Do Gays Cause Hurricanes? by Janis Walworth
Heeheehee.
No, re-electing Bush does.
I promised I wouldn’t talk about the debate, but it’s too tempting not to stay quiet.
From Annie in Spain, “I heard on the radio this morning that (according to the commentator I was listening to) Kerry ‘won’ the debate last night. Did you see it? I need to go turn on CNN, I am curious to see how stupid Bush looked this time.”
Bush could not conceal his anger and kept reverting to a rehearsed and more refined method of name-calling. What a sneak – relying on the emotional weaknesses of the American people and getting them to turn off the rational part of their brains. If the country votes for him again, it’s their loss. This is what I tell non-voters: maybe you don’t like the choice of candidates, but one can definitely wreak more harm than the other in the course of 4 years. A vote in this country, while not completely democratic, definitely makes a difference.
Annie again: “Is it sounding like you are going to vote for Kerry after all? Last time I asked, you were still leaning toward Nader. PLEASE vote for Kerry!!!!! With an election this close, a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush — like it or not.”
No, a vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush. It’s a vote for Nader. However, Nader and his mission are getting old, i.e. he is running out of spite for the two-party system as opposed to any earth-shattering and positive changes he has to contribute. I abhor the two-party system but I cannot vote for an equally insipid third party because I am angry. Therefore, I probably will end up voting for Kerry, if only to put Bush’s ancient cronies back in cold storage and hope they die of old age before they can be revived to unleash their version of trickle-down havoc again.
Give me my money back,
Give me my money back, you bitch!
— Ben Folds Five, Song For The Dumped
Guess I owe everyone an explanation of the Hurricane Ivan fallout. Well, two anxiety attacks and panicked packing and storing later, D and I raced to Houston with our Important Belongings (in the little Honda, after dropping my mother off at the airport). Yes, we took the CPUs and expensive electronics instead of the art – we’re tech geeks, what do you expect? It took us 10.5 hours to get there and, oh, only 9.5 to get back, even on the back roads. On the bright side, we spent a few dry, lovely and allergy-filled days with Rolf, Tim and The Farm, not to mention a pilgrimage to Rudz. I’d never have known that DeQuincy, Louisiana exists but for this storm.
Anti-climactic moment of the decade: On our return to NO 6 days later, we found that the city, being on the west side of the counterclockwise-swirling hurricane, suffered a severe drought during our absence, and that all the little houseplants wilted, instead of landing on a rooftop 5 miles away. Our philodendron fell over and landed in the stinky pond that is yet to be dredged out one of these years. And, Machelle called to inform that she was alright: the only hurricane damage she suffered was a leaf that fell off her brand spanking new banana plant. Not being wholly insensitive, we held the poor leaf a wake. Or was it to celebrate our homes being intact, I don’t remember …
On a more somber note: Never will I forget the way I felt preparing for the evacuation. Even back in 1990, when I had a feeling that I might never again see my home in Kuwait, I didn’t know this level of apprehension and confusion. It’s a horrible feeling to realize, so suddenly and so violently, that you feel exactly the way your parents felt when they left their home up to the whimsy of the gods. Or Iraqi invaders and local pillaging, in their case. That even this earthly semi-permanence cannot be conquered in the face of something as awesome as a hurricane is a very cleansing and terrifying experience. I hope you never have to go through evacuation, and then, I do.
Hurricane Ivan has us New Orleanians really, really nervous. Here are a few National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration images and animations that help foment anxiety attacks:
Western Atlantic Water Vapor Image Loop
From Newsscan.com:
Today’s Honorary Subscriber is the Scottish geologist Sir Charles Lyell (1797-1875), who popularized the theories, methods, and principles on which the modern science of geology is based.
Lyell’s major contribution was demonstrating that physical, chemical, and biological forces operating over long periods of geological time produced all features of the Earth’s surface. This was intended to contradict the prevailing theory that the Earth’s properties are the result of a short period of catastrophic upheaval and flooding. Lyell’s extensive investigations of rock formations and the strata of the earth’s crust convinced him his data were better explained by James Hutton’s uniformitarian theory of gradual and ongoing change. Hutton’s views had been known for 40 years, but had little support until Lyell took it up as the guiding framework for his popular three-volume work, “The Principles of Geology.” The other major work of Lyell was his 1863 publication “The Antiquity of Man,” in which he applied Darwin’s evolutionary views to the development of man, a position that Darwin himself had not yet proposed.
Lyell was born at Kinnordy in eastern Scotland. The eldest of 10 children, Lyell attended a series of private schools, and at age 19 entered Oxford University, where he studied the classics, mathematics, and geology. In 1819 he earned a B.A. with honors and moved to London to study law (but found relief from his legal studies by taking geological excursions to examine formations in the Earth’s crust and sedimentation in freshwater lakes). Admitted to the bar in 1825, he continued his geological investigations, with the intention of gathering evidence to support his conviction that the ordinary natural processes of today do not differ in kind or magnitude from those of the past — and that the Earth must therefore be very ancient because these everyday processes work so slowly.
Read the rest in the September 09, 2004 issue of Newsscan.com
