Burnettiquette

Stephen Hawking got some bad granola

I have no problem admitting that I have always believed in aliens.

Seriously, since I was a kid and even with the religious and spiritual indoctrinations I received, I've always found it difficult to believe that humans on earth are it for intelligent life in the universe.

I even once drew the ire of a visiting minister who was delivering a sermon at my dad's church when I was a kid, 'cause I after the service I asked him what he thought Jesus's name and appearance might be on Jupiter.

He got flustered. I thought it was a fair question.

It just seems like a waste of space if there aren't other planets out there with their own intelligent creatures, economies, vehicles, stupid politicians, religious charlatans leaders, lazy relatives, etc.

The important thing though is that I haven't the slightest bit of evidence to support any of this. And that leads me to my point:

Astrophysicist Stephen Hawking, supposedly the smartest person on Earth, has a new Discovery Channel documentary coming out about space in which he warns that there are probably aliens out there and if we ever made contact with them the encounter would be more like Independence Day than E.T.

Hawking not only speculates that there are hater aliens out there who can't handle just how cool we are on Earth and that they might want to eat us, he also says we'd freak out if we saw how advanced alien technology is, and that aliens might look something like this - alien herbavores and alien predators, respectively (courtesty of Discovery Channel):

   

Now, I'm a big fan of what work of Hawking's that I understand. He's also been great on The Simpsons. But seriously, the smartest people on earth are now guessing at what man-eating aliens might look like?

Anyway, even if you believe Hawking's great imagination, he fails to explain one thing: what reason do we have to think that aliens are smarter than us or have better technology than us? Really, how does he not know that other planets are populated by billions of guys from Deliverance? Maybe on Planet X, the aliens are dumb as dirt and named Cletus D. CousinKisser. Maybe their vehicles are all wagons with square wheels.

I still believe in aliens, but till I see proof to the contrary, I'm assuming we're smarter than them.

P.S. Follow me, please, at twitter.com/jamesburnett. 

Teen Pregnancy Up

I really have nothing earthshattering to say about this one. I'm just curious as to why for the first time in more than 10 years teen pregnancy rates in the United States went up, rather than sliding or holding steady. The abortion rate also rose slightly.

The Guttmacher Institute, a New York-based non-profit that researches and promotes sexual and reproductive health (according to its Web site), says teen pregancy reflected a 4% rise in '06, along with a 1% increase in abortions. The study also says that black and Latino teens are getting pregnant at essentially the same rate now, but that both are getting pregnant still much more often than non-Hispanic white teens.

Guttmacher suggests in its study that a corresponding sharp increase in abstinence-only education over the past decade or so might be to blame for the increase in pregnancies and abortions, since it teaches teens that their only safe option is to just not have sex and doesn't educate them on how to protect themselves if (they're dumb enough to not listen, and) they have sex anyway.

The old school side of me says it's a good thing to tell kids not to have sex till they're grown and in committed relationships, because if they have sex as teenagers they risk pregnancy and babies that they can't afford and probably aren't emotionally mature enough to care for either.

If you wonder why I left out "disease," it's 'cause that's a possibility with anyone having sex outside an exclusive sexual relationship - teenager or adult.

The pragmatic side of me says for every two or three kids who take the advice to abstain till they're older, there are probably a few more who are just oblivious, who just aren't going to listen, who just couldn't care less. For these kids, like or not - and regardless of your religious or philosophical beliefs, there probably has to be a safety net of safe sex education, if for no other reasons than to help stem the tide of disease and unwanted pregnancy.

Again, in my perfect world we'd just tell kids to not have sex 'cause they may die or have babies, and that would be enough. That would fit nicely with my religious philosophies, but that would not be practical...in my opinion. Most licensed drivers are relatively safe, according to data from the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. And most drive at reasonable speeds and wear seatbelts, etc. But some drivers will always be jackasses behind the wheel. Thus driver's ed, speed limits, traffic lights, stop signs, etc. - all rules or requirements that all drivers are subject to.

The alternative is to have all teenagers watch a marathon of MTV's documentary series Teen Mom and 16 & Pregnant. If they don't listen to reason or subject themselves to traditional sex ed, then watching these shows should cure 'em of having sex as kids. If that doesn't work as a backup, I don't know what will.

