but where is the cheese?: May 2009

Monday, May 18, 2009

[from my myspace] In Disfavor of Evolution

Ah, evolution! O how it is taught as fact. O how it permeates the scientific world. O how con-evolutionists—notice that I do not specify creationists—are looked down upon in our evolutionistic world.

True, evolution theory explains the existence of otherwise useless organs or body parts (such as flightless insects' wings, blind cave species' eyes, or the remnants of human tail bones) by the current species' descent from species who needed such organs or body parts and their loss of such things through adaption to other ways of living.

Yes, geological fossil records do show an almost continuous transformation of species over the course of biological time, with the gaps between subsequent evolutionary steps constantly becoming increasingly smaller and smaller as new fossils become discovered.

Indeed, the term "natural selection" and the phrase "survival of the fittest" hold some credence with the previous two bits of evidence (as well as other "facts" of evolution): natural selection helps to describe the increasing or decreasing prevalence of more advantageous or disadvantageous traits in a species over generations, while survival of the fittest helps to explain the passing-on of the traits of the stronger members of a species which inevitably leads to the decrease in the gene pool of the traits of the weaker creatures.

Okay, so I've just laid out some of the more convincing points of pro-evolutionists that are pretty well-known. Now, I feel compelled to share the counter-arguments to evolution theory that are actually legitimate and not necessarily pro-creationistic.

Remember that first pro-evolution point about the remnants of otherwise useless body parts or organs still existing? Well, the converse of that would be the appearance of useful body parts or organs. For example, did the aerodynamic bird feather develop on a flightless creature with the supposed future usefulness of flight? If so, then natural selection would not have fostered its widespread emergence until flight made its usefulness apparent, so the emergence and then prevalence of the feather should not have occurred. This example actually has some type of rebuttal theory though: "at its first appearance, a fortuitous novelty may confer subtle and invisible advantages" (Miller and Van Loon 131). That is, the emergence of the feather may have appeared due to a different more subtle reason (such as heat insulation) before eventually settling on the current more useful use (flight). However, there still remain organs that are indeed quite useful but explanations for the appearance, emergence, and development of such organs do not exist. The most striking example is the eye. Obviously, sight is wholly useful for every species that have eyes, but how did the eye even come about?

Going back to the fossils-showing-the-continuous-transformation-of-species-overtime point, it is very important to note that gaps in the fossil record still exist. In fact, "[t]here is now overwhelming evidence pointing to the conclusion that certain forms remained stable for long periods of time, only to be suddenly succeeded by new forms altogether" (Miller and Van Loon 133). Therefore, evolution theory does not explain well the often sudden changes of fossil types. One attempt to explain the lapses in the fossil record is that sudden rapid genetic transformations or mutations may have occurred in times of rapid geological change that are, of course, better adapted to the new environments and consequently get passed on through the species. The main argument against this explanation is that such an abrupt change in the hereditary instructions of a species would prove to be rather immobilizing to embryological development.

So therefore, evolution theory has holes that, in my opinion, aren't taught or aren't highlighted as strongly as they should be. Evolution is not fact; it is merely the best theory we have and should be treated as such, holes and all. I know that when I learned about evolution, it was taught as essentially absolute fact—like multiplication or gravity (oh god, gravity ... don't get me started). Things in science really should not be taught as absolute facts. What happens if we have another paradigm shift, like the ones created by Albert Einstein or Sir Isaac Newton? Do we really want to wait decades or even centuries before such better ideas are finally viewed with credibility just because the majority of the population strongly disagrees with the new idea? Well, I'm getting on a really big tangent, so I'll leave you with this: evolution is NOT fact.

[from my myspace] What Population Bomb?

Essentially, it's common knowledge that the world's population is increasing at an exponential rate. There are issues of starvation and crowdation in areas that are poster nations for significantly large population growth rates (Nigeria, Bangladesh, Brazil). There is a migration of people from rural to urban regions in the past century, so much so that nearly half of the world's 6.6 billion (that's 6,600,000,000!) live in urban areas. This means that over 3 billion people live in concentrated areas around the globe! Dear god, we must do something, right? Well, that's what the mainstream mindset has been ever since Paul Ehrlich published his book Population Bomb back in 1968.

However, we must look past the macro numbers that keep getting thrown at us. True, it's been taking much less time for people to reach the next billion milestone.

As evidence by this nifty map, it's been taking less than 20 years for the human world population to reach another billion people. But if we take a closer look, we'll notice something much more interesting and much more drastic and even terrifying.

The population increase is happening predominantly in the developing world.

Let me go back in human history for a moment and explain something. There are only two factors that affect human population at the international level: fertility and mortality (i.e., births and deaths). (As a side note, migration also affects population increases or decreases, but since people aren't leaving or entering the earth, migration isn't an issue.) Before industrialization and great medical advances, there were lots of deaths, and, as such, people had lots of babies to try to make up for it because there was no way to know if the child you just gave birth to would live long enough to give you grandchildren.

Then industrialization and the scientific revolution come along and determine factors of mortality and how to overcome them. Here enters the lowering of mortality. However, fertility is still high. Therefore, population boom due to lots of births but not as much deaths. Ergo, big population growth occurs.

But then as countries become developed and medical advances and resources give people assurance (and insurance) that their children will survive, fertilty decreases because not a lot of people want to have 10 children if they know all of them will survive. So as nations become developed and established and stable, fertility and mortality are again at similar levels, except as opposed to early human history instead of being really high, they are both really low.

Now why did I mention this? Because developed nations are the ones that have exhibited this. All developed nations had great population growths when they were becoming industrialized. For example, here is the U.S.:

Does the shape look familiar to you? Yep, that's right. It looks eerily similar to the world population growth chart. Of course, with a population overtime graph of a single nation, it's hard to factor in things like in- and out-migration (especially since there is a lot of migration into the U.S. in recent decades). Now, let's look at a nation that might not experience as much in-migration as the U.S., like France:

As you can see, the population is stablizing! (Even though, there has been a lot of controversy about the in-migration of Muslims from former French colonies and such.)

So what's my point? As the world becomes developed, the "population bomb" will no longer exist. Not only that but populations might actually end up declining! In developed nations likes Italy and Japan, the total fertilty rates are below replacement. They are only experiencing non-negative population growth rates because there is an inequality world-wide between developed and developing nations, which leads to people in developing nations wanting to migrate to developed nations, essentially countering the negative natural growth rates in developed nations.

