The Almanac of OBXNeil

The FairTax

2011-05-05T13:15:00.004-04:00

New feature...I'm dedicating the next few months of my blog, a desperately needed return to writing, to the FairTax. Herein, I'll explain components of the FairTax, and what I hope are easy to understand examples of the implications it would have on the microeconomic level (you, me, families, and individual businesses within the United States), as well as the macroeconomic level (business and government interaction as well as global economic interaction).

So, what is the FairTax?

First, ignore the name. It's a philosophical argument, and one I'll address later. My definition of fair may be different than yours, depending on what we're talking about. That's not superfluous, by the way, nor unimportant.

1) FairTax is a national sales tax on new goods and services.

2) It would replace all forms of income taxes, corporate taxes, and payroll taxes.

3) It includes a "prebate," a monthly stipend to offset the estimated taxes spent on necessities such as food and medicine, up to the Federally-defined poverty level, based on family size.

Comments and questions are welcome, and encouraged. That said, be specific about your misgivings and criticisms. Additionally, bear in mind that the FairTax bill is about 200 pages long, and really only because of the format necessitated by legal language: it's really very simple. By contrast, our tax code is nearly 17,000 pages long, not including ancillary regulations on goods, services, and economic sectors. Finally, economics is a big subject, so crafting responses requires specificity, not blanket statements such as, "It sucks," or, "Everybody will be screwed!" Why do you think it sucks, and how so will everyone (and just who IS everyone?) be screwed?

Lastly, the title links to the Senate Version of the bill, via the awesome opencongress.org.

Things I worry about...

2010-05-20T18:07:00.003-04:00

1) If all of this were to fall apart, I don't think there are enough resources available to do this again. All the easy resources have been used up, and it takes some heavy industry and high technology to recover what we're using now.

2) We are extremely vulnerable to sudden extinction from a variety of sources, yet it's on almost no one's radar.

3) That conspiracy-theory nuts are even a tiny bit right.

4) The growing reach and intrusion of the Federal government, most especially the unnerving growth of power in the Executive branch. Things are OK for the moment, but all that power is just accruing, and waiting for a nutbag to slip into office. Remember, Hitler was elected.

5) The appalling growth in pseudo-scientific beliefs, unto hostility towards the hard-won knowledge and methods of human scientific endeavor. Science delivers the goods. Woo merely picks your pocket.

6) Disturbing degradation in political and interpersonal communications among Americans. Perhaps it actually has always been this way, but both the scale and vehemence, due to technology, is very worrying.

7) The Earth's climate is not a stable thing. It has changed, and it's undeniable. What shivers me is the sheer unpredictability of it all...no one really knows...it could be far worse than our worst guesses. Then again, might not be much of anything.

Haiku 3

2010-03-13T12:57:00.001-05:00

A transformation:

Bacon, eggs, and toast became

my friends' new baby.

Food Lion chicken lunch.

Where to eat privately? Ah!

Where one returns carts.

Everything we buy

we don't buy with money, but

we buy with our time.

Quick and Dirties...

2010-03-10T15:58:00.003-05:00

1) It appears we went into Iraq A) to secure the 2nd-largest oil reserves in the world for American companies to control, and B) to continue petroleum being denominated in dollars. In this light, I don't think the invasion was such a bad idea. However, I don't sleep all that well when I think about how many Iraqi civilians this is costing.

2) Daily, I grow more convinced that perpetuation of belief in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, et al, isn't just silly, but culturally destructive. I understand wanting to keep children innocent, but I don't agree with it.

3) There is no forbidden knowledge. There is evil in the world, and parents have 2 choices: 1) sacrifice your child's innocence and impart the truth of evil to your children, or 2) let them find out by suffering reality. Note: this isn't aimed at specific readers I know who are parents; this is a culture-level thought.

4) Politicians portray themselves (increasingly) as moral and upright, of late touting their faith. The electorate eats it up. There are two problems with this: 1) It appears that faith doesn't offer protection of any kind against fallibility and immorality in the political population. 2) If one thinks about the job of politician and the nature of the decisions involved, especially if weighted against the interests of non-Americans, it's actually ludicrous to insist on the most moral candidate. What we really want is the most ruthless candidate to protect American interests, someone who will do the evil we would find difficult. I think that's actually what we get, but I no longer see the point in playing the image game. It wastes time and is dishonest.

5) Incidentally, I couldn't care less how any public figure wets their privates, or with whom if it's consenting. I fail to see how someone's sexual appetites impact economic or military decisions, neither of which require the kind of morality the nation at large elects people because of.

6) Far too many Americans believe that because they were born in the United States, their shit doesn't stink: that they are inherently superior to other nationalities and human beings. This attitude disgusts me beyond conveyance. There is some slight understandability to the attitude of racial superiority, or of a bias due to heredity, even if they are bogus. An accident of birth, however, in which someone is born into a particular political construct, boggles the mind how folk blunder into justification for radical nationalism.

7) Few Americans have any knowledge of American history beyond our mythology. Pointing out the following is considered revisionist: we committed genocide on the indigenous Americans; held slaves, then oppressed an entire population solely on the base of race; were intolerant to the point of violence to even white people who weren't born speaking English; have involved ourselves in more than one war for purely economic reasons, yet lied about it (to this day). Etc., etc. To this day, as a nation, we make bad decisions that future generations will regret. I'm a huge fan of the United States, but I'm not kidding myself that we aren't as well off as we are because of some bloody, sinister history. The take-home is that we don't do these things, and we're creating a civilization in which it's easier to be a good person. With that, I wish people would listen a little bit harder to people who currently have grievances with society: we've been on the wrong side of history before, so upholding the status quo may not be the best idea ever. We aren't where we are because Americans are a more moral people than anyone else. History proves that nauseatingly arrogant assertion a bald-faced lie. If we stop resting on the laurels of winning World War 2, we'd discover that the best our nation has done has been when we embraced compassion. I'm just saying we should do more of that.

Some Haiku

2010-03-08T19:47:00.002-05:00

Twenty-year old car.
Rust fore to aft. Chemistry
is the enemy.

Push. Pull. Grunt and groan.
Physics versus chemistry.
Force wins over time.

An ocean of voice,
We drown in Internet, yet
Screens full of empty.

Grocery store carts
are only full when children
are in the baskets.

Empty bank account:
Financial amusement park
without any rides.

The world is pieces.
I don't know geography.
Where depends on there.

Maybe we should all get therapy...

