Our Place in the Universe

We, as a species, have the tenancy to believe we are the center of the universe, either literally or metaphorically. After all, we have the distinct ability to manipulate our surroundings, whether it's turning a cotton plant into a large shirt or turning an iron lump and a tree branch into a hammer or screwing up the planet via WMD's and global warming. We, however, cannot determine whether there is extra-terrestrial life out there. We cannot stop killing our brothers based upon differences of opinions. Hell, we cannot even agree on something as obvious as global warming. To put our planet, our species, and our arguments into perspective, here's a little collective of pictures. We start off with the comparison of the sizes of Earth, Mercury, Venus, and Pluto. (Just as an FYI, all of these images are to scale. These are authentic photographs of models of planets and stars.)

In this image, we feel quite snug in our place in the scheme of things. But wait, that isn't the entire universe. Here, I will add the other four planets of our own solar system.

Here, we aren't so snug. But wait, there's more!

Oh, you can barely see our planet from here. But then we go further out.

You can't even see our planet from here. You can barely see our Sun from here. But then we go further still.

Huh. One would have to zoom in on this picture many times to just a few pixels to be able to see our parent star from here. Since our star isn't that big even compared to other single stars, and knowing that there are other stars as puny as our own in this very galaxy alone, how can we be certain there is nothing out there, somewhere out there? We can't be. Not until we search this universe with a fine-tooth comb. Seeing how small we are compared to the whole scheme of things, doesn't it seem pathetic that we keep killing based upon differences in worship and opinion? It sure as hell does to me. Take that as you will. -[alpha]{BETA}[delta]

Employment -- "Right to Work"

I apologize for being absent on my last couple of blogs. I have been epically sick to the point of being unable to coherently think or type. I am still recovering, but I am able to type and think well enough at this point to be understood coherently. I didn't mention this before, but I would like anyone reading this particular blog to post replies speaking your opinion on the particular topic of the post. All I ask is to organize your thoughts in such a manner in which is coherent and comprehensible. Try to make your arguments logical. I ask this because, while not all opinions are correct, at least all opinions can be presented in a logical, coherent, and comprehensible fashion. Today, I am going to speak of what it is to work, particularly in the state of Nevada. The state of Nevada is a right to work state, which has a different denotation than would be imagined by many people outside of a right to work state, and even by a lot of people in this particular right to work state. Under the Nevada State constitution, the "right to work" clause states that an employer has the right to terminate the employment of an employer for any reason the employer sees fit. In other words, just so long as the employer can give the local or state government for termination when requested, even if it is a person merely lightly coughing causing a health risk when he's working a desk job that has absolutely nothing at all to do with providing substances that customers eat, drink or smoke.

This is a main concern for every employee of the state of Nevada who knows this law, even on a general level. Some of us know the fact that one of the reasons for the homeless epidemic here in Vegas is just this very law. It allows employers to fire employees with no real cause to do so. One of the implicit outcomes of this law is the difficulty of obtaining a job. The easier it is for a company to fire a person, the easier it is for a company to not hire someone for any reason. With the mayor of Las Vegas, Oscar Goodman, being a former mafia lawyer, it's easy to see how that implication can be there. As far as I know, Nevada is the only right to work state in the U.S.A. I might be wrong. But if you are in a right to work state, especially in a highly corrupt city, then you know my worries about this. Especially if you are of the lower socioeconomic class. It's the fear of not being able to pay the bills if the boss decides he doesn't like you for a reason you are unaware of. If the boss decides to fire you randomly even though you have done nothing wrong as far as the job is concerned. And I have observed this to happen on many occasions. In at least 20 instances, I have seen a coworker let go with their final paycheck without reason, without cause. And the scary part about it is that this firing is perfectly legal under right-to-work law. Take that as you will. -[alpha]{BETA}[delta]

