The Evangelicals are crowing because John McCain's choice for vice president, Sarah Palin, was raised in a Pentecostal church and is herself an evangelical. Her shining quality seems to be her strong and proven commitment to the Pro-Life movement. Which is great. Unless you're a salmon. Or a bear or giant crab. Or apparently any type of animal.

Palin, an avid hunter and lifelong member of the National Rifle Association, is not shy about her passion for killing our furry woodland friends. Which is fine: I am in no way comparing abortion to hunting. But I am wondering why the Evangelicals have so quickly thrown their support behind Palin. Do all of them love to kill animals too?

Or have they been so excited that they've forgotten there are other issues to be considered. The Pro-Life movement doesn't always focus on the fact that a large percentage of all abortions occur in women of low and low-middle economic classes, accounting for 78% of all abortions in a poll conducted by Forbes. Palin can be as Pro-Life as she wants, but if her economic policies are bad, more abortions will be sought. So perhaps her economic policies should be viewed with extra scrutiny, because sadly, the person who fixes the economy is the person who decreases abortions.

Furthermore, there are other issues at hand. Last time I checked, millions are dying in Africa due to genocide, AIDS, and hunger. Millions. Global sea levels are rising, threatening the homes, livelihood, and lives of millions elsewhere. Millions. What's her plan for this stuff? What's your plan?

In general, I'm not suggesting that she will be a better or worse VP than Joe Biden, but I am suggesting that there are multiple issues on the table here. Let's not throw our unquestioning support behind candidates about whom we know little. Think about ramifications before you vote.

Sarah told me this evening that her school is gearing up to ban certain foods for the upcoming year. A health advisory committee will be making decisions about foods that the students will no longer be allowed to consume on campus. Even if they're sent from home. Cake, cupcakes, and brownies were the first to hit the chopping block.

Sarah also tells me that the people on the health advisory committee are the school's PE teachers. Really? These are the people qualified to decide what we feed our children? The people who teach them how to play kickball and touch their toes? The people who took 4 years of EDUCATION courses in college? They undoubtedly love teaching and are highly qualified to TEACH, but the last time I checked, the minimum requirement for advising me on what to eat were the letters "M" and "D" bestowed by a medical school. Even then, I'm not so sure how I feel about that.

Furthermore, one question. Are we in some sort of Bizarro world? I was under the impression that this was America, not some sort totalitarian regime where agencies of the government regulate what foods we feed our children. My mistake.

Last time I checked, this wasn't Cuba or China or North Korea. This was the United States of America. And this isn't just about food. It's about the fact that all of us have been standing passively by as our freedoms are degraded in the name of health and safety. I'm not just talking about the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security.

It's true that trans fats are bad. Does this mean the government should be able to tell me that I can't eat them if I want to? In California and New York City, apparently so. But not getting enough sleep is bad. What are they doing about that? Are they going to tell me I can't drink caffeine or exercise before bed? Why not? What's the difference? High fructose corn syrup may have a link to diabetes. Are they going to outlaw Coke, Pepsi, and Mountain Dew? Why not? Over-consumption of red meat has a fairly strong relationship with heart disease and high cholesterol. Are they going to tell people they can't eat steak? Why not?

The bottom line is that the government can give us all the advice it wants, but when it starts telling us what to do, it's no longer a representation of "we the people," it's a regime of "them the rulers." Our borders are closing, our homes are being taken away, our economy is faltering, and our freedoms are eroding beneath us. Something is happening here, and I don't like it.

Call your congressman. Call the ACLU. Call the police. Most importantly, call your friends. This needs to be discussed. This needs to be stopped. This needs to be done together, and it needs to be done NOW. All six of you who are reading this have to do something. Do it. Now.

Sarah is wordier than I am.

I spent most of the day today doing nothing. I can only hope for more of the same tomorrow.

I'm back. We had a good time. Now I sleep.

I'll be gone for a few days. I'll probably come back. We'll see.

