should be hush-hush or you'll upset Sarah Palin. Don't want to upset "Mama Bear". She must be saying, "Way to screw it up for us!"

Hours before the bombing Breivik sent digital copies of a manifesto he was writing to various person of his acquaintance. It describes, amongst many things, sparking a civil war in Europe with intentions against Muslims. Hmmm... Sounds a lot like Charles Mason's ideology for Helter Skelter. Essentially Mason planned to have a number of white people (what he called "piggies") to be brutally murdered, and frame it on African-Americans (or "blackies"). He wanted to start a race war between the blacks and the whites, and the blacks were supposed to win. Then Mason and his family would arise and have the blacks as their slaves.

I don't know at this moment if Breivik expected the Muslims to win, or what were any deeper motives than starting a civil war, but the ideology is too eerily close. Mason must be celebrating in his cell. I wonder how many women are wanting Breivik to marry them, and how much "love mail" he's getting. Because that's another thing that will never change : women falling in love with mass murderers and serial killers. That one I will never understand. Let's just hope Breivik doesn't carve and X in his forehead.

What ever happened to slick, hansom European terrorists in movies? Die Hard V, anyone?

The Half-Life of the Tea Party

I still don't understand where people are getting this impression that the Tea Party will somehow become a legitimate third party. Maybe it is a hopeless litany from the Republicans thinking that if an extreme rightest party like the Tea Party will allow the Republicans to be hold the center of political affiliation (i.e. between the right and the left). In fact, I mostly hear this impression coming from conservatives. But one thing is for certain, how can a party that advocates the extreme limiting of governmental power, if not the abolishment of federal government altogether, can survive?

It's simple mathematics. If you keep cutting something in half, you slowly approach 0. This is understood in chemistry as half-life, and over time an element will slowly decay its atomic constitution, and the process of decay is asymptotic. If you have a sample of uranium, after so many years half the uranium will decay into lead. In the same amount of time another half will decay into lead, leaving only a quarter of uranium left. Then it decays in half again, and so forth.

So if the Tea Party in some miraculous act of God himself somehow gained power in Washington, they begin to limit the power of the federal government. If they manage to take away so much power, they might not even have the power to even take away anymore power from themselves. It's a bloody conundrum.

There is simply something seriously disturbing about the continuation party that wants to destroy government altogether and let the people run themselves. This sounds awfully familiar... ah, yes, it's called anarchy. Well, the whole deal will either end in anarchy or severe disappointment. I'm leaning towards the latter.

Oh, not mention that it's a group of pompous, arrogant, ignorant morons. How will they survive?

Conspiracy of NWO Debunked?

Conspiracy theories abound us everywhere. It seems like common human nature to assert some bogus causality to things we just don't seem to understand. Things like "has there been a virgin birth since Christ"? Some people think that there have been and that the Vatican has gone to enormous measures to cover them up. Despite the fact that there has never been one reported medical case of human parthenogensis, some people still speculate the Vatican has powers to cover up such phenomenon. Other conspiracies like 9-11 and UFOs make crackpots out of people. Others, like the JFK assassination leave those not believing in the conspiracy looking like the crackpots.

One of the big conspiracies has been Freemasons and the New World Order (or NWO). It's not a big secret that Masons have secrets. But then again, so do realestate agents on how to buy and sell a house (see Freakonomics). The conspiracy of the NWO originates on the back of the One Dollar Bill. Beneath the pyramid with the All-Seeing Eye is written "Novus Ordo Seclorum", which is commonly translated literally as "New World Order". Since it's Latin, direct translations are misleading, when, in fact, the proper translation is "A New Order for the World." The latter certainly sounds a little less tyranical.

The NWO has connotations of a global tyranny of despots of monetary wealth, while being culturally perverse. This seems to be what has been driven into the minds of anyone who watches the History Channel. Point in fact, the NWO is an idea of global peace, where knowledge and culture flourish in ethnic and gender equality. The image accompanied with the One Dollar Bill shows a desert behind the pyramid, while in the foreground vegetation sprouts. America started as agricultural colonies, and the early Fathers (who were Masons and farmers) believed they were creating a renovatio or "Rebirth" (i.e. Renaissance) from the cultural deserts of poverty, debauchery and ignorance that surround the Old World. This is primarily how Joseph Campbell reads this symbol on the dollar bill (see Power of Myths with Bill Moyer).