Bush's Push for Off-Shore Drilling

Tomorrow, President Bush plans to renew his push to get Congress to revoke the ban on off-shore drilling for oil, a ban in which was put into place more than 25 years ago. "He will explicitly call on Congress to ... pass legislation lifting the congressional ban on safe, environmentally friendly offshore oil drilling," White House press secretary Dana Perino said. "He wants to work with states to determine where offshore drilling should occur." Truth be told, evidence since industrial drilling of oil has shown that it is environmentally hazardous. In practice, drilling for oil uses enough energy to pump about half of a ton (1,000 pounds) of carbon dioxide into the air a day. This figure is while drilling for oil on dry land. The figure, I am sure, would be greater if drilling were to occur in under water sources. What is the definition of environmentally friendly? According to dictionary.com, it is "having minimal impact on the natural environment." So any of you reading this particular blog, give me one way drilling for oil anywhere is environmentally friendly in this sense that is actually being practiced, because I see no example of it. Then again, there is another definition on dictionary.com, one that Perino must be using in the quote above; "using as well as maintaining natural materials." Now we can all agree that oil is a natural resource, being the byproduct of long-deceased plant matter. So, in this sense of the phrase, it is "environmentally friendly." But, then again, it is misleading, since this definition has a different denotation then the connotation of the phrase. In my last post, I argued that we need to quickly find and utilize domestic sources of fuel. Drilling for oil in American waters at least appears to be the case. However, there needs to be equipment put into place before pumping can commence. That would take two to three years. On a dry land drilling project. Since this is an under-water source, it would take at least another 2 years on top of that before we can tap those reserves. This 4 to 5 year estimate is a conservative one. Oil, in the form of petroleum, would also add to the CO2 emissions to the air. CO2 that it hasn't taken out of the air in over a million years. So, when oil is used for a domestic form of energy consumption, it is doing more harm than good. Though, I will give you the fact that economically, when it is produced, it will procure financial relief in this country. My thing is, you have to weigh the positive with the negative and see whether it is worth having. So, given the fact that it will take at least 4 to 5 years to produce this oil and it's affect on the environment, I still hold to my belief that biofuels are the best short term relief of gas prices. At least they are only adding as much CO2 as they took out of the air since 2000. Take that as you will. -[alpha]{BETA}[delta]

Biofuels in Las Vegas

First of all, I would like to say Happy Fathers Day to all of you dads out there. This world wouldn’t be the same without you. Today, I am going to take a wee bit of a look at the pros and cons of biofuels. First, we need a definition and a commonly heard example of a biofuel. According to wikipedia, a biofuel is a fuel derived from life, typically plant-life, in which has recently died as opposed to a plant that has died thousands, if not millions of years ago. The most common example typically seen in the news is ethanol, usually derived from corn. There are a few pros and cons of biofuels. For the immediate future, biofuels are a necessity. There are many reasons in which the price of a barrel of oil (and, as a direct consequence, gasoline) has increased from about 25 American dollars per barrel to over 130 American dollars per barrel. One of those reasons is the drastic decrease in the amount of unrefined oil fields in the world. There is no immediate risk of running out of oil, but it will come soon. Also, the ability to tap oil due to low oil fields is becoming much more difficult. Therefore, the price of tapping that oil in and of itself is going up, thereby increasing the price of a barrel of oil globally. Another reason has to do with the waning ability to refine oil, especially locally in the United States. Before Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, a good solid half of the refineries in the U.S.A. was in that area, particularly the Texas region of that coast. Hurricane Katrina leveled those refineries, thereby decreasing our ability to refine oil, increasing our need to import refined oil, and increasing the cost America spends on oil drastically. So, on those counts, one would have to deduce that we, as Americans, have to find a way to reduce, if not eliminate, our dependence of foreign sources of fuel. At this point, the best way to do so as far as motorized vehicles is biofuels such as ethanol. Because, let’s face it, our Alaskan oil field won’t hold us for as long as we’d like. However, I am of the opinion that we also need to find a way to eliminate hydrocarbon-based fuels, because that is, in fact, what biofuel is; hydrocarbon-based fuel. It will still wreck havoc on our planet in much the same way gasoline is right now. So, not only do we have to find an internal source of fuel, but we also need to find one that doesn’t hinder the planet. That, though, is for another post. So, the way I see it, biofuels are great for our short term problems, but for the long term it is just as bad as gasoline. Take that as you will. -[alpha]{BETA}[delta]

Is Science a Sin in Vegas?