There is a push for nations to become developed. In doing so, mindsets change about having large families. People will end up having fewer children (or no children at all!) and then what? Population will steadily decrease.

As shown in one of the previous maps, the developed world makes up a much smaller portion of the world population compared to the developing world.

Yes, there are issues of overpopulation in DEVELOPING nations. But inevitably and in the long run, nations of the world will be DEVELOPED. And when we look at the data of developed nations now, we are looking at issues of underpopulation in the future to come. Empty schools, empty workplaces, empty stores. A shrinking workforce (which basically means a smaller economy!!!). What will we do with the excess buildings we've built overtime to accommodate the growing population when populations start shrinking? Will ghost towns be normal globally?

And I haven't even begun discussing the aging population. People over 65 are becoming a much larger group. They don't work. They're done with contributing to the labor force. With developed nations comes better health comes older people comes a large elderly population.

Are we screwed?

Some sources I used:
http://www.census-charts.com/Population/pop-us-1790-2000.html
http://saferenvironment.wordpress.com/2008/08/19/explosive-population-growth-affects-world-food-supplies-and-environment/
Shorto, Russell. "No Babies?" The New York Times. 29 June 2008.

[from my myspace] Vampire Sex

[intro]
I used myspace.com blogs for the past few years for my randomly-spaced blogging. Therefore, I am jumpstarting my blog here with most of those blogs, lightly edited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original posting: Monday, July 28, 2008, 3:33 AM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just the idea of vampire sex is intriguing to me. To clarify, I don't mean roleplay vampire sex or a euphemism for biting/sucking during foreplay/sex. I am referring to actual vampires having sex or sex involving at least one vampire. I should also take you aside and explain that for this dialogue to make any sense, you must throw out reason and logic and just simply assume that vampires exist.

The method of the creation of vampires and the fact that vampires are immortal seems to make the action of sex between vampires superfluous in the first place. Now, there are many different ways for a human to become a vampire based on various legends and mythos from a myriad of different cultures. But the general trend of a vampire becoming a vampire is that a dead or dying human becomes a vampire through sucking his/her own blood back from the vampire, having some sort of creature jump across his/her grave (although this might be about the creation of a zombie ... not entirely sure), or whatever. Therefore, a vampire is essentially dead. But since they function, they are "un"dead. My point here is that the liveness required for the reproduction of humans should no longer be functioning in the body of a vampire. And since the base purpose of sex is to reproduce, vampire sex shouldn't even exist.

Of course, I should probably take you (the audience) aside again and explain shortly why vampire sex is on my mind. I just saw Dark World: Evolution. You know the movie; Kate Beckinsale is in it (she plays a vampire). She has sex with some hybrid vampire/werewolf in it. Anyway, so this sex scene got me to thinking about vampire sex. I've also had conversations about vampire sex in the past--Yes, that's right, plural, more than one. You should not be thinking that I'm weird right now though; instead, you should be questioning what types of people I am associating with in order to even have good-length conversations about vampire sex with.

Anyway, so vampires--female ones in particular--tend to be rather seducing and quite sexy. Voluptuous breasts and such as well. The men tend to have rather nice upper bodies as well. (For this, I refer you to the television series Buffy and also Angel.) In fact, I can't exactly even recall seeing fat vampires in popular culture either. They tend to be slim or muscular and generally attractive. This, of course, brings us to the question of why? Why are vampires sexy? And, the corollary (which is also my original question), why do vampires have sex?

We can, firstly, look at the behavior of vampires. They continue to exist after (human) "death" by suckling at an essential liquid of life: blood. Blood, as we know, is associated with human arousal. So vampires may just be having all the hot--incredibly sexy/hot--sex that they have because they exist on a liquid form of the human sex drive, which as we know is very high. And because they're already dead, they aren't plagued with the diseases associated with blood, so they stay flawlessly hot. So damn fucking hot.

So even though I have stumbled upon sort of an answer to my question, I refuse to believe that is the end of it. Sexy blood coursing through their veins just seems like a cop-out answer to me.

Perhaps vampires really don't have sex, but they are only portrayed to do so for symbolic reasons. Vampires can only go out at night, and since the night tends to represent more fun activities in some cultures (such as clubbing, the "nightlife," parties, etc.), the "fun" life is also associated with vampires. Then it is not much of a stretch to assume that vampires have been shown to have damn hot sex ... not because they need to for the survival of their species but because it's fun and they can do it. It just goes in line with their night living.

Also, the fact that vampires are dead and have dead blood in their body also brings up the question of how they have sex, but I don't think any type of discussion or speculation on this particular topic will ever sufficiently resolve this issue. Only a demonstration will suffice. Mm, yes, only a demonstration ...

Moving on ... well, I could theorize more about why vampires have sex and are also sexy, but since vampires (and zombies too, for that matter) don't exist, I suppose further conjecture is really just moot. I will conclude with this statement that cannot be denied: Vampires are hot.

[from my myspace] Controversy and Genetics?

Genetics is a touchy issue. How so, you ask? You must be thinking that genetics is a science. Science is fact, proven by empirical research. How can something as straightforward as science be so controversial? It can't be possible that genetics actually raises people's temperatures!

Wrong. All wrong. When genetics tries to explain things such as differences in intellect, athleticism, or success potential based on genotype (which cannot be changed--for instance, race, gender, etc.), people explode. Period.

Dr. James Watson is a Nobel laureate for his co-discovery of the structure of DNA way back in 1953. His distinction of being a Nobel Prize winner and DNA pioneer has led to people twisting his words to raise … something. I don't know what.

For example, about 10 years ago, a British newspaper published the headline: "Abort babies with gay genes, says Nobel winner." About this event, Watson said: "It was a hypothetical thing. If you could detect it pre-natally, could a woman abort a child who was homosexual? I said they should have the right to, because most women want to have grandchildren, period. We can't do it, but it's common sense. Anyways, it was a bad day when that headline hit. I was just arguing for the freedom of women to try and have the children they want, not what is right or wrong."

Watson is a geneticist. These are things geneticists explore. He has even discussed if there was a genetic explanation for Jewish success. "I'm not particularly worried about the fact that we're not all the same," he began. "I'm really much more concerned with social justice, that everyone has a place in society. That's really what I'm concerned with. … If they find genes for all kinds of Jewish intelligence, I don't think it's going to affect me in the slightest." Going on, he said, "There was a difference between the Scotch and Irish, and it suddenly disappeared. … A 10-point difference can disappear pretty fast."