The secretary for the graduate program has been telling people that I am a "psychology rockstar." When I walked into class today, one of my classmates had just finished calling me a "genius." A while back, I wrote an essay that heavily critiqued (i.e., ridiculed) some papers on free will that were written by three famous scientists/philosophers (Donald Hebb, Herbert Feigl, and Sir Karl Popper), and today my professor told me that she found herself mocking her TV with the logic from my essay. Things have been going well for me this summer. A little too well.

Nothing good can come of this.

I just finished my final paper for my final summer class. I didn't actually think I was going to finish so early (figured I was going to have to stay up all night tonight), so I'm pretty happy to be done with it, but I'll only get excited when I finish my final exam tomorrow. Too many finals around here.

For one of my essays, I wrote a four-page allegory depicting a dystopian society of farm animals who won't consider the new agricultural techniques suggested by an outsider. It's really about how graduate students shouldn't be deterred when professors won't listen to them. It's called, "There's a Pig among Us." I doubt my professor will see many similar pieces (ever), and I'm pretty sure my choice of topic and and means of conveying it indicate that I am (a) officially a grad student, and (b) not shy about discussing the shortcomings of "the man."

While taking a break from reading for my class, I was reading an article on ESPN.com about Michael Phelps' latest triumph, a gold medal in the 200m butterfly. The author declared,

In the fly, his signature stroke, Phelps was second at the first flip, then pushed it into another gear, his long arms gobbling up huge chunks of water as he literally sailed along atop the surface. He touched the wall in 1 minutes, 52.03 seconds, breaking his mark of 1:52.09 from last year's world championships.

Well no wonder the guy is the best swimmer the world has ever seen: he's a frickin cheater! Sailing along atop the surface?!? Does everybody else get a boat too? I'm shocked that he hasn't been disqualified.

Here's a tip for all you professional writers out there: use of the word "literally" indicates that something is actually happening in real life. As in, I'm literally not sure how this story got picked up by the AP without basic editing. I think you meant something along the lines of, "Michael Phelps was figuratively sailing along atop the surface." You actually meant to say the antithesis of what you did indeed write. Oops.

Of course, it's not as bad as the NPR reporter I heard a while back. She was talking with a woman and noted that she could "literally see dollar signs in her eyes." In her eyes? Help! Someone call an ophthalmologist!

Crunch time. And unfortunately, I'm not talking about Doritos.

For a while, the tabloids have been claiming that John Edwards fathered a "love child" out of wedlock with a former staff member. Edwards had been vehemently denying those claims, but earlier this evening he admitted to having an extramarital affair back in 2006. This story is unfortunate for several reasons: (a) he actually had the affair--devastating his family, (b) he gave some undue legitimacy to the National Enquirer, and (c) he disappointed me personally--his activism for the plight of the downtrodden and his engaging and sensitive personality gave me some hope for the future of the Democratic party (no offense to Senator Obama). While he is still the same person he was yesterday, he's now just another name on the long list of politicians who publically stump from a platform of morality and values but 'privately' stoop to the gutter of sexual indiscretions.

We all have our vices, but the lure of sex seems particularly strong for politicians. Even the moral ones. I wonder how much more work would get done in Washington if we just mandated that everybody on Capitol Hill take Depo-Provera (an agent used in chemical castration) for the duration of their terms?

Let's get that on the next ballot.

Today in my history of psychology class my professor was lecturing about Friedrich Nietzsche, who has been historically seen as very anti-Christian in his views (he made the famous proclamation that "God is dead"). My professor said that Nietzsche is one of her favorite writers (both for the quality and content of his writing), but as she was explaining his three main problems with religion, my professor kept her back turned to the class for an extended moment and finally exclaimed, "I just can't look at Max when I'm saying this."

Some say it's difficult to be a Christian in a secular university, but apparently it's actually us who are making them uncomfortable.

I've been busy this past week with my midterm essays for my summer class. Unfortunately, now that I've finished, there are only two weeks left in the term, and I'm going to have to hustle in order to get everything done for the final. I'm pretty sure it's still better than having a real job.

In other news, my real job (adjunct lecturer, if you'll recall) has been going well. I'm pretty sure that working 5 hours a week is a pretty ideal situation. Other than the money thing. That's how they get you.