Okay, here's the thing; most Christians, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, etc. believe that theoretical science, for the most part, is a sin. Biological evolution on earth, cosmological evolution, whether or not there are such things as black holes, is homosexuality natural, etc. puts conservative religious peeps on edge, because the bible has strict rules of conduct and things to believe right in it. It's the word of God, so it must be correct, right? And it was meant to be taken literally in all cases, right? Well, let me explain something; all of the books of the Holy Bible, Old Testament as well as new testament, as well as the Holy Qur’an, in the original languages they were writ, are essentially a translation from the perfect language of the perfect God to one of many imperfect languages of this imperfect species. How can an imperfect language adequately furnish a completely accurate translation of a perfect language, and how can an imperfect species hope to understand a perfect being? On another point, each of the previously mentioned texts have been translated into numerous languages before being translated into English. The original text of the Old Testament is Sanskrit, which is the oldest known language, as well as the longest dead language known to us today. Given that this is the case, how do we know that the humans that have translated these texts didn't translate them for a greedy purpose? Or just translated them poorly because in the language being translated from, the one phrase could have meant numerous things in the language being translated to? Or perhaps the translators didn't fully understand the language they were translated from? Have you ever played the telephone game? Typically, what comes out of the mouth of the last person is entirely different from what came out of the mouth of the first kid. The numerous translations from the Sanskrit version to the current version is the same concept. So, does that answer the question of whether or not it should be taken literally? The suggested answer is it shouldn't be taken literally, but that answer is still unclear. Does it answer the question of whether or not it's actually the word of God? The answer to this question, if you look at this particular line of reasoning, is yes, the bible is the word of God, regardless of how misconstrued and misinterpreted. Here's another thing. Look at the time frame in which each of these texts was written. It was a time in which there was very scarce science knowledge. Those texts were written for people of the mindset where little understanding was available, where that was the best way to describe God to them. It's along parallel lines of trying to explain how an atomic bomb works to the same people. It can't be done, because they didn't have that kind of understanding back then. The Bible is the same concept. So, is it not possible that parts of the Bible were meant to be interpreted loosely and as a live document, that as technology and sciences advanced, certain parts of the Bible would be seen as metaphoric rather that literal? Why would I care, being a Buddhist? Because I am of the strong belief that as soon as all the Western Religions (defined as any religion that originated in Europe, the Middle-East, and in the North American Continent after the white man has come to this land) realize that the Bible and the Quran are about morals as opposed to bickering over stupid shit, then there will be a good amount less violence, less wars, more aide, more treating each others like humans. The Bible, the Quran, the I Ching, the Book of Mormon, all of these texts is about treating your fellow human like a human. Period. Take that as you will. -[alpha]{BETA}[delta]