Offering his own take on a solution to intellectual differences between and among races, he brought up the comparatively lower intellect (as far as IQ testing goes) in the African region, "We could change things through better schools, or we could change things through medicines. We certainly know if you had very poor nutrition and you don't have enough iodine, that's going to stamp a whole people. And to what extent poverty in Africa is related to this—nutrition or no nutrition—we don't know."

Really, what Watson discusses is all theoretical and completely up-in-the-air. There simply isn't a conclusive answer, but he still conjectures—as all scientists do. In the same way that whites might supersede blacks in the "smartness" category, blacks overtake whites in the athletic field, and Waston addresses this: "I don't know what it's due to. Because we haven't found genes. You know, genes depending on what sort of types of muscles, slow twitch, fast twitch. I don't think it's going to change things much. White runners will still try to beat black runners. And they'll largely lose. But they're gonna try. If you're a sprinter, you're going to try to run as fast as you can."

Even if a genetic explanation for these "racial differences" is found, Watson still holds onto the fact that it is for the betterment of society for such knowledge to be known. It won't affect people on an individual basis. He said, "I am convinced that the movement towards personalized genetics is going to improve their lives. Black people and white people, we're going to both be better because of this knowledge. Everyone should be judged [as] individuals. No one should be judged by a term like 'black.' So I'm optimistic about where we're going. I don't think it's going to lead to people being just discriminated. I see them being helped by knowing what genes might affect your health, and also in understanding when you don't fit in."

Now, say, hypothetically, there really is a genetic reason for intellectual differences based on race. Would it be wise to shield such information from the public, knowing full well that such information may cause the "inferior" races to be lowered in society? To this, Watson says, "I don't think we can prevent the discoveries. [That would] prevent any possibility of using knowledge to make people's lives better, so I don't think that's the way to go. I do think we have a moral question, a very serious moral question. … To what extent do you help people, at the bottom? What is called social Darwinism, you know, let them go extinct, I find repulsive."

Going off on this "social" aspect Watson brings up, it's been argued that there has been less and less racial discrimination in the last century or so because race is being seen as a social construct rather than a rigid biological trait. In the days of slavery, blacks were enslaved with the rough mindset of "Your skin is darker. You are inferior to me. Any children you have will also have dark skin and therefore will be inferior." However, in recent times, differences between racial groups have been more attributed to the cultural differences between the racial groups, à la black culture, Korean culture, Irish culture, and so forth. It was no longer merely just a difference in skin color or but a difference in a people's way of life.

So semi-based on this, differences in intellect, success potential, athletic ability, or whatever stem from the culture one is raised in. There might be some influence from genetics, but the environment makes the most difference.

Um … this is getting lengthy and I completely lost sight of what my original response to all this was … I think it was basically that genetics (science) can explain whatever it wants to in terms of racial groups being different, but individual people can absolutely always rise above or dip below norms. Hm, that sounds way too enlightening and idealistic. I would bring up ex-Harvard president Larry Summers and his comments about gender and my views on that, but I'll cease for now. I could also discuss how science is really like a religion (in that it is really just another way of viewing the world and could absolutely possibly be completely fictitious), but that would lead me off so many tangents as well.

[Quotes from http://www.theroot.com/id/46667/]

[from my myspace] Sexual Fantasies

I probably shouldn't be writing this blog. I'm myspace friends with most of my cousins, and reading a fellow relative write about sexual topics is probably just extremely awkward ... even the very knowledge that a relative wrote about such a topic could be extremely odd. Oh well. The relatives who might feel awkward are probably conservative anyway, and conservatives are just simply inferior with opinions that don't matter to the progressive world.

First off, I'm going to be all big-headed and assume you have the hots for me if you're reading a blog I wrote ... especially since it's about sexual fantasies. Well, don't get ahead of yourself. I'm not writing about my sexual fantasies at all. Personally, I wouldn't share my fantasies openly, although I won't judge anyone negatively just because they do. I might judge him/her negatively for the reasons whether they do or don't though. I'd only share my fantasies once a good level of trust is established, or a private conversation leads to a point where it is fitting to share. Oh. Also, I should define what I mean by "fantasy" within this rant. I don't just simply mean "fantasy" by elaborate sexual scenes such as a woman wanting to be raped, a couple trying S&M, or role-playing. I mean "fantasy" in the general sense of what one likes sexually ... in other words, what one fantasizes when he/she thinks about anything sexual ... from something as tame as flirting to as wild as bondage sex while skydiving. Anyway, [/end big-headedness] I just wanted to clarify that I'm discussing things at a somewhat general scale.

Hm, maybe I lied. I think I want to throw in a bunch of my opinions on various issues with sex within a relationship (or lack thereof). Sexual fantasies have no place in a bad relationship. If there is a problem with the sex life of a couple (or n-tuple ... I don't want to discriminate against 'couples' with 3 or 4 or more people in them), then exploration into sexual fantasies of each party shouldn't replace the sex life. This will just backfire in the long run because the mental states of each person during the 'fantasy' will slowly steep into the mental/psychological mindsets of each person within the relationship, eventually resulting in one fucked-up relationship (excuse my language).

Fantasy should only be incorporated into a relationship with a healthy sex life. It should be an addition to something. There is nothing wrong with vanilla sex. Vanilla sex is what humans have been doing forever. It's basic and instinctual. Sexual fantasy is cerebral. It's all in the well-developed human mind. Would your dog find it breath-takingly sexy and hot to be tied up and whipped? Would a monkey enjoy being humiliated in front of fellow monkeys? Does it make a difference to mice if they have sex in private or in public? It's all in the mind, conditioned by human society (Wow, if I had the time to criticize human society, where it could have come from, where it has been, where it is going, where it is now, etc ...).

So about those people who only want a sex life where he/she is dominant or submissive or whatever. Yeah, I think that's perverted and messed-up. I don't think it's wrong. I totally support your choice to do whatever the hell you want. It doesn't directly affect me (unless your fantasy somehow involves me ... which might be a little creepy ... or flattering, depends on who you are). A relationship should be about equality and compromise ... which can only exist in a relationship with a healthy, normal sex life ... with the possible addition of some wild (or tame) sexual fantasies.