2010-03-03T10:00:00.002-05:00

I have a friend (no, really, it's not me) who is seeing a therapist. S/he has only been a couple of times, but is already looking forward to her/his next session. While s/he and I debated the merits of dream interpretation (we both agree it's little better than astrology. S/he and I were able to list a few truly universal archtypes for humans, but even so, culture diversifies how we relate to those archetypes far to radically for anyone to be able to compile a book with universal symbols and their meanings in dreams.
For example, everyone has a mother, a father, everyone is born, and everyone dies. Now, it might seem obvious, but think about how you view those universals, then start thinking about how other people you know relate to those, if indeed you know. I am close to my mother, not very close to my father, but don't have a deep, overt emotinal relationship with either. None of us talk about fears, hopes, etc: emotional stuff. I'm pretty hip on humans, so I'm pretty wild about birth, but I neither have a vagina, nor see one as a sexual object, so my views on birth are fairly clinical. I don't for an instant believe in a soul, so I think death is oblivion, the same as before I was born. Thus, I don't worry about reward or punishment, but nor do I really have a terror of death, as I really can't do anything about it, yet I've no idea when, so why worry about it. Compare my views on those archetypes and contrast them with yours. There will be differences which would make any universal symbolism problematic to explain and justify. S/he and I both agree that those who advocate dream interpretation as something beyond a personal, subjective interpretation, as a science even, are not only jumping the gun, but may be running in a race that doesn't even exist), we both agreed that psycho therapy is...theraputic.
I asked if it is because when explaining one's situation to a stranger, one has to rethink the issue at hand in order to get the relevant points across. This has the effect of forcing the teller to KNOW what the issues at hand are, which is invaluable in self-reflection. I also wondered if having an objective stranger made her/him more likely to tell the therapist things s/he hasn't and/or wouldn't tell her/his friends. The answer to both was yes.
Interestingly, my friend told me those deep, dark secrets. After testing them outloud, s/he found that they really weren't all that earth-shattering, and it was easy to put them into context and perspective. Additionally, it appears that therapy such as this is all about the afflicted discovering the answer for themselves, via some savvy questioning to be sure. It's an exercise in assigning meaning to the events and feelings in one's life, without all the baggage (which is often, but not always desirable) that comes with friends and lovers.
It all sounded pretty healthy, and it made me wonder if everyone wouldn't benefit from, at the least, having the option of therapy. I thought about this because of the monstrous health care debate in Washington. There is a bit of merit to the idea of "increasing access" to healthcare, but what's really meant, I think, is advanced testing, and prophylactic medical care. In truth, anyone in the country can get emergency care, so access to immediate medical care isn't an issue. What I wonder is if a little mental health access wouldn't do worlds of good more for everyone than complicated, expensive (we'll pay the same for our health care one way or the other: either up front or in taxes) insurance plans for physical care.

Bitter Much?

2010-02-16T19:22:00.003-05:00

So, it's done. It's over. It's behind me for another 364 days.
But whatever could I be relieved over? What's passing prompts passion enough to pedantically post? Why, Valentine's Day, of course.
No sooner has the gleam and glitter of Christmas had even a moment to dull than the creep of corporate-clad candy bleeds its morbid red across stores large and small. Like plague boils, stuffed bears of every size, color and shape erupt amid heart-shaped sappiness, each with its own nauseating scribble of devotion, be it poems that no doubt put acres of the mentally challenged to work, or prose declarations having the emotional sincerity of an inmate attending court-ordered rehab. Like buckshot, the day after Christmas the seeping of next quarter's earnings pricks the shelves of stores nationwide, then, like an unattended wound, floods every nook and cranny conceivable to the eye. From warehouse displays making profitable use of lawn and garden centers, to blooming like mold around convenience-store displays (where you can find a card just as big as your love right next to BootyMasters Monthly).
Yes, I am how the other half lives. Either you're single in the United States, or you're not. Perhaps a small percentage lives in a brief period of deliciously angst-ridden ambiguity about their realationships, not having a clear idea of their intents and desires until the next Sandra Bullock or Meg Ryan romantic comedy provides direction, but otherwise it's one or the other.
So I see the ensuing hemmoraging of guilt as a cultural reminder for couples to assure their others they don't take them for granted, or purchase a brief stay of reprimand and consequence if they do. That's how I see it for couples. For singles, Valentine's Day is a delightful reminder to not take your lonliness for granted. You earned it.
Long gone are the days of gradeschool, wherein everyone received a valentine. Everyone was indocrinated to believe they and everyone else deserved one just for being. What that really was, was an introduction to kinderpity. As the years wore on, and the cupcakes went from homemade, to store-bought, to fresh from the mark-down bin; as the bags of lacy lollipops and confection hearts (stamped with come-on lines so awful only the most socially inept of first-graders ever put any of them to the test) went from carefully-counted and wrapped assorted foils and tissues of internal bleeding reds and blood-in-your-unrine pinks, tagged with personalized to's and from's, to brown paper grab-bags of dollar-tree cheap, sugary and remotely heart-related; as the years wore on and the polygamous orgy of grade-wide valentines whittled down to callous monogamy, the expectations of youth were stones piled high around ones heart, that collapsed in the hormonal seas of adolescence. Raised to believe you deserved a valentine, one day the reality that someone has to want to give you a valentine arrives just in time hasten the evisceration of your self-worth.
Every Valentine's day is saturated with the color of a freshly-fought battlefield, and don't think for a second that's an accident. For us singles, every rejection, a valentine that might-have-been, is stuffed with caramel, or almond nouget, or peanut butter, a Whitman's sampler of failures of worth. No one will give us the pleasures we never will have. Every failed relationship is the bouqet given to someone else. Every word of recrimination from an ex masquerades as the soft, fuzzy representation of a viscious, carnivorous mammal. Like your ex, it's best to play dead and hope they'll lose interest. Even break-up sex is no better than the gold-colored plating on a gas-station trinket hastily snatched up in a moment of relational horror at forgetting to soothe one's partner that one doesn't take one for granted: one turns your skin green, the other your soul.
Every Valentine's day is carefully crafted to refresh the wounds that might've (silly you) grown into twisted scars over your self-esteem. Aisle upon aisle of crimson regret, of gold-trimmed failure. This Valentine's day, your own breaking wind is the only sweet nothing that might whisper in your ear.
Don't take your lonliness for granted, singles! You earned it. Somewhere in a heart-shaped universe is everyone who chose to leave you. They reside amid the countless who never thought you worth the bother to begin with, as countless as the hairs on an insipid bear. Perhaps, in the days to come, you can court tooth decay with that discounted candy. Like your long-gone lovers, plague will leave a delightful hole behind. Don't try to kid yourself, if you're sad enough to buy yourself a card. That message wasn't crafted for you by some lonely, if possibly feeble, sloganeer hoping agaisnt hope to make contact, but for those so emotionally out of touch thinking that some smarmy phrase best captures what they feel, perhaps because it captures that same feeling for 30 million other people.
You've earned your distance from the rest of humanity, so enjoy it. Your lack of interpersonal skills set you apart, literally. Jesus may have come to save all humankind, but saints don't have to be so generous. They're allowed to be picky, and it would not do to offend St. Valentine. Thus for one night a year your satin sheets will turn into sackcloth, every stuffed bear you touch will shed handfuls of hair in the presence of your emotional Hiroshima, and champagne will turn to bitter herbs in your mouth when you toast your singlehood. It would be best if you simply slit your wrist on those roses' thorns.
But then February will offer up the 15th. Vanlentine's day will be tossed into bins at half-off, about as much as your self-worth a mere 24 hours ago. The bright nosebleed of commercial romance will cease, and slowly scab over, and fade like a crime scene, or Shannon Doherty's career. You'll be allowed 364 days to forget, barring holidays, which would be so much richer if you had someone to share your memory blacking-out drunk with, that every bit of your measure in our society is dependant upon how much another values you. You'll see nary a bear as they wander off to hibernate, curled up around their noxious prose. The mentally challenged will go back to packaging light bulbs, and doing a real day's work. You won't have to worry about seeing roses, as they rarify to anniversaries and apologies. Tossing your socks anywhere, and leaving your laundry unfolded will once-again become an enviable mark of freedom, instead of a cotton pile of shame.
You've made it through another Valentine's day, and next year you'll have grown into another person, one who can face the Valentine's next knowing you're older and less unattractive than you are right now. Perhaps we'll all luck out, us singles, and a liberal administration will start a new entitlement program, one wherein the government sends everyone in America a valentine's card. If they can subsidize corn, and sugar, I see no reason why romance can't be covered under Medicare, and self-worth get a matching contribution from employers. 364 days to go!