A Locals View on Global Warming

First off, I would like to say that this blog is decidedly taking a turn from it's intended course. There is a reason for this. It is my opinion now that people need to know the full logic behind the political opinions in which I hold more than they need to know my life story. So, it's still the the Vegas View story, but without the boring story of my life. That being said, I must start my next topic. One of my friends have suggested that I do my next topic on global warming, seeing as to how I live in the Nevada Desert (Las Vegas decidedly being within the confines of said desert). So that's what I am going to do. I am of the opinion that global warming is not only real, but will have -- in fact, is currently having -- a great impact on our planet, in more ways than the news organizations is letting us in on. Here, I am going to give a full explanation on my opinions on all the sub-topics of global warming. First and foremost, how does carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere? There are typically six types of radiation that the earth receives from the sun: radio, gamma ray, infrared, visible, ultra-violet (UV), and x-rays. The ground typically absorbs UV rays and visible light radiation, and bounces the vast majority of the other forms of radiation back into space. The thing is, carbon dioxide [CO2 (g)], ozone [O3 (g)] and water vapor [H2O (g)] are the three dominant greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and all three of them absorb infrared radiation. The growing amount of one of these gases in the upper atmosphere -- carbon dioxide -- is giving a rise in the temperature of the planet, albeit be an average of one degree every 50 years at this point. Now, when I emphasis the word average, I mean to put an emphasis on the fact that the word average does not necessarily mean the same everywhere. For those of you who smoke, the best way to explain what I mean by average is to say that when you have a cigarette lit, the average temperature of that particular cigarette is less than the temperature of the cherry, but greater than the temperature of the butt (or, for those of you who smoke non-filters, the end you hold when you smoke; when I refer to the butt, I merely mean the end you hold when you smoke). If the entire cigarette were to be the same temperature as the average temperature of the cigarette, you would not be able to smoke it, for either the butt would be too hot ho hold in your hand or put your lips on to inhale, or the cherry end would be too cold to burn (as in when it's not lit). That's the same concept with average global temperature change. The temperature may be going down or may remain stagnant where you live, but the temperature would rise extensively elsewhere to compensate for the difference. In this case, this biggest upwards temperature change going on is at the polar regions of this planet. First, I will need to explain the differing heat-absorbing properties of H2O in it's liquid state (water) and H2O in its solid state (ice). Ice, being typically a sort of barely transparent white color when it is as thick as, say, the glacier that sank the Titanic, has the innate ability to reflect the energy apparent in radiation. White is really a combination of all colors, so typically, all colors are reflected off of anything white. Water, on the other hand, is a more transparent, very light blue color, and absorbs energy in radiation more redily, especially from an infra-red source. So, this being the case, the more the polar caps melt, the more infra-red radiation they absorb. The more infra-red radiation the caps absorb, the quicker they heat up. The quicker they heat up, the faster they heat up. And the vicious cycle repeats itself. This is the reason for each of the so-called "ice ages" of the past. So the average change in temperature is merely add the temperature of every location on the planet, and divide that cumulative sum by the number of entries. That, apparently, comes to approximately 1. And how does the melting of the ice caps affect me in the Nevada Desert? It really doesn't; at least not directly. The thing is, H2O in its liquid state is less dense than the solid state, so the more water there is and the less ice there is in the oceans, the higher the tides will become. The higher the tides become, the more the coastal cities of the world will become flooded, and will need to evacuate. And so, given the fact that Southern California will have to evacuate, where is the closest major city eastward? Las Vegas, NV. This city is overly crowded and growing too fast as it is; the last thing we need is to be a big displacement center. There are still a few questions left unanswered by this particular blog about global warming. You may be wandering why, if ozone is a major factor for absorbing and reflecting inwards towards the planet, then why did we not want it to go away back in the day (about a decade to 3 decades ago)? Well, if there were absolutely nothing in the atmosphere to reflect infra-red inwards, then the temperature on the planet would not exceed the freezing point of water, so we need some form of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The question though is "What amount of greenhouse gases is ideal to have?" Because we cannot have too little, for then the planet would become too cold; we cannot have too much, lest the planet burn. Another question left unanswered is "How does global warming affect weather patterns?" Well, weather patterns depend upon the coastal drift among the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The natural flow of these oceans depends on the temperatures towards the equator as well as towards the polar regions. The warmer the air gets in the Polar Regions, the warmer the water gets in those areas. The warmer the water gets, the less likely they will create the natural flow of the oceans. Those ocean patters are the primary reason why we have hurricanes, general rain, and coastal winds. The less able the oceans are of having a general cycle, the more local cycles there are, and therefore the more hurricanes there will be. Well, what about finances? Surely, our economy will be snowballed if we attempt to fix this problem. Okay, sure, you won't get any arguments from me. I'm not a really big financial guy, so I'm going to let this guy explain the situation. Take that as you will. -[alpha]{BETA}[delta]