Or we could go all Star Trek on the kids and give 'em brain implants at birth that will prevent pregnancy and dampen sexual desire, but dissolve when the kids turn 18. Hmmm, that might be illegal though.

If you have an educated guess or informed opinion that run contrary to what Guttmacher suggests, that don't involve aliens, black helicopters, brain implants, or immaculate conception, then do share.

PS. Follow me, please, at twitter.com/jamesburnett.

#Roxxxy cares about what you have to say

Please tell me you've heard of Roxxxy? If not, follow the link. She's not a porn star, but rather the world's first sex robot.

And I thought the Futurama episode featuring Fry and Bender falling in love with a Lucy Liu-bot was just funny. It has come true!

Seriously though, the most fascinating thing about Roxxxy to me isn't her flexibility - and I'm just assuming she bends like Gumby for $7,000 to $9,000 apiece. It's that her makers are marketing Roxxxy as good for mental stimulation and intimate conversation. She is, they argue, a total companion, not just some cheap rubberized robot without feelings, to have sex with.

Think about that one. Douglas Hines, the engineer who invented Roxxxy, and spelled her name with that triple-X, says she's best at conversation. And her other gifts are secondary.

You buyin' that? I'm not.

But apparently, Roxxxy comes with multple optional personalities, including two named Frigid Farrah, and Wild Wendy, respectively. Yes, you can purposely choose a chatty, live-in companion whose first name is "Frigid." And she's not rich and doesn't come with a trousseau.

Hines says Roxxxy comes with a laptop that is programmed to make her smarter over time by drawing from the World Wide Web to update her programming and expand her vocabulary. Hines likes soccer. His Roxxxy discusses Manchester United with him. And his Roxxxy snores.

I'm still trying to decide if the whole marketing message that Roxxxy's good for the mind first and loins second is brilliant promotion, or if Hines and co. are just delusional enough to think whoever spends up to $9K for a boom-chicka-wah-wah-bot is doing so for the conversation.

Surely they didn't consult the D&D club members who will be pooling allowance money to buy Roxxxys for their folks' basements.

PS. Follow me, please, at twitter.com/jamesburnett.

My Friday Column: Practical Environmentalism Through Priorities

Happy Friday, friends and frienemies.

Today's Miami Herald Metro column is about how to get average people to care about the environment.

But don't let that one line lead you to assume you know the direction this story takes. Give it a read here.

A hint for you: We prioritize what we need, whether that's food, shelter, work, money, transportation, or something less serious. When we don't need, we de-stress. When we de-stress, we care about our surroundings, ie. our environment - our literal surroundings and the environment as we think of it by traditional definitions.

Anyway, check out the column, and don't forget to follow me at: http://twitter.com/jamesburnett.

The dog pool ate got my me homework pregnant

A woman from Poland is claiming her daughter was recently impregnated in a situation akin to immaculate conception, so she is suing the place where the apparent miracle took place.

Magdalena Kwiatkowska and her 13-year-old daughter recently vacationed in Egypt. When they returned home, the daughter told Kwiatkowska that she was pregnant. But Kwiatkowska says her daughter didn't meet boys on the trip, so the girl must've been the victim of "stray sperm" in the hotel pool.

That's right. Stray sperm.

I'm not sure whether I think this is an old-fashioned hustle, or if Kwiatkowska is just naive.

Maybe it's neither. But there's no way that kid is carrying Jesus or anything. Possibly the Antichrist.

Whatever. If the mom is right about the cause of her daughter's spermination, I'll never get in a hotel pool again.

Need I remind you? Stray sperm. They don't make hot enough showers for that.

Speaking of bodily fluids and swimming pools, when I was a little kid floundering about the neighborhood pool, there was an urban legend - at least I think it was just legend - that if you peed in the swimming pool you'd be caught 'cause there was invisible ink in the water that would have a chemical reaction with the urine, and create a cloud of black or blue ink around you.

If that ink pee thing wasn't legend and Kwiatkowska isn't a total headcase, you'd think they could put something in pools to alert other swimmers to "stray sperm."