About a year ago a good friend of mine, Charles Lloyd Mashburn Jr. published his thesis on a Universal Masonic Temple for all Masons across the globe through all cultures and religions (a video of his project can be accessed on Youtube here, and his brief article on the thesis can be accessed here). It was designed to go in Jerusalem (it was a class project, and not necessary meant to be built). I remember him speculating if his thesis got around enough people would start to create conspiracies surrounding his project. Recently his project has come under a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy website Apocalypse 1957 (link here) has a blurb that "they" (whoever "they" are) plan on building his project, though no actual realization of his Universal Temple of Masonry has been made. This isn't really a conspiracy, just people not doing their research. The blurb is made within a article with connotations of the NWO (though the NWO is not mentioned) and a summit of Atheists and Freemasons.

Other sites have implied, though never stated, the architect of the Universal Temple of Masonry (i.e. Charles) is part of the NWO and the Illuminati. The latter makes me laugh. Besides the fact that the Illuminati were a bunch of begrudging scientists and humanists with a gripe against the Vatican (who didn't have a gripe with the Vatican in the 16th and 17th Century?), they dwindled and petered out a few years after they were formed. Some speculate they may still be around, though it is highly doubtful. Charles makes a meager wage (for his skills, he is vastly underpaid) at a small architecture firm in Savannah, GA. Given what I know about Charles and his affairs (I'm sure he wouldn't appreciate me going too deeply into his affairs), if Charles was part of the NWO or the Illuminati one would think he would have a better paying job. It's not like he participates in the Bohemian Grove.

Wooo! If you put a Star of David over the pyramid on the One Dollar Bill the points of the star will point the letters M, A, S, O, N! Duh... it was drawn by a Mason.

Well, Americans Didn't Get Their Bi-Yearly Dose of Death

I am under the impression that very little has changed since the Roman Empire when it comes to contemporary society. The Roman ideology of "Keep them fed, keep them entertained" hasn't gone very far, as death an violence are still very much apart of contemporary entertainment today. It seems to me that Americans are more upset about Casey Anthony not getting the needle than anything else. I'm certain if she was convicted of murdering her daughter the general public would still be in uproar if the jury so happened to not recommend the use of Capitol Punishment.

Well, the big fuss has been that "justice was not served". There have already been comparisons between this trail and the O. J. Simpson trial, which is like comparing the Iraq War to the Vietnam War... might as well try and compare Barak Obama to a pack of jelly beans, or George W. Bush to a pack of Tic-Tacs. They are two different things, and far beyond comparison.

It really isn't just the issue of if justice was served, it is Americans (and largely Republicans) not getting their bi-annual dose of death this year. The War in Iraq ended, and we have grown so accustom to car bombings and suicide bombings, it seemed like a novelty that someone might get the needle. I think some people wanted someone to die for this. All the experts brought in to give their best guess as the jury's verdict all claimed that she would be found guilty with such a short deliberation, because "the jury already has their minds made up". No one stopped for one minute to think that they might have had their minds made up on the fact that their were numerous holes in the Prosecution's evidence, there was hardly a motive presented, and the motive that was presented had several contradictions in it. I guess some "experts" were hoping she would die.

I think many of us have forgotten what is the big ideology of Justice, and that is "Justice is blind". There's a reason for that. Without the Burden of Proof and "proof beyond a reasonable doubt", there is no case, and someone cannot be sent to prison or the chair because someone needed their dose of death. Whether or not justice was served, whether or not she did it, the Prosecution failed to do their job, and that's the People's fault. No one deserves any punishment because someone didn't do their job. Isn't that part of the American ideology? The right and pursuit of happiness?

