I need more money.

*sigh* Money, money, money.

The 50 most expensive cities in the world, according to the cost of items including housing, transportation, food, clothing, household goods and entertainment:

1. Moscow

2. Seoul

3. Tokyo

4. Hong Kong

5. London

Emphasis mine. From the Sydney Morning Herald.

But there are a few surprises to me on that list. The European cities and the capitals make sense, especially where they overlap. But number 27 is Douala, Cameroon, which I honestly had to look up on a map (western Africa; Douala is apparently the main port of Cameroon). I guess I don't generally think of anywhere in Africa, save one or two cities (Cairo, perhaps Johannesburg and Cape Town), as on the same financial plane as major European cities. Same for Lagos, capital of Nigeria, coming in at number 31. Tel Aviv is at number 24, which again strikes me as odd.

Newsflash: The internet might not contain 100% honesty.

Courtesy of Newsweek:

"[MySpace] has got to take this seriously." Attorney Carl Barry, who is representing a 14-year-old girl and her mother in their $30 million lawsuit against MySpace.com. The girl was allegedly assaulted by a 19-year-old man who contacted her through the networking site.

What? No they don't! She's suing MySpace because someone used it to be dishonest? What brand of idiocy is this?
A few points:
1. If you read the MySpace TOS, it seems like they've covered themselves fairly well. They say you're not allowed to impersonate other MySpace users, you can't use it for anything illegal, etc. Items 10 and 12 are particularly relevant, I think:

Member Disputes. You are solely responsible for your interactions with other MySpace.com Members. MySpace.com reserves the right, but has no obligation, to monitor disputes between you and other Members.
...
Disclaimers. MySpace.com is not responsible for any incorrect or inaccurate Content posted on the MySpace Website or in connection with the MySpace Services, whether caused by Users of the MySpace Services or by any of the equipment or programming associated with or utilized in the MySpace Services....

Meaning: if you are legally using our service you are by definition 14 years of age or older, and therefore, old enough to not be a helpless idiot. Take responsibility for yourself. If some random person online says that they're your age and want to meet you, this does not mean you should trust them.

The era of taking responsibility for your own actions seems to be gone...

Adventures ahoy!

I roll out of Cork tomorrow evening on a six o'clock bus. Ideally, I arrive at the central bus station around 10:30, then hop on the 10:45 bus to the airport, arriving there at 11:20. Then I attempt to sleep until about 6:00 AM, when I board my flight for Brussels. Then, again ideally, I navigate the public transportation system in a country whose language I do not speak (beyond a few key phrases), dump my things at a hostel, and spend a day checking out cool museums, buying some chocolate, and perhaps taking a few pictures of a small child urinating. Ah, the wonders that Belgium gives us. Perhaps, if I'm not falling over on my own, I may also sample some Belgian beer, which allegedly is of good quality.

Then, after hopefully sleeping for A) at least eight hours which B) are not in an airport, I will get up, and leaving myself lots of time to get horribly, horribly lost, I will find my way to the other airport in Brussels, and catch another flight, which, with the time change, arrives 15 minutes after departing.

That flight is to London, of course. Anyone who's known me well for a substantial amount of time probably knows that it's pretty high up there on my 'want to go and live in' list of places, and just today I was blown away by how freaking awesome that is. For years, I've wanted to basically pick up and go to somewhere in England, preferably London, and now I'm doing it.

Now all I need is a fully-realized theft of one of the Queen of England's dogs, and life will be perfect. (They're so cute! If ever a dog was stealable, it's a corgi, and it's just a bonus that the queen likes them.)

Note: While searching for an appropriate picture of the queen and her canine companions, I discovered that the British monarchy has something called "Swan upping", which sounds vaguely dirty to me. Apparently it's when they go and count the swans, which at one point they would eat. Okay. Also, the queen apparently has a horse, which is not as cute as the corgis.

Goats will be goats...

Seriously, it's really hard to believe that this is the British army that once basically owned the entire world.

Early 1900s: "The sun never sets on the British Empire." Literally, because they've taken over that many countries.

Early 2000s: "Our goats won't listen to us. Also, we have goats in our army." Oh, how the mighty fall.

Now featuring the news from home!

My father, via email, has called my attention to two brief articles in the Philadelphia Inquirer that he, as he sat with our faithful hound* at his feet, thought I'd be interested in.

The first one: Chase bank is using the Beatles' "All you need is love" in a credit card ad. All I have to say to that is: Hello, irony. Hello, out-of-touch advertising execs. Granted, I can't comment too much on this, having not seen the ad in question, but I think somewhere, someone missed the point of the song.