Sarah Palin goes to a party, and enjoys tea.

2010-02-09T00:39:00.003-05:00

So, Sarah was at the Tea Party convention the other night. I watched most of her speech, but dropped out when she had the sit-down chat. Too bad, as I understand I missed her checking notes she had written on her hand. Oh wait, I live in the 21st century: that shit will be online forever. Excellent.
Now, what I wonder is this: considering her track record with Q & A, would it really have devestated her image to carry a pad out with notes on it? I mean, really, is it so important to appear able to speak "off the cuff?" Poor dear didn't practice her speech enough either, as she stumbled several times and once obviously lost her place. I'm cool with that, however, even if I feel I would have been more prepared. I just don't understand why she keeps trying to hide weaknesses instead of being practical about overcoming them.
Now it may surprise those who know me that while I find the thought of Sarah in the White House horrifying, I have a grudging respect for her. While I'd never drop a thin dime on her book, I'll likely check it out of my college library (it will almost always be there: I go to college with teenagers; they don't read books). Call it a morbid curiosity.
The Tea Party is an interesting movement, in theory at least. Basically an amalgamation of independant voters, those disgruntled with both political parties (as well they and you should be). I'd have thought that getting independants together under any kind of banner, much less a convention would have been as sucessful as herding cats. Understanding that the Tea Party doesn't represent the spectrum of all independants, I'm impressed with the effort, even if I find the political philosophies of nearly all the convention attendees interviewed by CNN by and large repellant. And let me be clear that I admire Sarah only for continually putting herself out there. One also has to admire her walking the walk about her abortion views, even if I hold divergent and wildy more complex views. Largely, I think she is a power-hungry catchphrase machine, who is playing every supporter of hers for a fool. In her speech, she said exactly what her supporters wanted to hear, and they love the idea of her so much, they don't waste a moment thinking critically about what she's saying.
Allow me paraphrase because I'm far too lazy to mine quotes.
That we're fighting a war on terrorism, and using criminal investigation techniques and mentality are the wrong tactics. Completely wrong, unless your aim is not to use precise techniques to prevent attacks and aprehend terrorists, but instead to solve the problem by blowing up as many Muslims and people of brown skin as possible. Logically, we shouldn't be wasting our money on investigating the drug trade and weaving intricate webs to catch as many drug-related criminals as possible, but should carpet-bomb Columbia, and raze every town south of the border. Why waste the time trying to work your way as high up into a criminal (or terrorist) heirarchy as possible when you can just kill as many people as possible, including innocent women, men and children. That would prevent them from breeding more non-Americans just like them. Besides, despite tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Muslims, Arabs, and brown-skinned people dead, I don't think we've reached the eqivalency yet. It's never been stated, but isn't it something like, for every one of the 3000+ Americans killed on 9/11, 9000 or so Arabs must die? I know I'm not tired of revenge rhetoric.
Lesse, what's next.
"Common sense" in our Federal spending. Can't really argue too much with that sentiment. I do wish she'd have at least hinted how much more complicated it is than that appealing bit of rhetoric. Sure, I think the current attempts at health care reform are misguided, but I sure didn't hear any solutions to the pressing issues of Medicare and Medicaid ensuring Federal insolvency in a decade or two. Our budget deficit is worrying (but for all the wrong reasons: it's disturbing because of how it weakens our currency. Oil is denominated in dollars, which is bolstering the value of the dollar. If oil were to be denominated in any other currency, it would send our money into free-fall. Then China would then dump its currency reserves onto the market to try to recover some of their losses, further wiping out the dollar. Incidentally, both of the above are why we are in Iraq, not weapons of mass destruction) but advocating lowering taxes at the same time? Voodoo economics, anyone? Favoring the supply-side of the economy has now 30+ years of empirical evidence, during which time no recessions were prevented (we're in our 4th since Reagan took office), the divide between rich and poor has grown into a chasm, and deficits are the rule, not the exception. I wish if she's going to open her mouth, she'd have some real intelligence about economics behind it.
"It's been a year..." referring to the economy, "...can't blame the previous administration." Well, one could, but from one point of view that's correct: we should be casting a very critical towards the last 15 sessions of Congress. Besides, it took nearly 8 years to get into the recession. I'm tired of it too, but I know it takes time to pull out of one as well. Even longer for it to be felt in the "real" economy (how I despise that phrase). To reiterate the above, it's complicated. The Government is not a person, can't household financing isn't entirely applicable. Sigh
I must away to bed, but let's throw one more stone. Sarah stirred outrage that the Christmas Day attempt at blowing up an airliner, which she declared a miracle that it didn't go as planned (a miracle? Really? God intervened and stopped the bomb, through means awe-inspiringly inexplicable, such as the bomb-makers ineptitude? Really?), outrage that the terrorist is being prosectued with rights granted by our Constitution. Now, I understand the kneejerk reaction. He is not a US citizen, why should he be graced with the protections afforded our Constitution? Well, he was aprehended in US territory, and is thus subject to US law, not US lynchy, mob-ruley gut feelings. Let me offer this argument. I'm in no way a theist, but the Constitution is founded on the premise that the rights guaranteed in it are HUMAN rights, not exclusively American rights. These rights, as theist never tire of arguing, are in fact God-given rights, and our legal system was founded, theoretically, at least, on the premise that these HUMAN rights cannot be abridged. We live in a country that recognizes these human rights, and bases its laws on them. I'm an atheist, but I appreciate and enjoy the liberties and protections of the Constitution, even if I don't think them granted our species by a deity. But if one does believe our country is founded on Christian principles, and these rights are inalienable to the species, just how do you justify denying them to whomever pisses you off? A US citizen who attempts or commits mass murder is protected, and processed with these rights firmly in mind. It's hubris and jaw-dropping hypocrisy to deny these lauded (and entirely reasonable) rights, written down in our Constitution, to anyone simply because they're not American. Anyway, if I can say nothing else about Sarah (and I can, to be sure), she sure does get me thinking.

I've got a crush on you...

2009-12-18T22:52:00.003-05:00

I left my cell phone on top of my car. A few cellular misadventures later, I walk out of US Cellular with a Motorola Crush, the only touch phone that didn't require a data plan to get a discount (Seriously, like any of us need an excuse to spend more time on the internet.) It's the fifth day and it's simply irrational how much I adore this phone. Is it perhaps because it's a smart phone, and I identify? It's much more likely that my life is devoid of spouse, children, and pets, and thus I'm just sad and nerdy (is there a correlation?) I considered (not briefly enough, to my shame) breaking out my camera in order to take pictures of it to post on here. Thoughts of becoming one of those people who post pictures of their pets, doll collections, or any new scores on ebay stayed my hand. The best thing about the phone is that it doubles as an mp3 player, so I've finally got my podcast groove back on. Being that it kills two birds with one stone (barbarous image, really), replacing both my confettied phone and stolen iPod, I was able to rationalize the cost. Very interesting how motivating getting my podcasts back, and having mobile learning is.