Okay, what the hell did I just write? I totally didn't write about what I planned on writing. I ought to re-title this rant: "Relationships 101, subtopic: Sex." But I'm not going to do that at all. I'll just mislead everyone. It's more fun.

[from my myspace] Altruism Does Not Exist

[intro]
I used myspace.com blogs for the past few years for my randomly-spaced blogging. Therefore, I am jumpstarting my blog here with most of those blogs, lightly edited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original posting: Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 10:05 PM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

When we think of altruism, we think of people selflessly helping others out of the goodness of their hearts. They put the concerns of others first, with no regard to themselves and no payback to themselves either. If we picture a world with absolute peace, we might think of pure altruism on the part of every single person on earth.

However, I am going to smash this mindset. Pure altruism does not exist. Actually, the word "pure" is a bit redundant because altruism, by definition, is pure goodness and concern for others. In being altruistic, you are already pure and good. We as people tend to try to create images of extremes to strive to, never realizing that it's impossible to do so. Sure, there are some obvious impossible extremes: God and Satan, actual black and white skin, etc.

I'll try to tackle this altruism behemoth from a few angles. First and foremost is a strawman example. We don't really do good just to do it. We do it because it'll help us later: the person/people we helped will return the favor later, the volunteer work we do will look good on our resumes, we're required to do so for a club, or we just want to make some new friends. Of course, the altruism-supporters will name examples like the Dalai Llama, Mother Teresa, and Princess Diana (maybe?) and how they volunteer their time, effort, and sometimes money for great causes.

Aren't these people altruistic, they ask me? My answer is, to an extent, they are. But their actions aren't not returned. They gain fame and prestige. They're getting something out of doing good deeds. They gain some attention. Attention is good and feels good to have, and they do something bigger next time. The cycle then continues.

My point is that you can never do anything without some form of payback. Even if you don't receive widespread fame, you still feel good about it. If you do something good and no one sees it, you will probably relate the story to a friend and say something along the lines of, "That was my good deed for the week."

In fact, this "feel good" feeling from being "altruistic" actually has a biological origin. New research is showing that the positive emotions from volunteering or so has a biochemical explanation. In a study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, participants' brains were under observation by MRI scans as they made decisions about donating money. Whenever they chose to do so, the brain's mesolimbic system was activated, the same part of the brain that's activated in response to monetary rewards, sex, and other positive stimuli. Additionally, the brain's subgenual area was activated, the part of the brain that produces feel-good chemicals, like oxytocin, that promote social bonding.

For example, Carolyn Schwartz, a research professor at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, wanted to see if receiving monthly peer-support phone calls from fellow multiple sclerosis sufferers would benefit others with the disease. But over time, a surprising trend emerged. While those receiving support appeared to gain some mild benefit, the real beneficiaries were those giving the support. In fact, those who offered support experienced dramatic improvements in their quality of life--several times more so than those they were helping.

Shocking, I know. Our society tends to associate getting things with happiness, rather the opposite way around. Why would this even happen, then?

Enter Darwin. Humans are social creatures. Thus, group selection and interaction played a role in human evolution. And so if you did something that benefited the group as a whole, it was associated with pleasure and happiness. Concern for others, therefore, stems from basic human interactions.

So altruism is inherently selfish. Selflessness is nonexistent. Let's all go be selfish ... in the "altruistic" way, of course.

Volunteer, lend an item or time to a friend or family member, donate to an organization you believe in, listen to others, and just make other people smile (because they will probably immediately return the favor).

Or, of course, you don't have to do anything. Just agree with me that altruism doesn't exist. That can be your good deed for the week. It'll put a smile on my face.

[from my myspace] Feminism Revisited

[intro]
I used myspace.com blogs for the past few years for my randomly-spaced blogging. Therefore, I am jumpstarting my blog here with most of those blogs, lightly edited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original posting: Tuesday, February 06, 2007, 11:45 PM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've decided to touch upon feminism again in this new Rant.

For those of you that might be tuning in just now (or just recently) or to those of you that have just forgotten, you are viewing a continuation of a series I call "Timmy's Rants." In this, I have evolved to sub-title each Rant over something that I plan on discussing. Sometimes I discuss that topic. Sometimes I get off on a tangent and never discuss it at all. And sometimes, I start off on the topic and then end up talking about how calculus is worthless or something. Furthermore, this is very stream-of-consciousness, so I just say what's coming to mind and don't really proofread what I write.

So feminism. Previously, I believe I said something along the lines of this: Modern feminism is useless now. It's done just about as much as it can. We need some sort of counterbalancing act to feminism so that it stays in check, like "equalism."

This time, I would like to delve into western feminism and possibly explore the emerging "feminism" in the eastern world. Western feminism had its beginnings in the western world, obviously. I'll just touch briefly on how I think feminism came into America, in particular, since I'm rather unfamiliar with its origins in Europe.

The American Frontier. As America was expanding from the Atlantic to the Pacific, the lands west of the Mississippi came to be known as the "Frontier." Here, men and women had to carry their own weight for survival, so it was no wonder a frontier state (Wyoming) was the first U.S. state to give women the right to vote since women had already essentially equal say to men.

About this same time, slavery was still going on in the U.S. Human rights and blah blah blah..... Anyway, according to the U.S. Constitution, all men had a say in our government. So then black men wanted these same rights. And I'm sure women jumped on this bandwagon (or slaves jumped on the women's rights wagon or something), and both blacks and women wanted rights of some sort. Emancipation stole women's rights' thunder, and women's rights came to become a background issue until it resurfaced again later in the 20th century and whatnot.

So that's how I think about western feminism in a nutshell.

Eastern feminism, and in particular "feminism" in the Islamic world, is a completely different issue. In the western world, people are quite individualistic, giving rise to democracy (each person has equal say, and so forth) and capitalism (an individual is responsible for his/her own ... capital or something). However, people in Islamic cultures are more family- or community-oriented. Men must marry women and support her and their family. A woman was dependent on her father until marriage, then dependent on her husband. There's this whole community thing going on.

Speaking of which, democracy makes sense in the Western world due to Westerners' individualistic nature. Can democracy work in a society where people think of themselves as part of a unit (such as family)? Maybe a new type of government must be thought up for such a different culture and society....