Social Views in Las Vegas

Like most every city in the world, how you are perceived in this town goes for a lot. Being the homeless capital in the world, it means a lot more in certain fields. Being a native to this town, I know first hand that you absolutely cannot go out without getting a homeless person asking for a cigarette or loose change or spare scraps of food at least once. It is common-place to get more of this, especially if you depend on public transportation as a means of travel. Believe me, I see and experience a lot of this. In this situation, there are typically two extremes to go by: either you can always do the generous thing and donate to them whatever they request, knowing that there is that one-in-a-hundred shot that he/she is actually going to obtain food with that, or you can do the self-preservation act and never give them anything. There is a lot that can fall in your favor if you go the generous route. It has a lot to do with karma, and the concept of provide for others now because what happens if some tremendously horrid thing happens to you and you happen to be in that situation? Providing food/funds/fags for the homeless is, first and foremost, a good thing to do. It also provides good credit towards your karma rating. But most homeless people got themselves there in the first place, right? Move to Vegas looking for a job, because this town has plentiful amount of jobs, right? They get here; get lured into the extravagance of gambling, and wind up homeless, penniless, and hopeless. Why provide them with funds? All they will do is gamble it away, drink it down, or shoot it up. And also, what happens if I cannot do any of those things for them anyways? Here's my opinion on the matter. Whether or not they are authentically looking to get out of the street because they got dumped there by the system or whether they are content with staying there is a crapshoot call. The thing is, though, providing them with the uber bare necessities is a good thing to do, regardless. But, as I told someone close to me recently, self-preservation is absolutely necessary in order to perform species-preservation. Without the individual looking out for himself or herself, he or she will soon not be able to ensure looking out for other people. So, look out for others around you, just so long as you are physically, mentally, intellectually, spiritually, and financially able to do so without driving yourself bankrupt in any of those cases. Take that as you will. -[alpha]{BETA}[delta]

An Introduction of a Sin City Native

This first blog is going to be an introduction of who I am and what this blog is all about. My name is D. Alan Thibedeau, and I am a student and poet in the Las Vegas Valley. I was born in S. Lake Tahoe, CA., but my parents moved here to Clark County when I was a few weeks old. So, being raised here in the Entertainment Capital of the World, I have a quite unique view on the nation and the world. My job title, for the moment, is security guard. I am usually posted in places where it's necissary to have the presence of some sort of athority figure, like various Albertsons around town. Occasionally, I have been posted on the Strip, and believe me, it can be very entertaining, creepy, and life threatening at the same time. My life, as of late, has been primarily about observing, learning, and testing theories. This blog is going to primarily be about those three aspects of my life. And, of course, there is a small supporting cast in this life, and a lot of extras. It would behove me to list the supporting cast here: Ford - He is my best friend, my accomplice, and my side kick. He is the Silent Bob to my Jay. He will be present in the vast majority -- if not all -- of my escipades. Seyle - This is the one who typically plays the annoying little brat who knows absolutely nothing of life. His entire life revolves around his computer and the plasma center he donates at. He is not going to be in a lot of these blogs, but he will be in enough to warrent this intro to his life. DD - She is a particular person I met at a particular random place. I love her, but I don't really know if I am actually in love with her. It's one of those strange, crazy love stories in which one only sees in a neo love story. Pops - he's my dad, of course, and I do life with him. Not still, again. It's a wierd situation, which will become clear in later posts. Brian - He's my brother, living with me as another roommate. His whole philosophy is like communism; it's good on paper, but it's crap in practice. Mike C. - He's yet another roommate in this house. He has a varied philosophy than Brian, but it's still pretty similar. Where Brian refuses to see the reality or the financial structure of this nation, Mike C. accepts it, and tries his damnedest to assimilate to a necessary degree. Britney - My niece and another occupant of this house. Bradley - My nephew and another occupant of this house. On a side note - Yes, it's a crowded house. New supported cast will be introduced at a later date. On that note, I have to do some random acts of stuff. I'll update this blog on Thursdays, Sundays, and Tuesdays. -[alpha]{BETA}[delta]