Brain Under Construction

2009-05-03T07:50:00.002-04:00

Six Finals and Assorted Papers Due This, and Next Week. All Resources Devoted to Paid Academics. Brain Will Resume Normal Function in Two Weeks. Please Use Detour:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RgL2MKfWTo

Futurama Friday

2009-03-06T13:43:00.003-05:00

Futurama Friday: The Future is NOW!
Well, not really, but it sure is close.

If you haven’t been asleep for the last 25 years or so, or been fed on an entertainment diet of Jane Austin melodramas exclusively, then likely you’ve bumped into science fiction in the various and sundry medias. Whether it’s a children’s show about hyper-intelligent kids from the future stuck in our present-day high schools, or ridged and crested aliens issuing sinister ultimatums to human space-farers in impossibly form-fitting outfits, there are iconic images ingrained in our cultural periphery. From silvered starships twinkling with unnecessary lights swooping past the screen, to flames dancing around a command crew right before some obtuse rewiring of equipment saves the day, these images are as familiar to most people as the gas station brands you pass by daily, but perhaps don’t shop at. Aware, yet unaware at the same time.

One iconic image from our imagined futures is that of a doctor (no matter what species) clad in skin-tight silver, waving a whistling widget above a patient, rays of futuristically-colored light bathing a wound that miraculously heals. As often as science fiction gets it amazingly, and consistently wrong, once in awhile it does get it right, and our reality shapes itself to our imaginations.

Researchers at the school of Physics and Astronomy at Tel Aviv University are well into research into science-fiction medical technology. They are well into human clinical trials using lasers to weld, or solder human tissue together. If that seems completely counter-intuitive, it is.
Everyone knows what a laser is, even if they couldn’t explain it technically. A laser is a beam of light, but light that’s been altered for very special properties, most of which we’re aware of. A laser beam is often called coherent light. If you light a flashlight in the dark, light bursts from the bulb in an ever-widening cone, which, because the light spreads out over distance, gets “weaker” the further away from the light (or power) source. So while a flashlight is great for rummaging around in a darkened car for beer money, it’s not so good for checking out owls in a tree a hundred feet away.

Stars are really just the same (though they produce a lot more “kinds” of light than a flashlight bulb does, or even the bulbs we use in our homes, as any pot grower can tell you: you need special bulbs that produce more kinds of light to grow weed) only further away. There are stars that are so much more massive than our sun, trying to grasp the scales is almost (but not entirely) impossible. They are also orders of magnitude (each order is roughly 10 times larger than the previous order. 100 is an order of magnitude larger than 10. 1000 is two orders of magnitude larger than 10.) brighter than our sun, but because they are so far away, they look dim. We only get a little bit of the light they produced. All the rest has spread out to other parts of the universe, just like our flashlight has spread its light out all over the trees, so only a little bit falls on the owl we’re looking for.

Now, as anyone who’s risked their parent’s ire by snaking their mom’s magnifying class knows, it is possible to take some of that light, and reverse the spread. Light’s pretty flexible, really, even if trying to define what it is essentially is an astoundingly difficult task conceptually (which is why we won’t here). Light bends, and pretty darn easily at that. Light bends (and slows down!) a little when it passes through our atmosphere, or through glass, or quite a bit when it passes through water (rainbows another day, I promise). Have a properly shaped piece of glass, and you can bend light so it “spreads” the opposite way, or concentrates it (only to a point though. You’re just changing the direction light travels, and even through a magnifying glass it will spread out again). Trust me kids, it’s worth the spanking to wander around outside with a magnifying glass on a clear summer day. It’s amazing the power such a small amount of light has. Curiously, I’ve only ever known boys who turn this power onto ants, or caterpillars, wielding the fiery power of destruction upon them in a disturbing bit of megalomania. Interesting.

I suspect it might have been this kind of not-so-charming experiment that set the mental gears of some pre-pubescent scientists spinning, setting them to wonder if there was a way to keep light concentrated. Indeed, it is possible!

I’ll spare you the physics of lasers, if only because I’m still working through them, and haven’t gotten to the point of confidently being able to translate them easily. But we do know it’s possible to concentrate light so that it doesn’t spread out like regular light (at least, not to the same extent that regular light does. I’m simplifying here to an almost ridiculous degree, but at the same time, one doesn’t need to know the physics, and chemistry [nearly the same thing] of mixed and heated eggs, flour, sugar, and milk to enjoy cake). We’re surrounded by lasers.

Laser light’s applications all depend on how much power is put behind them. Very weak (low power) laser light can be used to send data through fiber optic cables when it’s pulsed, or send cats into a wild frenzy if jiggled on a wall. It can be reflected in certain ways, and read to encode music, or movies. It can also be given a tremendous amount of power to weld metals together, or slice cleanly through them. Even if we likely will never run into a cutting laser, we know they exist, and it’s the cutting power of lasers (whether through automotive steel, or the hulls of alien starships) that makes using a laser to replace stitches so counter-intuitive.

Lasers are already widely used in medical procedures, from use as precise scalpels in non-invasive surgeries (snake a small tube fitted with a laser into a little hole in the body, and a surgeon can make internal incisions deep within the body without cutting a person wide open) to cutting and reshaping the eye to improve vision. But laser have always been used for cutting tissue. It makes no sense that you could “weld” or “solder” biological tissue with one. Apparently, it does.

Since 1994, teams from Tel Aviv University have been researching lasers for just such a counter-intuitive use. The terms welding and soldering are also surprisingly accurate. To one degree or another, lasers generate heat (it’s energy, after all), and it appears that precisely controlling this heat has surprising effects on different kinds of tissue. At carefully controlled temperatures, certain tissues actually weld together, though on the abstract I found from Tel Aviv U, they admitted that the biological mechanisms responsible are “not fully understood.” Soldering requires the presence of a biological medium (albumin was mentioned specifically. This is an umbrella term for any water-soluble protein. Egg whites contain certain kinds of albumin. I wonder if the soldering process is akin to making a fried egg on a cut?) introduced to the cut, which under the right temperatures welds the edges of the tissues together.

This has awesome implications. The team claims that this method dramatically reduces scarring, is easier to learn that suturing, and can reduce infection as no foreign bodies are introduced (such as a needle and thread), and because it forms a watertight seal. They do admit some technical challenges, the most daunting being that the temperatures have to be calculated precisely for each and every procedure, but experience will build a database to write software based upon it, so computers could likely determine that in the future. Really, how cool is this?

Imagine the lives that could be saved by repairing internal hemorrhaging without slicing open the torso. The risk of infection reduced to negligible concern, recovery times measured in hours instead of days or weeks, and scarring from “major” surgery reduced from a throat to navel scar to two or three mere pinprick-sized holes. The need to stock closets of suturing supplies reduced, the amount of antibiotics reduced, and especially the amount of pain medication radically reduced. I’ve long advocated that reducing the cost of health care will be done via technology (and elimination of needless insurance), not by socializing it to artificially control its cost. Case in point!

It may be such that one day, every home medical kit will have a little wand that moms wave over scraped knees, and other boo boos, and kids will watch fascinated, tears forgotten, as their wounds close up like magic. No more need for antibiotic ointments, or ripping off band aids in teeth-grinding anticipation. It may, sadly, deprive scab-pickers of their vocation, however. How one evaluates that loss is decidedly personal. What I still wonder, however, is when doctors will start wearing the silver jumpsuits. Probably the same day they use their personal jet-packs to fly into work.