Anyway, so is it logical to push western feminist ideals onto women in the Islamic world? What is "feminism" when associated with peoples in Northern Africa, the Middle East, and Indonesia? Can "feminism" even exist, given the context of their culture, religion, government--their very way of life? Must we completely disrupt their lifestyle just because the western world deems it inferior?

So can a feminist exist in the Islamic world? If so, what does she (or he) fight for? If it is equal rights for women as for men, then what about the pre-existing culture? Should it just be smashed and destroyed? Can there be some type of medium? If so, what? What, I ask? Damnit, what???

These are the issues facing our world today.

This isn't where I wanted to end, but I feel like checking on my fishies now since I just did a massive water change and saved one of the snails from the filter (the crab actually went down there twice and I had to fish it out ... very annoying). So ... think about the world!

*I cackle at you evilly because I left things crazy open-ended*

[from my myspace] Thirteen

[intro]
I used myspace.com blogs for the past few years for my randomly-spaced blogging. Therefore, I am jumpstarting my blog here with most of those blogs, lightly edited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original posting: Saturday, February 03, 2007, 6:48 PM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

After posting blog #13, I realized that for some reason, I changed the format of the subject line just for thirteen.... Spooky? I think so! I didn't even mean to do it too!!!

So for Rant 14, I've decided to think back to 13. I mean, it's the least I could do since some buildings skip floor 13 and just dub it "14," so the floors magically go from 12 to 14. Number 14, you are now consumed by 13 for the purpose of this blog/rant/thingamajig.

Skipping an entire floor due to superstitions is really kinda stupid. I mean, why don't books skip Chapter 11? They're sorta dooming themselves to bankruptcy if they include it, right? If I ever write a relevant book, I'll be skipping chapters 11 and 13, just for kicks.

This 13 puzzle got me curious, so I researched it (even though I should be researching the economics of global cities for a class....). Here are some of the reasons 13 has grown to be a funky and unlucky numeral:
1) It is one more than 12, a highly composite number, so when groups of 13 are divided up, there's always an "unlucky" person left over.
2) In the Last Supper, Judas betrayed Jesus and just happened to be the 13th one to sit.
3) The Code of Hammurabi does NOT contain a 13th law.
4) In the olden days, there used to be 13 months in a year.
5) In Persian culture, it's considered 'unlucky' to stay at home on the 13th day of the year.
6) Race cars carrying the number 13 have never won the Indy 500 or NASCAR Nextel Cup.
7) In Egyptian lore, there are 13 steps between life and death.
8) It's the first 'teen' year. (I made this up.)
[Thanks wikipedia for your help on this list!]

Anyway, that was a brief list of possible origins or effects of the eeriness of 13. OooOOooh!!!

I wish I could continue ranting about this, but I'm not too superstitious about the number 13. I mean, I believe in supernatural occurrences for the most part, but I don't deal with the unluckiness of 13 on a day-to-day basis or anything.

Hm, this year, my birth month (April) will have a Friday the 13th! Has anyone ever wondered why in particular Friday the 13th is considered unfortunate? Why not Tuesday the 13th? I mean, Tuesday is the worst day of the week. To satisfy myself, I decided that if you counted the days of the week started with 1 on Sunday, you'd reach 7 on Saturday and have to start over. However, if you go onto the second week and continue with 8 on this second Sunday, you'd reach 13 on Friday.... So Friday is the 13th day of the first week! Coincidence??? Maybe.... Either way, I've always gone with this explanation as to why Friday the 13th is such a 'big deal.'

I'd like to also add a few things before concluding: I believe in ghosts. I believe in parallel universes. I believe in time travel. (But I don't believe time travel will distort present-day history. I mean, if time already projected that time travel would occur, then the time line would anticipate any and all time-travelers wanting to tamper with the past and would make it so that their tampering had to occur in order for the future/present to occur the way it was. It's like in Futurama when Fry goes back in time and makes himself his own grandfather so that in the present year of 3000, he could prevent the big brain creatures from conquering the universe.) I believe in fairies (yay Peter Pan!). I believe in magic. I believe in witchcraft/sorcery/oracles. (I think that in our society, males would have the intellect, while females have the innate ability of magic, although both would be capable of either. It's just that one gender would be more naturally talented in one thing rather than the other.) I think the Eastern World is where magic will eventually "originate," since the Western World already corrupted the world with its 'technology.' I believe in higher being(s), but I am not religious! I believe in a bunch of other crap that might take me a while to list.

I'm going to eat more Oreos and Twizzlers now.

[from my myspace] Geography, the Cop-Out Major

I decided to be a minimalist for this blog ... well, as far as the subject goes anyway. I felt like putting "Timmy's Rants" was really unnecessary at this point, so I dropped it, hence, my minimalism.

Anyway, as far as sizing things down goes, I have a point to make a note upon: eyes. Apparently, big eyes are viewed by society as more attractive. I have never thought this; in fact, I like smaller eyes. I pointed my preference out one time, and my friend just looked at me funny and informed me that I was in the minority. I promptly replied with a confused, "What?"

Ever since, I have been trying to find a like-minded individual. Well, I haven't looked high and low, left and right, all over the globe ... but when a situation arises in which it's not completely random to bring eyes up, I inquire my fellow conversater(s). It turns out I have indeed been alone.

So I asked myself why. Why are big eyes more desirable? And why am I not on this bandwagon of people who enjoy the larger eyes??? In my mini-non-quest for the answer to this enigma, I have noticed that here and there, people everywhere have tried to make their eyes larger.

For example, Asian women do this. Asians tend to have squinty eyes, so perhaps the huge Western influence on the world has caused Asians to look up to the "pretty white person" and his/her generally larger eyes. I have relatives who have gone back to Vietnam to do what they can to have prettier eyes, cosmetic-surgery-wise! That's right: they go under the knife to look prettier! I completely disagree with this. Unless you've been in a major accident or want to drastically change your face, it's not really necessary. Especially if it's the EYES.... The thing that they get done is get eyelids. I know what you're thinking now. But think about it: Haven't you noticed that Asians tend not to have noticeable eyelids? I mean, there are exceptions, but generally, Asians don't have pronounced eyelids.

