And here's the proof.

Irrefutable. There are TOO MANY PEOPLE ON EARTH.

Consider the following:

1. Abbey Road has sold 12 million copies in the US since its release. Also having sold 12 million copies:

- The Forrest Gump Soundtrack
- Kenny Roger's Greatest Hits
- Breathless, by Kenny G

2. How about in the 11 million category, along with Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band?

- The Dirty Dancing Soundtrack
- No Strings Attached, 'N Sync
- Devil Without a Cause, Kid Rock (!!!!!)
- The Titanic Soundtrack

3. 1, The Beatles collection of number 1 hits has sold the same number of copies (10 million) as The Lion King Soundtrack, Faith by George Michael, and Let's Talk About Love by Celine Dion.

4. Britney Spears' ...Baby One More Time and The Backstreet Boys eponymous album both outsold Abbey Road by 2 million copies.

5. The Beatles top selling album in the U.S., The White Album (19 million), was outsold by Shania Twain's Come On Over and Garth Brook's Double Live.

6. The Bodyguard Soundtrack by Whitney Houson has sold (wait for it) 17 million copies. That's 6 million more than Sgt. Pepper.

Proof that there are too many music-buyers out there. And that there's no accounting for taste.

Source.

First Democratic Candidate Debate!

I was going to write a post about how I couldn't watch because I had to watch "The Office" (because occasionally I'm terribly shallow like that) but as it turns out, it is starting right now as I'm writing this and will end...right before "The Office" starts. So...yeah. I guess I'll be responsible and keep it on. It's not that I'm not interested, it's just so damned early! I am happy to report, though, that it's being moderated by Brian Williams. Brian is the shiznit.

Let's talk about the word "believe."

It is in no way appropriate for the words "believe in" to precede the words "evolution" or "global warming." I bring up this issue a lot...to myself. I don't have that many friends with whom I have in-depth political discussions. That's probably for the best.

I was watching "Frontline" last night on PBS and getting the scoop on the failed attempts of the past three administrations to make the necessary significant changes in environmental policy we need to slow down global climate change. Obviously some administrations have been less effective than others in this arena. Ahem.

But I was struck by the frequently-shown video footage of Senator James Inhofe standing on the Senate floor and calling global warming the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." While I'd seen that particular footage before, I hadn't ever been quite so disgusted by it. Not only is it a lie, but it raises the question why? Why would scientists convene to pull one over on the American people? Why would anyone do that? Why would anyone believe that?

Well, obviously, politics has a lot to do with the "why," but it also raises the same issues of "belief" that I see consistently with evolution. People claim to either "believe" or "not believe" in evolution or global warming, the same way people people "believe" or "not believe" in creationism or...whatever not believing in global warming would be.

If you look up the word "belief" on dictionary.com, you'll find it means, 1) something believed; an opinion or conviction; 2) confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof; 3) confidence; faith; trust; and 4) a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith.

NONE of these definitions is applicable to science. You can "accept" or "not accept" what is regarded as fact by people who are experts in the area, but by saying you "believe," you are indicating that the issue is one that is not settled, one that requires faith of some sort, one that has no more factual significance than the opposing view. Evolution is fact. It is observable in nature and has been proven with an extensive amount of fossil and DNA analysis. So, you can say to me, "I don't accept what the scientific community overwhelmingly considers to be fact regarding the process of evolution," but don't tell me, "I don't believe in evolution," because I will be left with no choice but to kick your ass.

Likewise, Senator Inhofe can claim he doesn't believe that global warming is real, but he would be wrong. Not just in his assessment, but also his word choice, although he was quite clever when it came to what he actually said.

I don't think the Senator probably spent all that much time speaking to scientists about the facts regarding climate change or else he likely wouldn't have made such an embarrassingly inaccurate statement. But by attaching to word "hoax" to global warming, he made the issue one of "belief." You can "believe" or "not believe" a hoax and that takes away some of the pressure to "accept" or "not accept" global warming.

By the way, "accept" it.

And all that was just to say that you should be careful about what you "believe" or "not believe" coming out of a politician's mouth, especially regarding science. Unless that politician is Al Gore, because that dude's got his shit together.

Happy Earth Day!

That is all.

Chimps More Evolved Than Humans

Google that phrase, and this is what you come up with. Tons of articles that entitled "Chimps More Evolved Than Humans." It's one of those headlines designed to shock people by skewing scientific fact towards the dramatic. Technically it's true, but technically it's going to confuse a lot of people who don't take the time to read past the headline.

The evolution in question is that of the DNA of chimpanzees and humans. Since humans and chimps split from their common ancestor 6 million years ago, more genes have evolved in chimps than in humans. Thus, chimps are "more evolved" than humans from their common ancestor. Fascinating to a certain degree, but not half as fascinating as what I learned in Newsweek, which is that all of humanity stems from an estimated 4,000 individuals who migrated out of Africa 66,000 years ago. (OK, it's a really long article, but trust me; it's in there somewhere, and they figured this out using...DNA!)

But perhaps most fascinating of all is Yahoo!'s coverage of the chimp DNA finding, which includes this sentence:

"The results, detailed online this week in the Proceedings of the large brains, cognitive abilities and bi-pedalism."

What is that?! I can't even figure out what they were trying to say. The link is in the original and no, I'm not making it up that the first time I clicked on "large brains" I was taken to an error page. It's apparently been fixed. Stellar scientific reporting there, Yahoo.

Regarding abortion...

When men start having babies, then, and only then, I will concede that they have a right to play a prominent role in the abortion debate.

Until then, I'm going to be indignant about the whole issue and say that the most recent Supreme Court ruling is wrong. You heard me. Wrong. Keep in mind that the terminology used in the abortion debate is dominated by terms coined by the pro-life movement (case in point, "pro-life"... don't even get me started on "partial birth") and this argument, through propaganda, continues to gain momentum when there are much bigger issues (actual problems) that need addressing in this country. If people were half as adamant about reducing carbon emissions as they are about outlawing abortion, we might actually have a chance to maintain a livable planet long enough for the next generation to grow up in a safe environment. The abortion debate is an antiquated and primarily health-related issue that has been twisted by a right-wing agenda, and it saddens me that the pro-choice movement is now being challenged to the point of fearing the reversal of Roe v. Wade.

When is it ever a good idea to limit a woman's right to a choice of medical procedures, especially without leaving open any exceptions for serious health-related problems? It isn't. End of story. Do you really think we'd even be having this debate if men were the ones having babies? No, seriously. Think about that one.