Links for more information:
http://stanford.wellsphere.com/general-medicine-article/laser-for-stitching-wounds/606051
This has a short video giving you the bare bones.
http://www.tau.ac.il/~applphys/research_welding.htm
This is the abstract from Tel Aviv University. More technical, but just general enough.

Skeptical Sunday

2009-03-01T21:25:00.002-05:00

Working on one right now. Hope to get it posted while it's technically still Sunday. Let me ask my readers, which is basically you, Gretchen, are there any subjects you'd like me to tackle, something near and dear to your hearts?

Microblog Mondays

2009-02-23T20:11:00.002-05:00

Douchionary

Douche from the French, shower: 1) A stream of water or air applied to a body part or cavity. 2) An instrument for applying a douche. American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd Edition p255

Douchiness: The quality of being a douche, whether whole or in part. In scientific notation, exponential quantities of being a penis, cunt, or whore, expressed in powers of douche: total, complete, unbelievable, et al.

Douchy: An expression describing noticeable levels of douchiness.

Douche Canoe: What one travels in when immersed in complete douchiness.

Douche Bag: A human vessel for carrying douchiness, theoretically of infinite size.

Douche Lord: 1) One to whom other douches defer as having the superior quantity or quality of douchiness. 2) Male having transcended the limits of being a penis.

Ménage a Douche: Three or more douche bags, usually traveling via douche canoe.

Douche Master: Douche bag who helps others discover their inner douche.

Douche Fu: Self defense techniques practiced mainly by douche bags, though can be used to combat douchiness.

Douche Camp: Congregational location for various douche bags, douche masters, and douche lords to commingle unequal quantities of douchiness until equilibrium of equal douchiness is reached by all. Often produces compete douchiness, requiring douche canoes.

Douchetastic: Expression of admiration for incorporating douchiness where none was thought possible.

Douchaccino: The bitter drink of being unalterably stuck in the company of a douche bag.

Douchage: Informal, all the douchiness one has left in one’s wake, douche bag or not.

Megadouche: a douche bag exceeding his or her normal ability to douche. Only one is able to fit per canoe.

Instadouchional: Formalized and traditional modes and practices of douchiness.

Douchebaggery: Improvisational acts of varying douchiness.

Douchependant/Douchependancy: Douchbags whose effective douchiness is dependant on proximity of other douche bags. The number and strength of douchiness varies as to whether the needed douchebag is a bag, master, or lord.

Douchesaur: A limitless megadouche.

Skeptical Sunday!

2009-02-23T02:49:00.002-05:00

But a day late...ah well.

Big, Greedy, Unscrupuous Pharma

Corporate Conspiracy Theory #4:

“The pharmaceutical companies are making up diseases to sell us their drugs.”

I’ve heard this actually come out of more than one person’s mouth. This makes absolutely. no. sense. if you think about it. Are they advertising drugs to treat existing diseases? Yes, they are, and they market them to the hilt. You can certainly accuse them of “repackaging” or “rebranding” diseases, and giving them a sexy acronym, but they aren’t making diseases up out of thin air, and then bilking you out your money.
Drug companies have a very powerful incentive to make things that actually do something, and treat very real diseases that they spend millions of advertising dollars on: reputation. If they sell millions of sugar pills, that treat a fictitious disease, they are going to get sued sooner rather than later, no one would ever trust a company that got caught selling a sugar pill, ever buy their products again, and the company would die.

If you buy into the above Big Pharma conspiracy, here are the assumptions you have to make:

1) That they really make up diseases (which, you can look up on PubMed and see, yes, there is literature on each and every disease advertised), and that a television commercial, or magazine ad is going to somehow convince a large number of people who do not have the fictional disease that they do. This assumes an ridiculous amount of gullibility on the part of the general public.

2) That they do this instead of making real drugs to treat real diseases. So they're what, spending hudreds of millions of dollars just looking busy?

3) That all these now-convinced people, victims of marketing, will go to their doctors, who are also in on the conspiracy, because what doctor isn’t going to lie to someone who could sue him into the poor house for a box of logo pens, demanding the drug for the fictitious disease, and the doctor will, of course, oblige, sniggering in his complicity.

4) That these sugar pills are actually loaded with stuff that mimics side-effects, which will enhance the placebo effect, and remove the symptoms you don’t have for a disease you never did.

5) And all this while, you’d have to assume that not a single person within the pharmaceutical company has a shred of morality, that every single doctor in the medical community has a lifetime’s supply of pens to keep her mouth shut, and that everyone in the FDA is so far in the pockets of every Pharma, that not a single one would ever speak out.

“But, but, but they have to make up stuff and sell drugs, because they’ve invested so much money into their drugs.”

Well, yes, that’s why real drugs that work are so expensive. You’re not just paying for all the testing for the one that works, but for all the others that didn’t! It takes years to develop a drug that works and doesn’t kill people, and it’s not 7-11 employees doing the researching folks, but highly trained,educated, expensive people. They deserve to be profitable, or else there’s no point in making the drugs. If you think they should be giving the drugs away because it’s wrong to charge people who are sick, take that same logic to your grocer and see if he’ll give you food because you get hungry. Heaven help you if he buys into your philosophy because he’ll be out of business in a New York minute, and then where will you be?
Good Lord, people, everybody loves a multi-million dollar Hollywood blockbuster, which is completely frivolous, uses insane amounts of resources, is horrific for the environment, usually contributes nothing to the intellectual or artistic progress of anyone, and hopes it makes buckets of money. Manufacture a drug that may relieve human suffering, possibly offering hope for the first time in history for its sufferers, perhaps even save someone's life, but make so much as a dime, and you're a greedy, evil fucker. Am I the only one who sees the moral inversion necessay here?

Yes, bad things have happened. People make mistakes, some things aren't found out before damages are done, and yes there have been cases of corruption. Nothing's perfect, but the nature of the industry is such that it's pretty much self-correcting.

Pharmaceutical companies are not making up diseases to sell drugs. They are marketing their drugs in the hopes that if you have the very real disease, your doctor will prescribe it. They are expensive because it was expensive to make them. The more profit they make, the more new drugs they can research. And some of that profit is fun money for a job well done, and they deserve it. Why is this last paragraph so difficult for people to believe, but the gigantic conspiracy theory, with millions of people keeping their silence in its interdependent assumptions is the preferred reasoning for some people? These are the same people who would never be fooled by that bogus advertising, but insultingly think everyone else is being fooled. Unreal.

Sorry!!!

2009-02-22T11:35:00.002-05:00

Likely not to get a skeptical sunday blog up today. I've got something to do today, and schoolwork all week have priority over the blog, even though I tried to get one done aheads of time. Maybe tonight, but don't hold your breath.

Tangent Two-Fers Done

2009-02-17T19:10:00.002-05:00

Tangent Two-Fer Tuesdays are kaput. Tuesday is relegated back to an irregular, unfeatured day. I am considering starting a Friday feature, and doing regular, if thematically-freeform postings on Wednesdays.

Skeptical Sunday!

2009-02-15T17:18:00.002-05:00

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

It’s often cited as refutation of evolution by creationists, and sounds pretty convincing if A) you take their definition as actually what the law says, and B) completely ignore the world around you. It’s usually phrased something like this...

“A system will always increase in disorder (entropy)” thus the argument goes that complexity cannot develop from simplicity, as any system will tend towards maximum entropy, thus evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.