I recall seeing a news documentary on MTV once about this. Yes, I know .... MTV..... But it was MTV News, so it's a bit more credible, perhaps. Anyway, SuChin Pak (or whatever her name is/was) was the reporter for this particular story. I forgot the exact details, but the thing I remembered about it that I want to share is the following: When SuChin was smaller, she too noticed that all the other girls had distinguishable eyelids. Then, so to look like them, she would tear a small thin piece of some scotch tape, color it black, and put it on her upper eyelid ... to make her eyes stand out better or something. It is a definite issue among the Asians....

Anyway, back to big eyes. My friend actually asked me once if it ("it" used to protect the gender and identity of my friend) should get surgery to get its eyes larger.
Side Note: Wow, using "it" to refer to a person is really really strange....
Anyway, I told it that I didn't think it was necessary because I found its eyes were really pretty as they are. It decided to decide this issue later on in life when it had more money.

I guess I haven't figured out why big eyes are, on the whole, deemed prettier than smaller eyes. I find the smaller eyes sexier, hotter, more beautiful, and so on and so forth. Large eyes are just kind of ... creepy. Maybe I'm an eye-guy. I've noticed that I tend to be turned off by people who have a slightly lazy eye when they're talking to me. It's distracting. I don't have anything against the person ... it's just that, at that moment, I feel a lot less attracted to them as a potential romantic partner. Hahaha, I just said "romantic partner"; I was just trying to put it delicately and "romantic partner" came out. I should be shot for that. Oh well....

Hm, so I haven't addressed the subject I gave myself for this blog. I meant to only briefly discuss the eye thing (since it related to my joking "minimalist" statement at the beginning ... minimalists minimalize, and smaller eyes....). Now for GEOGRAPHY!!!

I just wanted to say that geography is a very all-encompassing field. There's physical geography (for science-y freaks), GIS (for technical, possibly math-y people), cultural/human geography (for more liberal artsy or anthropological aspects), cartography (for artistic types or analyzing peeps), globalization (a kinda business-y side), biological geography (again, for science-y people wanting to study epidemiology or such), cultural geography (I know I mentioned this, but cultural geography is a very large field....), urban planning (political and local aspect), the environment (for tree-hugging people), earth science, meteorology, conservation, computer cartography, historical geography, ....

I know I repeated myself slightly in my listing, but geography is just ... amazing. I learned today that the Department of Geography and the Environment at UT-Austin will be trying in the next few years to add a B.S. option for geography for the science-y side of geography.

I just can't say anything negative about geography! Essentially, what I want to say is: if you're undeclared or want a career change or something, do geography! You'll love it!!! If your school doesn't offer geography as a major, then don't worry ... geography has been in an upswing in the past few decades.

Before WWII or something, geography was a fairly common available major. After things got tight financially in the '30s, '40s, and '50s, colleges had to tighten up ... and geography was one of the majors that went because in today's society's mind, the field of geography is pretty vague and "useless" (Ouch ... a little part of me died after typing that out....). However, since then, geography as a major has been steadily increasing its presence in today's colleges and universities. That's a brief history of the geography major; I'm not sure how I know that actually.... I think I was informed of it by a professor or guest lecturer or something.... Google it or something if you want to know more.

Oh, right, I guess that reminds me of one possible downside of majoring in geography: When people ask you what your major is and you say geography, you'll probably get a response like, "Like geology? You're studying rocks?" or "Geography.... You like maps?" or "What do you learn about ...?" or some other confused, ignorant remark. Hm, that sounded hostile. Well ... I guess it was meant to.

The end!!! (Like in that cartoon online about nuclear missiles that starts, "Hokay, so here's the Earth....")

Sunday, May 17, 2009

[from my myspace] An Idealist Confesses

[intro]
I used myspace.com blogs for the past few years for my randomly-spaced blogging. Therefore, I am jumpstarting my blog here with most of those blogs, lightly edited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original posting: Wednesday, August 02, 2006, 3:28 PM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was going to call this "Confessions of an Idealist," but I decided that was too wordy. Obviously, I did not use that.

So what is this thing I've temporarily dubbed myself for the sake of this Rant: "idealism"? According to dictionary.com (this is a great site! I have it bookmarked so that if one of my friends IM's me a big word, I can just quickly--and without their knowing--go to this site and learn the big word's definition and seem all smart), idealism in philosophical terms is "the philosophical theory that ideas are the only reality."

Now that some basics are laid out, I can begin confessing. About what, you might ask? You shall soon find out. Either that, or I'll ramble over nothing until I suddenly and spontaneously decide to stop rambling and realize that I've said nothing and won't do anything to change it.

However, luckily for you, that's not what I'm going to do. I'm just going to make it seem like I'm doing that.

Anyway, before I delve into idealist confessions, I shall first dissect the topic I've given this Rant: "An Idealist Confesses." I chose this topic title because I have some idealist ideas that, if possible to make a reality, would make the world a happier place.

Okay, I know what you're thinking; well, I know what I think you know what you're thinking. I'm not going to be one of those "War is bad! We need World Peace!!!" advocates. I think war is healthy and necessary to balance human nature. Instead, I'm aiming my ideas more toward individual-ish type things, such as greed, education, kindness, and so forth.

First off, we should just get rid of money. It centralizes human want into a single thing, heightening human greed. For example, if human want is divided among shelter, power, food, entertainment, and land, then how much Want is allotted to each thing would differ dramatically from person to person. However, because money can essentially gain any of these five things, Human Want can simply be funneled into money and less energy is wasted and less decision-making (among where to place Want) needs to be made.

Of course, I'm going to be an economics major, so we can't take away money because it's pretty essential to the field of economics.

As far as education goes, current education is just wrong. Sure, the alphabet and the number system are quite useful, but what if they didn't exist? People wouldn't automatically recogize a slender circle as the letter "O" or as the number "0." An X wouldn't be taken as a letter. A figure eight wouldn't be, well, an eight. Seemingly random things would have immediate recognition and nothing else can be seen from the same random assortment of items. I'm not sure exactly where I'm going with this, but the point of it is that human-made recognition is flawed. I would elaborate, but I haven't eaten much today, so I'm uber hungry.

Altruism. Kindness. Generosity. Paradoxes they are. Altruism basically means selfless assistance. Unfortunately, society has ingrained into our heads that helping others and helping the needy and so on is what we should do. It has become an unspoken societal obligation. Altruism cannot exist in contemporary society, unless basic human societal ideas are altered.

Okay, so my hunger is yelling at me for some food, so I'll cease this Rant. But yeah, many flaws in human nature, so on, so forth, et cetera, et cetera, blah blah blah.... Can't really fix it unless entire human history is changed.... Okay, I'm done now.