And the second one: small women can't find clothes that fit. This isn't news and I've mentioned it before, but it does sort of effect me personally. I don't shop in the petites section, as I personally do find them a bit frumpy and, generally, too large in the more horizontal dimensions. Anyway, the executives who are saying that women would rather trendy clothes than clothes that fit well are entirely missing the point. Women - at least, this woman - would prefer clothing that is both trendy (I don't demand high fashion; I just want not-dowdy) and fits. Why is that formula so complicated for them to grasp?

*I included this statement about the faithful hound so that I have an excuse to post a picture of her, because she is a marvelous dog and all must sing her praises.

Blame hockey!

Why would we listen to science?

Personally, I just love the way that my nation's government refuses to acknowledge facts sometimes. "No, we disagree with that." "But, sir, the intelligence/scientific evidence/etc is right here, and it clearly states this is true." "OBVIOUSLY someone must be bribing you!"

Curiously, when the government says something, we're just expected to sit back like good little citizens and listen. "Don't worry, we only tracked terrorists' banking." "Oh, gee, that's okay then, Uncle Sam! Thanks for protecting our civil liberties!"

I like the part where they say things like warrentless searches are legal. Last time I checked, a higher authority than any Secretary of Treasury or Director of the FBI had something different to say about that:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

and

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Best Thing Ever

Today I went up to Limerick, to try to figure out how the city which has been nicknamed "stab city" also shares it's name with such jolly poems. The answer: I don't know. But there's a neat castle there, and a nice museum which is one part art museum, one part history museum, and one part 'random antiques'. It was neat, and I didn't get stabbed. Also, on the bus ride there, I saw what I think was the best thing ever. I saw, ladies and gentlemen, the Queen of Cows.

The ride from Cork to Limerick takes about an hour and forty minutes on the bus. Most of the ride is through rolling hills and farms. It's pretty much a given that, if you're going any discernable distance in Ireland outside of a city, you'll pass rolling hills and fairly cliched country scenes: cute little farmhouses, hills dotted with sheep, and so on. Cows are fairly common as well, but they always seem to be in one of two states: standing still and eating, or lying on the ground, presumably sleeping.

But not the Queen of Cows, no. A small group of cows seemed to be sharing their pasture with a huge heap of either dirt of gravel, I couldn't tell which. Almost all the cows were doing the normal cow things (see above). One of them, however, had taken it upon herself to explore this new mini-mountain in their midst. She had, in a manner most un-cow-like, climbed up it, putting herself a good few feet above the rest of the herd. We passed quickly, but all I saw was a cow, standing proudly on this raised heap, looking out at the road with her head up as if expecting someone to challenge the reign of the Queen of the Cows. The other, lesser cows stood around her, looking at her in what was undoubtedly awe.

It was fabulous, and words cannot do it justice.

An open letter to President Bush

Dear Mr. President,

Stop. Please, just stop. Pour yourself a nice cool glass of lemonade, sit down, and listen.

I'd like to call your attention to the Constitution. Certainly you must be familiar with this, as you're the head of the government that it established, but I think we ought to review it. An American can never spend too much time with the Constitution, in my opinion. I believe it's on display in the National Archives, not far from where you live, but if getting there is a hassle for you, you can check it out online. Here's a copy for you.

The structure of it is fairly self-explanatory and also fairly comprehensive. The first part sets out the rules for the legislature, the second for the executive, and the third for the judiciary. There's a bit about the various states and the union of them and whatnot, and then there are some amendments. The first ten are, as I'm sure you're aware, commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights, and are held to be extremely important. They essentially lay the rules out for the government, saying that there are some areas of citizens' lives where it's hands-off for the government. It's interesting, at least to me, because it's one of those historical documents that outlines not the power of the government over the citizens, but the power of the citizens over the government. The government cannot prohibit you from protesting. They can't start or fund a church. They can't arrest you without cause or search your property without reason. Personally I'm quite fond of these things, and think that if you're looking for a definition of the American spirit, there it is: The government answers to the people, not the other way around.

Now, let's look at the amendments in general. There's a wide range of topics covered: judicial proceedings, freedom of the press, elections, and so on. Twenty-seven amendments in total. Many of them, as I mentioned, serve to guard the rights of citizens. One of them, however, served to limit peoples' rights. This was the 18th amendment, which banned the "manufacture, sale, or transportation" of alcohol within the United States.