The real laws of thermodynamics deal with the exchange of matter and energy (remember, they are equivalent in a relativistic universe) within a system. It’s actually more complicated than it’s most often presented because it deals with some pretty abstract concepts. Simplifying it, while useful to convey the sense of it, robs it of its specificity and accuracy, and also leaves it open to misinterpretation.

It’s taken me weeks of research to feel confident enough to address the issue, and attempt a compromise between simplicity, and complete accuracy. The second law could be stated this way...

No exchange of energy will be completely efficient, and some of that usable energy will always be lost as heat. This process will continue until all the usable energy in the universe has not only been converted to heat, but that heat has spread evenly across the entire universe, and no information about the past is recoverable, because the universe will be the same energy level (temperature) in every square inch.

I hesitated to include that last clause, as the transmission of information is a complex subject. Anyway, energy is defined as “the ability to do work.” Heat is energy as well, but it is the most “disordered” state energy takes. Its disordered state means that it cannot be used to do work (per se! We might disagree about that definition as we use heat for a variety of uses, but just go with it, as our day-to-day definitions aren’t of any importance to the universe.) So, while disordered is somewhat accurate, it’s also misleading. Entropy is often defined as disorder, but it’s better stated as the dispersion of energy in a system, or that systems tend to go from less stable states to more stable states. In other words, the universe is working towards the most stable state it‘s capable of, which is an even distribution of its energy, and without energy being “concentrated” in one place or another, there won’t be any transfer of energy, or any work able do be done.

So, the second law (which is why there’s no such thing as perpetual motion) doesn’t have anything to say about complexity, whether it’s nuclear, chemical, or biological complexity. In regards to biological evolution, it pretty much obeys the law as far as it goes. Life forms go through a long chain of transformations to convert sunlight into other useful forms of energy (or matter, as the case may be), and they do it with less than perfect efficiency, and lose some of that energy as heat, contributing to the entropy of the universe. The second law of thermodynamics, while it does govern biological fuel consumption and uses, doesn’t at all forbid life forms from becoming more complex as they do so.

For example, we consume food, and thus grow, creating first our complex biological systems in utero, then as new cells (order) in our bodies as we grow older. While we develop and learn, our brains create new pathways, etc., etc. We are living examples of complexity developing from simplicity, and it requires energy to do so. All the second law warns us of is that we don’t get all the work possible from the energy we consume. Incidentally, the whole universe appears to be geared towards increasing complexity, so it comes as no surprise to me that biological life forms follow suit (years of study of chaos theory and fractals, and I still have barely scratched the surface. It’s why I went back to school, to get a new understanding of it by learning the math.)
Acorns, snowflakes, crystals, puppies, even nuclear fusion, are all examples of increasing complexity. The sun’s a beautiful example, really. It uses a tremendous amount of energy to fuse two hydrogen atoms into a helium atom, an arguable more “complex” element. That would be the work. In the process, some of that energy is lost as heat. Lucky for us, eh? Complexity happens all around us, all the time, it’s just going to cost the entire universe one day. Perhaps we should make the most of our time here, hmm?

So the universe couldn’t care less how complex a system is. Have at it, just realize that when it’s all said and done, no matter how complex a system gets, at some point there will be no more usable energy for it do so. That’s all, really. Nothing about how complex a system can or can’t be to use the energy, nor evolution, which incidentally, doesn’t assert that life forms must get more complex. Evolution is the theory that life forms change (evolve) over time to fill biological niches and pass on their genetic material, and they do so by natural selection determining which traits are passed on to successive generations (and boy is that an oversimplification!) Evolution couldn’t care less how complex you are. Bacteria are orders of magnitude less complex than we are, but have evolved to fill just about every niche there is, evolving a stunning array of diverse traits to do so.

So, add equal parts understanding of evolution and thermodynamics, bake for one semester of biology and physics, and viola, you have a complete dismissal of the “violation of the 2nd law” argument. For what it’s worth, creationists, you’d probably sleep better at night if you just looked at it this way: there’s what the Bible says God did, and there’s the actual universe, what God really did. The difference between the two could be thought of as only a matter of accuracy, not veracity. Think of it this way: the universe is like a skyscraper God built. The Bible is like a flyer advertising His services.

Mayhap this is a better analogy: the Bible is trying to describe a painting. When you look at the world around you, that’s actually looking at the painting. Science is analyzing the painting, looking at the brushstrokes, to see how it was painted. Even you’d have to admit, no matter how well written, the description doesn’t do the painting justice.

Random Act of Quotation!

“If you saw a heat wave, would you wave back?” Steven Wright

MicroBlog Mondays!

2009-02-08T23:46:00.004-05:00

This is most concise explanation of the Large Hadron Collider I've yet seen. Sooooo cool. Incidentally, this largest of scientific instruments, ever, is in a very real sense, the most powerful microscope on Earth!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQNpucos9wc

I'm just in awe constantly when it comes to the universe. That it takes an instrument so large people work inside of it, that crosses two countries (even though I suppose a telephone booth could do that too), and so powerful (so much so that the LHC can't be run in winter: they wouldn't have enough power to heat the city of Geneva!!) to "see" not just the smallest things in the universe, but perhaps the smallest things possible in the universe, is just amazing in its strangeness, and complexity, and such profound mystery.

A cool thing about being an atheist is not having any kind of mythological indoctrination for the origin of the universe. The sheer dread mystery of its beginnings, and even if there was another universe before ours, of different physical laws perhaps. A creationist arguement is that the fundamental constants are too exquisitely tuned for life to be chance (the nontheist rebuttal, that if we're here talking about them, then the constants of the universe couldn't be any different, we're possible, and here because of the constants, the constants are not here because of us, has the same virtue as the creation arguement: it only convinces the side it's coming from) doesn't take into account that, true, if you change just one value of one of the constants then life becomes far more unlikely, if not impossible, but different combinations of values might yield universes where "life" might indeed arise, and our universe may not be the first and only universe.

Interesting note about the Jewish creation story: it's different than most other myths in that it's so...procedural. Other myths have great beasts battling, pantheons of gods warring, gods and goddesses dying to become the universe: genesis is almoat a to-do list. Not judging, but it lacks drama and narrative drive. Does show the Jewish penchant for exacting rites and ritual, the character of their god, no wonder they have a thousand damn laws in the old testament, lol.

Skeptical Sundays

2009-02-08T19:12:00.003-05:00

Skeptical Shorthand for Your Health

If it sounds too good to be true, it is.

Your body can only use so many nutrients at a given time. Future energy reserves are stored as fat; everything else is excreted. It’s a waste of your money to purchase mega dose supplements. Even a multivitamin is largely superfluous if you regularly eat a balanced diet. Some vitamins and minerals are even toxic in large doses.

Your body is complicated! Drugs are not (yet) intelligent. If something claims to affect your body in some way, but mentions no side effects, or potential interactions with other substances you can assume: 1) it has not been properly researched for its claim, and 2) it likely has no benefit. This is a rule that surely has some exceptions, but they only prove the rule.
Just because the vendor of a “health” product is not a pharmaceutical company in no way means they aren’t unscrupulous. In fact, if a vendor’s untested product is meant to be taken propholactically, it’s almost certainly a scam to bilk you out of money.

A multi-billion dollar international pharmaceutical company who’s very existence is dedicated to researching chemicals and designing effective products, and yet they missed the apricot extract that’s 87% effective against cancer, and magically only affects cancer cells. Sorry, this just isn’t likely. More likely they’ve tested it and found it’s worthless.