[from my myspace] What humanity seems to be interested in....

I'd like to start off by saying I'm not too incredibly fond of the font "Arial," which is what this font is. I chose to make this Rant this font because I seem to leave this font out a lot, so to make it feel less left out ... I'm using it. But the font "Arial" shouldn't get its hopes up because I still don't like it too much. Times Roman Numeral so kicks Arial up the behind.

Times Roman Numeral is just that much better because there are little decoration things on each letter, while Arial is just the letter and that's it. It's so simple and boh-ring.

Moving onward, I've compiled a list of items I think are unexciting and overrated:
1) Graduations
2) Weddings
3) Prom
4) High School
5) College
6) Education in general
7) Births
8) Organized Religion
9) Controversy over stupid things that shouldn't have controversy over them anyway (like abortion--it should be made legal) (or stem cell research--legalize it!) (clones--make it legal) (gay marriage--legalize) (non-monogamous marriages--if all parties involved are up for it, legalize it!) (legal political borders--get rid of them) (a currency system--fundamentally flawed) ("environmentalism"--stupid idea) (feminism--had the right idea, but currently is absolutely all wrong) (racism--don't know why it even exists) (sexist people--idiots) (bisexuality--everyone ought to be bisexual because then there wouldn't be sexist people because everyone would view both genders equally ... hahaha....) (capital punishment--kill the wrong-doers) ("legal" ages for things such as the all-important 16, 18, or 21--an age is an age is all it is) (religious wars--what???) (those stupid strict radical religious zealots--should be shot ... you know, to quickly get to heaven or the "afterlife" or whatever they believe in, of course) (whoa.... I went off on a tangent....)
10) Alchemy or alchemy-like concepts (get rich fast schemes or the like)
11) Grades
12) Money
13) Fame
14) Power
15) Sleep
16) "Independence"
17) Hollywood
18) the A-list
19) Celebrities
20) Pop Culture (pshhh....)
21) E!
22) Oprah
23) Models
24) Reality Television
25) American Idol (this show should be shot)
26) Funerals
27) Corporate World
28) Degrees
29) Clothes
30) the Concept of "Family"
31) that stupid book The Grapes of Wrath (oh god ... "fambly," remember that to all those that read it? So annoying....)
32) "Making a Living"
33) Statistics
34) Democracy
35) Government in general
36) "Privacy"
37) Pleading innocent on reason of insanity
38) Court cases
39) Law
40) the Concepts of a "Nation," a "State," and the like
41) Frontiers (such as the American West in the old days or outer space or deep in the jungles or the bottom of the sea)
42) Language (it's a mental trap if ever there was one. I mean, once you learn a language, you learn it forever. Everytime you see lines and squiggles that resemble the letter "E" or something, you think of the letter "E." Kind of disgusting, huh?)
43) the Order the Alphabet Is In
44) Long Lists of Seemingly Random Schtuff

Okay, so I'm stopping now because it's late. I was going to write about what my Rant says the Topic is, but after I somewhat spilled my guts about Arial and Times New Roman, I decided against it. Then I also decided that I wouldn't change the Topic/Subject thing. And then I went crazy making this loooong list of things. Then I explained my entire thought process while making it all up (in this paragraph). Then I ended everything.

[from my myspace] The Fundamental Flaw in the Education System

I'd just like to start out by saying I'm 18!!! I've been officially 18 years of age for about 22 hours.

This means I can vote, buy cigarettes, smoke, drink alcohol in some countries, enlist, gamble, buy porn, do porn, go clubbing, get an ebay account, am not under the legal guardianship of my parents, open various accounts (be they banking, etc.), get a driver's license without having to take driver's ed, won't have to get my passport renewed every 5 years (now, it's every 10 years; but I think the age is 16 for this change anyway....), won't have to get parental signature(s) for forms, get a tattoo, get married without parental consent, become a prostitute in some country (maybe the Netherlands), commit a crime and not be tried as a minor, go into a bar, have sex legally with anyone of legal age, buy real estate, buy a gun (I think), go to a strip club, visit someone in jail, buy a lottery ticket, and get any piercing I want.

Now, will I actually do any of these things? I'll probably vote. I have to enlist because I'm a male in the U.S. And the others? I'll just say that I don't have a government-issued ID card or driver's license, so I can't do them even if I wanted to.

Speaking of being 18, 18 is also generally the age in which many American students graduate high school and begin college. As of right now, of the 6 schools I've applied to, I've been accepted into 4, rejected from 1, and haven't read from the other yet. Accepted: Boston University, University of Chicago, Tulane University, and University of Texas at Austin. Rejected: I'M A PRINCETON REJECT!!! Pending: University of Houston.

Thus, we now arrive on the topic of school. Ah, yes, the education system. In case anyone didn't realize it yet, America sucks. We teach our younguns a broad array of subject matter for 12 grades (plus kindergarten and/or preschool)!!! In the U.K., kids usually choose a profession to begin concentrating on sometime in the mid-teens. (I would Yahoo! search this information, but I just spent 15 minutes trying to find more things to do when you're 18 and am therefore all-searched-out.)

In fact, British politicians' careers are actually just that: political science. Their politicians (you know, the ones running the government) have to actually be knowledgeable in politics. In the States, due to our--in my opinion--chaotic (and unpractical) democracy, anyone can run for office. I mean, an actor is governing the state of California! The Texas Senate/House or something has mainly those rich folk (such as doctors, lawyers, etc.).

An aside: In Texas, those individuals that are already rich from their day jobs (as doctors, etc.) usually run for office because the salary for a Texan governmental person is, I believe, under $10,000. It's really a loophole to keep the rich in charge always. Also, because the ones-with-high-paying-day-jobs can afford to run for low-paying office jobs in Texas, they are better able to protect privileges for themselves.

Seriously, is there really a point for Americans to learn a broad array of topics when all the irrelevant knowledge ("irrelevant" in that it won't pertain to their normal day-to-day life or their careers) will just be forgotten anyway? I recall reading a column in the Dallas Morning News a long time ago in which the columnist had previously "bashed" kids for not knowing the material on the TAAS or TAKS or some state-mandated test. But after taking it (he scored near perfect on the reading and really well on social studies or writing or something, which should be a given since these matters pertain to his career), he completely changed his opinion because he did poorly on the math test, which went up to around Algebra II material. He does have a valid point. Who the hell cares what the letters in "y=mx+b" mean when you write for a living? Don't even get me started on the uselessness of trigonometric functions unless you actually do something math/science-related.