Ha! I couldn't even write that last sentence with a straight face.

http://twitter.com/jamesburnett

A little inspiration: No Barriers Festival 2009

Heard of No Barriers USA? If not, follow the link. It'll take you five minutes to read. Blind can see, and it's not a religious experience. And if you have time watch the videos. Both are short. Both are very good. But the second one is mind-blowing.

Do not love thyself Crespo style!

I don't know if you've ever heard of the merengue singer Crespo. Regardless, he was a headline last night on MiamiHerald.com. Apparently Crespo was caught giving himself a hand shake while on a flight from Houston to Miami.

A female passenger said Crespo was attending to himself under an airline blanket, when the blanket slipped and the contents of his, um, shifted into view.

The female passenger told a flight attendant, who told the pilots, who called ahead to Miami so that a hazmat team could be standing by when the flight arrived.

I'm kidding about the hazmat team, but note to self: Never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever again ask a flight attendant for a blanket...or a pillow for that matter. If the AC is too high on the plane, shake off the cold, and grin and bear it.

What got me most about this was Crespo's reply to police in Miami, when they asked whether he had indeed been juggling his goodie bag on the plane: "I don't recall doing that."

"I don't recall doing that."

Hmmmm. I was thinking he'd say "No!"

I suppose maybe Crespo answered that way 'cause he's morally opposed to lying. Then again, if there was a choice of what to be morally opposed to, I'd think touching and exposing one's self in plain view on an airplane would outrank lying.

Crespo, if you make it through this mess, fire your PR advisor and image consultants. I'm relatively cheap, and if we could rewind the clock I would have saved you some grief and advised you to go into the bathroom. Those airplane bathrooms are hardly good for what they're actually meant for. May as well get some use out of them.

And next time, just say no...before you get the urge in public.

BONUS MATERIAL: Crespo's biggest hit to date has been his song Suavemente (Softly). He he he he he he!

PS. Follow me at http://twitter.com/jamesburnett.

The Pope v. AIDS

Interesting article circulating the news wires today that quotes Pope Benedict XVI saying "you can't resolve it (the global AIDS problem) with the distribution of condoms... On the contrary, it increases the problem."

While I'm not sure what Benedict's motivation was, beyond the obvious religious motivation, I happen to agree with him.

I think the best way to slow the spread of AIDS is to convince sexually active people to weigh the Pros and Cons of shagging someone with infected naughty bits.

And getting grown people to think doesn't require expensive lesson plans.

Ask yourself "Which is more valuable to me - my bits not burning and remaining intact and me leading a potentially long, healthy life, or the temporary satisfaction that will follow this romp I'm about to have with this person whose sexual history I'm unsure of?"

If you choose the latter over the former, you are a moron. And expensive education wouldn't have helped you anyway. And you're probably too dumb to put a condom where it belongs anyway.

Spirituality is great. Religion often bites. But spirituality is terrific. Still, this AIDS issue doesn't even require religion.

I agree with the Pope on this one, 'cause we tend to throw up our hands in helplessness too often and rely on devices and tools to save us from destruction, when the simplest, cheapest solution of all is self control.

And don't tell me it's different in Thirld World countries. How? Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on education programs and prevention programs by "developed" countries. And education is great. But how about tasking people with simply weighing the consequences?

Yeah, sex is a right, for everyone, even the poor and destitute and starving and what not. But where the act of consensual intercourse may be a right, what could happen to your body if you sleep with a sick person is a consequence.

It really is that simple.

I'm not picking on the Third World. Plenty of us are hypocrites on this one. We get righteously indignant when someone drives drunk and injures or kills another person. We wax poetic that the drunk driver should have exercised self restraint himself and stopped drinking before he got drunk, or maybe he shouldn't have had anything to drink.

We tell greedy banks they should never have loaned money to people without obvious means to pay them back. We tell Average Joe that he should have reigned himself in, and lived within his means, and never should have taken out a loan that was 10 times his annual income.

But with AIDS? We have to educate people, or else they might happen to get AIDS.

Remember that old Crime Mutt who used to say stuff like "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time?" That doesn't need translating, but just in case...it breaks down to "You might not get caught if you commit a crime, but you might. So before you commit it, ask yourself if you're prepared to suffer the consequences."

Substitute "have sex with anyone who might be six" with "commit a crime" or "do the crime," and you have the most cost effective fix for AIDS ever.