“They don’t want you to know!” Oh bullshit. Notice that none of these supplements have patents. A drug company would slap a patent on an effective herb so fast it would make a homepath’s head spin. You can guess why you’ve never heard of a drug company slapping a lawsuit on any of the vendors of the products “They don’t want you to know about!”
No legitimate drug ever has the word “miracle” tagged to it.

Real drugs have clinical trials. Supplements have testimonials. Hmmm.

Diet, exercise, and a positive attitude are the only things that conclusively improve and maintain health with no side effects.

The acidity of the food you eat has no effect on the internal pH of your body outside of your stomach. Acidic foods do not cause disease, so don’t waste your money on those diet books.

The only health benefit water has is being water. It cannot be chemically or structurally changed to be better absorbed, nor can it carry the “benefits” of ingredients that were once held in suspension in it. Water has no “memory”, so don’t waste money on products based on that principle. Certainly don’t waste money on expensive machines that purport to change the chemical or structural properties of water to enhance its health benefits. Water is neutral Ph, hence why your body loves and uses so much of it. Water cannot be ionized, though it can contain ionized particles. An ion is a charged particle that has either net positive or negative charge, so gained by adding or stripping an electron from a particle. Note to self: article describing the amazing properties of water and the science behind it.

Heavy metal poisoning is extremely dangerous. Chelation is the only known method for removing heavy metals from your body, and is nearly as dangerous as the poisoning itself. 1) It should only be done under the supervision of a doctor! Do NOT buy any drugs from, or submit to a procedure from anyone who is not legitimately trained in scientific medicine! 2) Your body has no mechanism for removing heavy metals (the exception being molecular compounds containing certain metals, which are designed to be flushed from your body) so there is no basis for any product to make the claim that it helps flush metals from your body: there is no mechanism for it to help…they are lying to you.

If something claims to be able to “cure” a broad variety of ills but has no side effects, especially because it’s “natural,” IT IS A SHAM.

If ANY health system justifies its effects based on quantum physics, IT IS A SHAM!

If any health system uses the “supernatural” card (the energies for their healing are undetectable by modern science, but trained adepts can see, feel, and manipulate them. Bullshit! We have a civilization made of machines that can see, feel, and manipulate invisible energies our bodies cannot, in fact are incapable of perceiving) IT IS A SHAM!

Eat well, exercise often, do things that promote a positive attitude, such as love, sex, and moderate vice, fight depression by filling your time with worthwhile things and acknowledging even small accomplishments, get plenty of sleep, nap often, drink plenty of water, and enjoy the money you save by being healthy and not spending your money on crap.

Random Act of Quotation!

Wisdom is to the soul what health is to the body.
De Saint-Real

TANGENT TWOFER TUESDAY

2009-02-03T22:28:00.003-05:00

Reading some new books, too into them to break away, so some video content for you!

mildly amusing...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO_KILnJdHw&feature=channel

not sure how offended I should be by this one, and there's a whole series of them!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8ibV8dVuto&NR=1

this is ok

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NahyfTAVNqk

Screw it. You can't go wrong with Carol Burnett

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9T8i4FkNVo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3eqWYGahgA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jp-W5nr9N14

MICROBLOG MONDAYS

2009-02-02T17:53:00.005-05:00

A new feaure (maybe).

A relatively brief essay by me, though the subjects may be expanded on, or may be based on far longer essays which may appear in the future. This is more a writing exercise for me than for your benefit, dear reader, but enjoy it anyway.

Good things about science and our civilization:

A Recurring Topic

As we discover daily, the world, the universe, reality itself is far more complicated than we ever dreamed. As we advance, in communications, medical, and virtually all other technologies, we create an ever more complicated, and interconnected civilization. Due to the real, concrete advances we have given ourselves, more people than have ever lived enjoy longer, healthier, and generally happier lives.
Ascribe whatever moral motivator you will to the beneficial application of the advances of science, it’s irrelevant to me. Historically, it takes more people doing right by each other than not to form larger societies, no matter the cultural or religious influences. This bolsters my conviction that humans are innately good creatures, though flawed. Perfection is a pretty subjective concept anyway.
What makes the times we live in so wonderful above and beyond the marvels we almost daily create, is that as we increase the complexity of the world we live in, generally to the benefit of most people, we increase out interdependence on each other. For a society such as ours to function, it relies on increasing numbers of people being educated, and working together.
It takes a complicated hierarchy of individuals to mesh different levels of expertise into usable advantages. We laud Jenner for discovering vaccines, but think on the modern culmination of vaccination. It takes people smart in business (smart here denotes cultivated intelligence, by being both educated and trained, not natural Einstein genius. We’re ALL capable of cultivated intelligence) to secure resources to get a manufacturing business started, relying on the expertise of builders, designers of equipment, ad infinitum, to get the business physically established. Then specialists in certain diseases to research, and further specialists to design the usable vaccines. Even further, talented bureaucrats to design programs to disseminate the vaccines.
As we advance in just this area of expertise, which is predicated on huge numbers of people educated, and researching multiple branches of biology (microbiology, immunology, evolutionary biology [back off Creationists!]), the result is tens of millions of lives saved, which is deaths prevented (I feel I sometimes have to throw that perspective out there, the anti-vaccination crowd growing louder, and slowly making inroads, shame, shame, shame on them), every year.
Our civilization is built on the discoveries and methods of science. It also requires us to more deeply depend on each other to reap, and multiply the benefits. Science is a good thing ya’ll.

Random Act of Quotation!

"Science increases our power in proportion as it it lowers our pride"

Claude Bernard

SKEPTICAL SUNDAYS

2009-02-02T01:16:00.012-05:00

Weasel Words and Red Flags,
Or how to save money by not spending it on crap.

In the world of logic and logical fallacies, weasel words are words peppered throughout a speaker’s or writer’s argument, usually adjectives, that can be used to deride their opponent, or an opponent’s argument. They have a negative connotation, but weasel words can also be used to affirm an argument, making it seem more appealing by whatever tactic the author chooses: more scientific, more humorous, more civilized, more well-thought out. The reason one should be on the lookout for weasel words in an argument is that they are irrelevant to the point under debate, and the one who uses them liberally is generally on the intellectually poorer side of the argument.

But weasel words aren’t limited to argument, and can be useful in spotting crap. In this instance, when they are used in advertising they are generally called red flags. While it is commonly understood that red means warning and/or stop, being that I live on the beach, it’s much more poignant. When the red flags go up here, no swimming is allowed in the ocean. No matter what the ocean looks like on the surface, the conditions are such, with currents and undertows, that you are likely to die. Just like in life, there’s no lifeguards, or law enforcement on the beaches to keep you from swimming. You are supposed to know what the red flags mean, then it’s up to you. Go jump in, it’s your choice.

In the realm of alternative medicine, red flags abound. Some general things to consider when looking over some pill, supplement, treatment, or dietary and lifestyle change that makes a claim, whether in the store isle, or on TV:

First, there is no such thing as “alternative medicine.” There is only medicine that works, and medicine that doesn’t. We have come a long way in the last 200 years, which has been, at the outside, about how long scientific medicine has been around. That is to say, treatments submitted to rigorous tests to establish if there is any effect, beneficial or otherwise. As well, this has gone hand in hand with an ever increasing knowledge of how the body actually works.
Second, there is no outside cure for a great many of the common ailments caused by disease organisms other than your immune system. There are things to ease the symptoms, but a great deal of your doctor’s work (or your alternative medicine scam artist’s) is actually done by you. This is in no way an endorsement for not seeing your highly educated, trained, and usually very dedicated doctor.