HOWEVER, this isn't my biggest issue with the education system. I don't mind learning a broad array of topics, but I do not see why all kids have to learn this way. If a person wants to be a journalist from the time he/she is in grade school until graduation from college/grad school, then do they even need to know calculus concepts? Or even algebra II concepts?? The answer is NO. Wait, I just said this wasn't my biggest issue.... (But tangents are fun!!)

My issue is the emphasis of education. Graduation requirements drive home the point that you need all these academic courses to graduate. The majority is academic, with perhaps the requirement of a handful of non-academic classes such as P.E. credit, art classes (visual art, music, dance, theatre, etc.), and ... maybe speech or something. How did society come to devalue the arts in education?

However, I can kinda see how athletics is lesser than academia in school--but just barely. People have come to view "school" as a place for enrichment of the mind and not the body. I, on the other hand, am beginning to strongly think that education should be about general betterment of self, meaning children attend school to enrich mind (academics), soul (the arts), and body (athletics).

I mean, when we were kids, we would draw for fun. We would play pretend with toys, pots and pans, really anything.... sometimes with nothing even! Where did both this instinct to draw and the intense imagination disappear? I blame the education system. I blame No Child Left Behind, which causes schools to focus on the things that won't leave a child left behind. The arts and sports get neglected.

I won't say much about athletics because that's not where my issue with current educational facilities is.

But the arts.... The arts allow us to be imaginative, use the other side of the brain, be more hands-on, splash our personality abstractedly, etc., etc., etc. It may not be as thoughtfully-intense or -invigorating as, say, math or English; but I think it is just as necessary to be well-rounded.

Hm, I again did not spend as much time as I wanted to on what I really wanted to say. But seeing as I'm tired of this topic, I shall conclude: basically, to better balance the student, education should equally emphasize the arts and the athletics in addition to the academic.

[from my myspace] Avatar: The Last Airbender

The best show to hit Nickelodeon in a long time is this show called Avatar: The Last Airbender. I pause for moment to let all the so-called "mature" people to laugh because I'm about to write about a cartoon series.

[pauses]

[pauses a little bit more]

Okay, has the laughing ceased? No? Tough, because I'm moving on, with or without you. Well, actually, if you choose to stop reading, then I wouldn't be "moving on." Well, then again, the text would be "moving on," with you reading or not reading. Anyway ...

The premise of this show is that there are four great Nations: Water, Earth, Fire, and Air. People who can manipulate the elements are called Waterbenders, Earthbenders, Firebenders, or Airbenders. The most powerful bender in the world is known as the Avatar.

There is only one Avatar in existence at a time because he/she is continually reincarnated. The same "bodily essence" or whatever becomes the Avatar. However, the path he/she chooses to master all four elements again varies from lifetime to lifetime. Only the Avatar can master all four elements; and in doing so, he/she maintains world order and balance.

Unfortunately, 100 years ago, the Avatar mysteriously disappears. The Fire Nation takes this as its cue to fight a global war to rid the world of the other three Nations (Water, Earth, and Air) to become the sole nation left, free to eternally rule.

The war continues stalematedly for a hundred years until two young siblings ([sister] Katara and [brother] Sokka) from the southern Water Tribe discover a young 12-year-old Airbender trapped in an iceberg for a hundred years. The Air Nation had long ceased to exist, and therefore the Last Airbender is destined to become the next Avatar.

The moment of this discovery begins the Nickelodeon series. The first season was called "Book 1: Water." The second season (that just began yesterday [Friday, March 17, 2006] at 7 PM Central Time) is entitled "Book 2: Earth." Each episode is called a "chapter" and then it is numbered in order. So the fifth episode in the first season was called "Book 1: Water, Chapter 5." The second episode in season two will be called "Book 2: Earth, Chapter 2." Wow, I just spent too many words describing that....

Anyway, during season 1, Aang (the Avatar) learned waterbending. Katara is already learning waterbending, and for the most part, they end up learning together. By the end of the season, Katara is deemed a WaterMaster or something by the Waterbending Master in the Northern Water Tribe.

Aang, Katara, and Katara's brother Sokka traversed throughout the world on Aang's flying water bison (Yes, you read it right. His name is Appa, and he's huuuge!). Also accompanying them is Aang's flying winged-lemur pet Momo.

The first season basically has the group trying to get from the southern Water Tribe (where Aang was found trapped in the iceberg) to the northern Water Tribe, where Aang was to find a WaterMaster to learn waterbending skills from. The southern Water Tribe is actually really small and sad.... Katara was the only waterbender there.

Through the travels, they run into Zuko often. Zuko is a Fire Nation Prince who was sent by his father the King to try to find the Avatar (who will hopefully ultimately thwart the Fire Nation's goal of world domination). Zuko's short, fat uncle also accompanies Zuko in his world trek to find and capture the Avatar.

In this second season, we were just introduced to Zuko's sister, who has these amazing electric powers as far as I can tell from last night's episode. She seems eviller, but I think we'll be exposed to her softer sides if she becomes one of the main enemies. I mean, you can only do so much with a completely evil antagonist; such enemies need dimensions to last an entire season.

Hm.... I should've made you somewhat curious about the Nick show Avatar: The Last Airbender by now. If not, you should be shot. And quartered. And burned. And chopped up. And incinerated again into black ashes. And then just left there. ... Or something else less drastic....

You can go Nickelodeon's website and find Avatar to learn more about it, or you can just go here: http://www.nick.com/all_nick/tv_supersites/avatar2/index.jhtml

Uh... what else, what else to say.... Oh, I wrote a short research paper about the Four Elements and the Four Humors for my British Literature before 1800 class. It's 4-5 pages and about 1000 words. If enough people demand it, I can post it as another blog. It's quite interesting too. And I made an A on the paper, so it's not a crappy essay.

Everyone watch Avatar!!! New episodes come on at 7 PM Central Time on Fridays on Nickelodeon. Reruns are shown randomly though too. Yep. My job here is done. (And yes, I realized the topic of this entire thing is really all about Avatar and not just a measly "sub-topic"!)

but where is the cheese?