Octuplet Mom

Surely I don't have to tell you about Nadya Suleman, the 33-year-old single mom of six in Cali, who recently increased her team to 14 when she had eight more kids via in vitro fertilization.

There's been a ton of controversy over this story, 'cause Suleman is single, 'cause she is apparently broke or close to it, 'cause she doesn't seem to have a game plan for how to take care of these kids (other than getting reality TV show and selling her story to tabloid and foreign media), 'cause she seems to have a fantastical notion about the kids as though they're cuddly dolls, 'cause her doctor apparently violated the standards set by the American Society of Reproductive Medicine on how many embryos to implant during IVF (three max is recommended, but six were implanted in Suleman).

I really hadn't planned on writing about Suleman, 'cause what else is there to say? But then I came across thisarticle today from Time Magazine, in which Time columnist Nancy Gibbs calls for a "truce" in the debate over Suleman.

Gibbs argues that maybe Suleman has received unfair scrutiny 'cause she's single and what not.

She points out that other big families have been celebrated - like the McCaughey septuplets in 1997 and the Duggar family in Arkansas.

The McCaughey parents received a congratulatory phone call from then Pres. Bill Clinton, they got free vehicles, a free house, free baby supplies, food for life, etc. They were heroes in that only-in-America way.

The Duggars, a deeply religious family, whose story is chronicled in a reality show on The Learning Channel, have 18 kids.

I have to admit that Gibbs has given me pause and made me question why I've felt so scornful of Suleman and why she's caught so much of a public backlash. But in the end, I think it boils down to perception, right or wrong.

For fear of being called politically incorrect, people are afraid to just come out with it and say everything that bugs them about this case. I've heard and read the word "irresponsible" used dozens of times in reference to Suleman.

Frankly, I agree. Her parents say she's struggling to raise the six kids she already had 'cause there's not enough money and not enough time in the day to care for them. So it's clear she didn't plan, and maybe didn't care to plan for the inevitable increase in expenses - even if she'd just been adding one kid to her brood.

But let's be honest. The other big reasons that Suleman is catching grief is that she projects a flippant attitude toward the traditional family structure.

She refers to the eggs and sperm as being "mine" and "my babies" and so on, and is defiant about wanting to raise them alone, and only sheepishly after the fact says she hopes the sperm donor will want to be involved in the kids' lives.

At a time where bureaucrats, pundits, politicians and clergy, etc., are blasting the number of single young moms with no means, I see where Gibbs is going with her column, but the truth is there are differences between Suleman and the other two families used as examples.

The Duggars, regardless of what you think of their religious beliefs or their hectic lifestyle, have a plan, they have steady income, and they have structure. If you've ever watched that show, that family is regimented like a military barracks.

And the McCaugheys were a first, the first family in the U.S. to have seven surviving babies at once. So they were history-making. Yes, they got lots of freebies, but, like it or not (maybe they had better PR people), they presented a more stable image.

So I'm not mad at her for wanting to be a mom or for being single. But I can't be mad at her critics who call her irresponsible and question her commitment to family, 'cause if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

Books, Bonding, or Boob Tube? "Experts" say the answer reflects your happiness.

According to a University of Maryland study, out today, the more you read or spend your leisure time socializing the happier you're likely to be.

Conversely the more leisure time you spend watching TV the less happy you're likely to be, the study says.

Interestingly enough, the study also says that unhappy people are perfectly content or "happy" with the role television plays in their lives.

The study's authors surveyed 30,000 people and examined data collected over a 30-year period.

I don't know how right or wrong they are, but I'll say the study makes sense. If you're spending the bulk of your non-working time sitting in front of a TV - especially if you're sitting there alone, that's kind of sad. So I can see the whole "unhappy" equation.

And while I'm no scientist it also makes sense to me that reading, because it probably requires more brain power, can make you more satisfied, or happier.

And the socializing thing? That's pretty self explanatory. Humans are meant to be social creatures. Fulfilling that instinct has to help your happiness level.

Which category do you fall in? I like to think I'm happy. I mean I do read a lot. Mrs B. and I probably don't go out with friends as often as we should. But we socialize. I admit though I watch way too much TV - at least too much by my standards.

Eh, two out of three isn't bad.