As you're well aware, there are certainly dry towns and counties in America but it's strictly a local decision. This is because of the 21st amendment, which exists solely to repeal the 18th amendment. That's how strong the Constitution is, you see: In order to undo something said in it, you need to again alter it.

Now, let's talk about what you're up to. You've been busy lately, with Afghanistan and Iraq and Iran and North Korea and what not. But, as an ambitious man, you don't rest. Now you again want to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage.

First of all: Precedent is working against you here. The only time the constitution was used to tell citizens "Nope, you can't do that because we think it's morally wrong," it didn't work out to well.

Second: You don't have to like the idea of same-gender marriage. You don't have to like anything but plain-vanilla, mom-pop-and-2.5-kids Americana. For all I care, you can utterly and totally despise anyone who's not strictly heterosexual. I hope you don't, because hatred isn't a very productive emotion, but if you want to feel it, that's yours to feel. You do, however, need to respect that someone who happens to be gay has in no way broken a law and therefore, limiting their rights is a disgraceful and entirely unacceptable action. You don't like gay marriage? Great. Don't marry a man.

Third: This isn't the first time this issue has come up, Mr. President. You and your supporters are constantly saying that it's an issue of family values. You've said that "the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society." I can't argue against that and honestly, if you were simply saying that away from the context of same-sex marriage I'd likely agree with you. Families are good. I was lucky and grew up in a stable, loving family, and I'm thankful for that.

But what I don't understand is this: Why can't the commitment of two men to love and serve one another promote the welfare of children and the stability of society? Or the commitment between two women? Certainly I can't cite any statistics at you, since gay marriage hasn't historically been legal here. But if there are two parents, and they're loving and committed to their family, what's the problem? There are thousands of children in the US who are waiting to be adopted into such situations, someplace stable, with parents. A child's going to have role models of both gender no matter what their home life is like. There'll be teachers and coaches and scout leaders and neighbors for them. There'll be friends of the family. To me, the argument that it's not stable, and not good for children, seems so very flawed.

What's left? Your personal religious views? That's fine, you're completely entitled to them. I happen to disagree, but I won't tell you you're wrong. I will say that I don't care. I will say that even if a majority of Americans agree with you on that topic, even if ninety percent of Americans agree with you, I don't care. Historically most Americans supported slavery and segregation. Most Americans are Christian and therefore think my family's religious views are wrong: should Judaism be banned? Most Americans are monotheistic: should Hinduism be outlawed? Absolutely not, and all but the most extreme would agree with me. It would be absurd to even propose such a thing. So why the difference? Religious beliefs aren't a choice and nothing can be proven correct or incorrect, and the same goes for sexuality.

I won't say that you've made the world a worse place in your years in office. I won't say that you're a terrible leader. For all I know history may hail you as a great leader, a hundred years down the line. But for now, all I can say is this: stop. Stop trying to use the Constitution against Americans. Stop wasting your time on these idiotic political pandering. Focus on something important: focus on nuclear proliferation, or poverty, or AIDS, or anything like that. Focus on the real issues that do effect the welfare of children and the stability of society.

With all due sincerity and respect,

A very pissed-off American.

La-la-la, I can't heeaaaar yoooooou!

Seriously: is it me, or is the Iran/US thing getting more and more like a couple of five-year-olds fighting over something completely inane? Not that I think nuclear anything is inane. My point of view is that no one needs nukes and no one should have them. The US should set an example by gradually reducing our arsenal to nothing. Some of our allies (Britian, perhaps) keep theirs, so that China or someone doesn't get any funny ideas. Then, gradually, everyone follows suit and we're all happy and not about to die terrible deaths.

But. That's not going to happen. What is happening is the rest of the world has decided that, while we're allowed to have both nuclear bombs and powerplants, Iran is not, therefore they say, "Hey! Iran! Knock it off, man." Then Iran says, "Nope." The US, in response, said "Okay, man, seriously. We're the Big Tough Guy. Stop it or we'll go all Shock-And-Awe on you." (I might be paraphrasing slightly here. They don't invite me to these meetings.) Then Iran is all, "Hey, yeah, we'll talk to you about what you want us to do, as long as we keep doing what we're doing for now." The US is all, "No way. If we're going to sit down and tell you to stop enriching uranium, you're going to stop enriching uranium before we tell you to stop enriching uranium."

Then, one of two possible things happens: the very fabric of space and time crumples away into nothingness and it's all pretty much irrelevant, anyway. Or, people like me roll their eyes, wonder why the most powerful people are also the least mature, and start to be fairly certain that within ten years we'll all be cosmic vapor wisping around a nuclear wasteland.