Ha. Well I skimmed over my last post that was written about two months ago. Since then I've traveled and interviewed in the Netherlands, Florida, and California. Visited Amsterdam, Miami, and Los Angeles. Good times. Tiring interviews. Free travel and posh accommodations. To make a long story short I have accepted a fellowship into a very well-respected lab @ USC that was above my highest expectations. I will be living in LA for at least the next 5 years on a graduate school stipend intended to cover living expenses in such a city, thankfully. The Ocean Sciences program at USC waives graduate school tuition for all its funded students. Woohoo!
It's hard to believe that the graduate school search, applications, personal statement writing, GRE, transcript requesting, research interests statement, contacting faculty, preparing for interviews, interviews, and the waiting game is over.
Now, I used to have "graduate school" listed as an interest of mine on facebook. I've always taken the search seriously and my preparation (such as gaining experience) very seriously. And now it's ON baby!
I could give some advice now that I've been through the complete process and anybody interested should give me a shout.
I've told people in jest that if I could do it over again I would apply to Hawaii. Might have gotten a trip out of it.
Now, the trips that I did take were very important in the process. I had a great experience and hardcore interview at the lab in Texel, Holland, and an interesting trip in Amsterdam. I left more convinced that I might accept if offered the position.
Two days later and a flight to Portland later, I was headed to Miami. Miami was not impressive despite their putting us up in the 300/night Mutiny Hotel. Coral reef prima-donnas, you read it here.
So anyway, I went to USC two weeks later and to my relief it was pretty much exactly what I expected. A (or The) mecca of biological oceanography as far as I'm concerned.
I was accepted at 3 of 5 places and Miami, coincidentally, was NOT one of them.
That's a brief update, now I want to blog for real. Disclaimer: This rant was coming long before the pope said that condoms would make the AIDS pandemic in Africa--with an estimated prevalence of >20 million, worse. If you agree with Benny's statement then you are immoral and probably won't appreciate anything else I have to say. Anyway, I thank Benny for proving my forthcoming argument.
Why does the radical religious right in this country think that they have the exclusive rights and solutions to all the moral dilemmas facing our country? The fact is that they don't, but the leaders (I'm not sure to whom this common noun refers... Rush Limbaugh? Sean Hannity? Pat Buchanan? James Dobson? Scarah Palin?) claim it. 'If you're not with us, you are amoral, a liberal and the reason america is going to hell.'
Tyranny over the not-so-free-minds of congregations was what Thomas Jefferson (considered an atheist by many of his enemies and a deist by the more sensible, yet championed as proof that we are a Christian by todays religious right) was referring when he wrote "I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
Well-said, Thomas. Maybe that's why, even if out of its context, it is the predominant inscription on a national monument honoring you.
Recent statistics were published showing that among Americans there is a significant decrease in the percentage associating themselves with formal denominations, despite a smaller decrease in those that do not believe in a god.
Formal denominations are politicizing their brand of morality and americans should not, and many are not, buy it anymore.
You must see, if christians can't even agree on what their bible says then there certainly not be a politically consistent viewpoint. Universally agreed upon morality issues are certainly not derived nor dependent upon a translation of a holy book, but from within moral people.
Understand that even our religious forefathers wanted separation of church and state. Government corrupts. "Stay the heck out of our church," any religious constitution author in the 1780s might have said. They had a laissez-faire approach to religion in government--surely a phrase to which the right is familiar.
Now, to get back to my original point. You radical religious right people do not have exclusive right to morality. I think it's moral to take from the more than fortunate to assist in the care of the destitute and less fortunate in our country. This must be part of the purpose of a moral centralized society in the 21st century, right? What's the point of having one, otherwise?
I can with good conscience say (hope your sitting down for this one) that I am in favor of babies not being born to mothers and fathers who believe that they can't take proper care of them. I think it is very immoral to not allow a mother a choice and then take political stances that will make it hard to help her care for the child. Luckily, that's not the case. I realize that there are other good options in some cases. One is next.
I think that it is immoral to have taught the hypothetical aforementioned only of abstinence in public schools which would certainly cut down on a later drain on the religious right's and my tax dollars.
I think it is immoral to not accept and afford people of all genders, creeds, races, and sexual orientations the same rights. Regarding the first three the religious right has a history of fighting until the consensus morality pulls them kicking and screaming behind. That is NOT to say that sexism, religious prejudice, racism, and bigotry is NOT alive and proudly broadcast by many on the radical religious right. Um, not even close.
I think that is immoral that America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, does not lead geo-politics in environmental protection and conservation. "Save the People!" said the whales! If you get nothing more out of this blog, here's your take away message: The model-T Ford of 1907 got 25 miles/gallon.
Cheers
0 comments:
Post a Comment