And just because someone needs to see someone die, doesn't mean We the People need to provide a victim. We don't live in the Bronze Age anymore.

I Did It For The LULZ!

So, recently one of my cousins wrote on his Facebook about the hacker group ANONYMOUS. What he was referring to was when they hacked an FBI website. This website the FBI created and asked anyone who could hack it, and that if they could the FBI would pay them a large sum of money and give them a job. ANONYMOUS hacked it and wrote "I did it for the LULZ", meaning they only hacked it for kicks and didn't want the money or the job. My cousin pointed out in his posting that the "LULZ" didn't have anything to do with LOL cats.

At first, I thought he was simply making an odd observation. But it then occurred to me that he is of the generation that has accepted "lol" as a legitimate word, and does not quite understand it's etymology. 

I was about 13 when "lol" was being used frequently on IM. I actually remember when I first came across this acronym I had to ask what it meant. It wasn't until I was about 15 that I heard people people say in everyday conversation "l-o-l" (i.e. spelling it out) And it wasn't until I was about 19 when I heard people simply saying "lol" (i.e. as in "lull"). He's about 14 years old (I think), which means he was about 3 years old when that term was beginning to gain momentum in usage.

For someone who studies word roots, etymology, and linguistics for kicks (or for the lols), I simply find this amazing. This is the birth of an actual word, no matter the vulgarity. Who knows how long that word may survive until found archaic or is corrupted (as lulz is a corruption of lols). And for someone who spends a good chuck of his research dedicated to the origin of things (namely architecture and the architect), it is amazing to actually experience the origin of something as simple as a word, rather than just reading about it in the dictionary. And just so we are clear here, on March 24th, 2011 the term "lol" was added into the Oxford Dictionary. Welcome to the Internet Meme generation. Get used to it Baby Boomers.

I particularly enjoy their reference of a possessed man (I suppose a "trolled" or "hacked" man) in Mark 5 : 9...

Tell Me Mr. Frank Gehry, Do You Hate Architecture Now?

I believe I'm not the only one who is beginning to wonder if Frank Gehry hates architecture. This is why I am dubbing him the new Mies van der Rohe.

Van der Rohe was one of those architects that changed the language of architecture, much the way Gehry introduced new forms for architectural consideration in design. One looks at Mies's early career and finds several very exciting projects of his. Two of my favorite buildings of all time are the Tungendhat House and the Barcelona Pavilion. The usage of materials in planar simplicity contribute so much to spatial definition and sensuality. Even the Seagram Tower is rather extraordinary, although simple (and today superfluous due to Miesian followers), it is still intriguing in its usage of that liquor-brown glass, as well as the detailing. Then comes Mies's later career, like the Martin Luther King Library in D.C. and the Neue Nationalgalerie in Berlin... especially the Neue Nationalgalerie. It is really like he hates architecture by that point : it's just one big roof (about 14 feet deep, I believe) on 8 columns on the outside of the building (not at the corners) on a pedestal. No interior columns, no playful spatial definition through materiality. Nope, just a big roof on some columns, enclosed in glass. In fact, the roof was constructed on the ground, the columns attached at hinges, and the whole thing was lifted up and locked into place... ... he definitely hated architecture by that point.

Gehry's New World Center in South Beach, Miami is quite the same story. It's just a big white box with some glass walls, and with some curves thrown in here and there. Just like his proposal for the Eisenhower Memorial in D.C., it's like the man doesn't even try anymore. The Eisenhower Memorial looks like he just passed it off to his interns. Some would say he is maturing... that or he hates architecture.

So this is what architecture has turned into : just pass everything off to the interns and hope that somehow you still will win an award and end up in Architectural Record (i.e. Hadid), just because you were awesome at the beginning of your career. If it's all about the press coverage and awards, then architecture needs a serious rebirth. If it isn't dead, then the contractors will kill it no time.

Wasn't architectural supposed to remind of something eternal, like, oh, I don't know, the awesome things humans can build? Rather than these mere trifles of effort?

No seriously, this the Eisenhower Memorial proposal for D.C. :