Gertrude Stein never knew an autobiography like mine.

New word:

abecedarian \ay-bee-see-DAIR-ee-uhn\, noun:
1. One who is learning the alphabet; hence, a beginner.
2. One engaged in teaching the alphabet.

If there were ever a useless word.

Hi, Kids.

Sorry, finals are coming with the quickness and I still don't know what I'm going to do for a job. It's quite problematic. I almost wonder if I can still do SEEDS, possibly Phase III this time[I've done NJ SEEDS, this nonprofit that helps urban minorities get into private high schools, for about five years. I'm also an alumni of the program myself. Anyway, I've been working with phase I for this time, but Phase III is the mock-boarding school experience and has a higher salary]

What else.

Oh, news.

A few things caught my eye that I remember right now.

This made me very happy.

Also, apparently congress is about to do another debate on stem cell funding, which I'm pretty sure is gonna go no where, unfortunately. The atmosphere in this country may be a little different, but not so much to force this administration to change its policies on stem cell research.

Also, this was a serious victory for biological privacy rights.

"I had hoped that common sense and the legal framework would hold up. I'm grateful that it has done so... Being a mother is still an option to her that does not involve me."--Mr. Howard Johnston

The idea that she could even use the embryos is ridiculous. It's unfortunate that she's lost the ability to have a child with her own genes, but when you give up sperm or eggs to create an embryo for IVT, it's under the implication of consent from both parties. In an ethical sense, I think it's kind of ridiculous that it would have been possible to have his child without his consent. Legally, I have my doubts that there's a consent clause that states the usage of the embryo is on condition of both parties still being in a relationship[but I would think consent would go in there, and apparently he didn't want her to have his child]. Messed up world.

And finally, something else that's been on my mind[since, I don't really pay attention to school very often] has been the DNC not endorsing FOX, the influence of democratic blogopia on the web, and the big three[Obama, Clinton, and Edwards] saying they wouldn't appear on the CDC-FOX debate.

Honestly, I find the CBC questionable-- I don't trust black leadership in America period, perhaps even leadership in general. NAACP, the Congressional Black Caucus, National Black Justice Coalition, Amnesty International, Human Rights International. I don't think I'm looking for perfection, but it seems as if time and time again there's some bad economics going on, or my interests are not being represented.

Anyway, I've been reading some commentary and talking to some people, I guess, and a common response seems to be questioning why, I guess. Is Fox really so biased that the debate would wind up hurting Democratic candidates? It's a legitimate television network.

Honestly, I don't care so much about how the debate will be handled-- people keep saying that Obama's got no substance, blah blah. But I don't know how to respond to that; he's got his responses to issues on his website. He's been speaking for almost a year now; he's not just blowing hot air, the transcripts of his speeches come with his responses to issues. So...I guess I just don't really get the complaint. Are Clinton and Edwards really that much better, or are we holding Obama to different standards?

Regardless, what I do like is that this is not going on Fox is really a flex of democratic muscle for once. If there's one thing I hate about liberals, it's that they're wimps. It's kind of pathetic-- honestly, for the media to be so 'liberal' and all this mess, and for so many liberal academics to be ruling our educational system and whatnot, they're doing a crappy job making use of that influence. I love Republican attacks, they're sharp. Man. No holds barred. Manipulation, whatever it takes. And I'm not saying I'm looking to be manipulated, but I feel as if liberals have so many constructive/structural assumptions to set before making a complete argument that they're almost fundamentally incapable of being really zingy most of the time. And, zingy is good.

Also, if I meet another self-righteous liberal, I am going to scream.

Anyway, I think the problem with Fox News has been a consistent misrepresentation and manipulation of the news[and I don't think other television news companies are innocent either, but I think there has been an effective and intent agenda in mind with Fox News for...however long I've known about Fox News]. And, if you feel as if they're against you, stop paying them attention. Stop whining.

So, I like that they're not going on there. I think I'd like it even more if they went on Fox News, trounced any possible misrepresentations/whatever, but save maybe Clinton, I don't think I trust any of them to be able to defend themselves. And even Clinton would be working really uphill.

Oh, and save Giuliani, I think I hate the Republican candidates.

Oh well.

What about y'all? Any comments/other news worth talking about?

Chao.