Third, I have some caveats regarding the generalizing I’m about to do, the current limits of human understanding about the body, and my attitude in general, which I will offer in closing to hopefully counter some judgment on the reader’s part. If you need them now, just scroll down.

ONE ( We Begin)

So on to our first red weasel. “NATURAL” an utterly meaningless, and unregulated term. Hmmm, perhaps not completely unregulated. The FDA requires on food that you ingest, that “natural flavors” must actually be derived from a real source, as opposed to laboratory derived. If it is natural bacon flavor, it must actually come from a pig (or at least a majority of it). I’m forever tickled that pills are labeled as “natural.”
“NATURAL”, “ALL NATURAL”, “MADE FROM ALL NATURAL INGREDIENTS.” Don’t get me wrong, it may very well be that something is indeed made from non-laboratory/manufactured ingredients. If it is food, regulated by the FDA, it almost certainly is. If it’s alternative medicines, you roll the dice, with odds that always favor the crank.
Some of my contention with “natural” is this, pointed out more thoroughly by many others, including Brian Dunning of Skeptoid: Toadstools are natural, lead is natural, arsenic is natural, ultraviolet radiation is natural, so is the lethal radiation of nuclear decay, cowshit is natural. I think you get my point. Just because it says it’s “natural”, doesn’t mean it’s safe, or even that it actually is naturally derived, being that there’s no regulation for OTC supplements, so long as they don’t overtly claim to prevent, treat, or cure any disease.
What you read when you read “NATURAL” on something, is something like this: “This is from a natural plant, grown in untainted soil, with only natural fertilizers, no pesticides, far from urban air and pollutants. In fact, this was harvested in a rainforest 1000 miles from modern humanity, with absolutely no impact on the pristine environment. It was transported by electric car to a hippie commune, where deeply spiritual people used no modern technology to transform this all-natural substance into a pill (pr whatnot) inside a plastic bottle, arriving fresh, as nature intended, to my grocery or health food store.”
Sadly, there’s no regulation on the word natural in relationship to supplements. Natural has become a marketing tool, completely devoid of meaning, so I would counsel setting aside your expectations. Yes, aspirin is natural, of course. It can be derived by boiling the bark of a willow tree (though I’m not entirely sure if it’s species-specific) and that’s just what the Romans did. I challenge you to go do that next time you have a headache, bearing in mind that you have no control over the effective dosage, and have to consume everything else that leeches out from the willow bark, including the flavor, and I’ll be impressed at your commitment to “natural.”

TWO (The Long One)

Oh, and you expect it to work, too.
Also sadly, as long as the claims are kept vague, there’s really no regulation regarding what supplements imply they do, which is heal. Coupled with a mistrust in all things human made and science in general (don’t get me started), our current “green” movement has been hijacked by charlatans out to get your money. Here’s another choice red weasel: “BOOSTS/ENHANCES/SUPPORTS/INCREASES insert bodily function or the word “vitality” here” What’s so sad is how little education it really takes to get at least a generalized understanding of how the various systems in your body work. Even a cursory knowledge will plant suspicion in your mind when products make such vague claims. Let’s address “VITALITY” first. It doesn’t mean anything, even though it sounds like it does. There is some historical literature regarding “vitalism”, a long-discredited theory of life and medicine, wherein the body and life was dependant on “vital energy” for existence, and the flow, or balance of this (and in some cases various) energies affected your health, and imbalance was thought to cause disease. If you think this sounds valid, especially all you Chi and Chakra folk, I’ll address this a little later, hopefully letting you down gently. For the rest of you, just know this theory of disease was conceptualized BEFORE the germ theory of disease, and has yet to ever have any supporting evidence for any variation of it.
If the producer of the product you’re considering subscribes to this, you gather as you read the website or shiny product label, adorned with fairies, don’t waste your money. If they believe in “vital energy”, that’s their business, but they’re dong you a financial disservice by asking you to buy something that doesn’t do anything.
As for “vitality”, ask yourself this:
what does that mean?
Is that a valid term?
How would I measure it?
Does it mean I will have more energy?
Do they mean what I mean by energy?
A cup of coffee would "give me more energy."
Does it mean it will make me healthier?
If so, why aren’t they allowed to say in what way?
If it increases vitality, how will I know?
Will my heart rate increase, my feet sweat more (dear lord, no!), halos in my vision?
Does it do anything specific?
Why aren’t they allowed to say what it does specifically?
Ask yourself these, and any other troubling questions that pop into your mind while you look very carefully at the price tag.
As for the other terms, in regards to affecting the functioning of your immune system, digestive system (or health, they’re all big on saying it supports digestive/immune health. This appears to be just vague enough to slip under the FDA’s radar. Whether it’s the term support, or the vague use of health, I’m unsure), or any other system in your body, be very skeptical of these nebulous claims. All of these systems are very complicated, with various and sundry stages of function. If it supports digestive health, ask yourself, “How does it do that? Does it increase enzymatic action in my saliva? Does it regulate acid production in my stomach? Does it somehow increase the absorption of nutrition in my large intestine? My small intestine? Does it give a handshake to the symbiotic bacteria in my gut? Does it affect the muscles in all those various digestive components to work better, or more efficiently? Does it somehow affect the waste removal systems? What exactly do they mean?” When you or someone you know goes to the doctor for a digestion problem, you usually get a medicine that affects a specific problem, a particular aspect of digestion. The immune system, endocrine system, circulatory system, all of these are multi-layered, complicated, and interconnected. The ailments for these are pretty specific, and thusly so are the medications, so a panacea for overall system health starts to make no sense, and sound like either ignorance on their part, or supreme contempt for your part.
The only thing I know of that affects all aspects of any of these systems is diet! I won’t fail to mention exercise either, as it greatly affects the efficiency of these systems as well, mainly through efficient delivery of nutrition. Diet is important because you, theoretically, consume all sorts of vitamins and minerals, plus necessary carbohydrates, and roughage. Your systems need a diverse array of chemicals to keep each and every different stage of the systems running, and on a daily basis at that. Now, think on the Amazonian Teabag extract, and ask yourself (really asking the manufacturer), “Do you really expect me to believe that this one thing does the same thing as 2 dozen vitamins and minerals, especially when you don’t tell me exactly where, or what aspect of said system your product effects?” Use your perfectly healthy nervous system to walk yourself to the produce aisle.
A final note about the above red weasels. If they aren’t exactly implying that they cure something, or affect a disease process, or alleviate a vitamin deficiency, then they are doubtless implying that you should take their supporter, booster, enhancer propholactically. To avoid problems, take 2 pills twice a day, and buy monthly. Pretty insidious. I want you to picture this in your mind: the snake oil charmer talking to his ad executive, telling her to say this without actually saying this. Don’t forget, being that if you cross the line into specifics, the FDA WILL come down on you (never hard enough, sigh) both of them have lawyers present as well.
Why are all these nebulous wordings necessary? Because these people selling you their likely bogus health supplements have not proven their products do anything. They have not gone through the rigorous processes that drug companies must go through to:
1) Isolate the active ingredient.
2) Prove the efficacy of their product, and establish safe dosages.
3) Document the number of, and severity of side effects.
The overwhelming majority of health supplements (things like “herbal” supplements [yes, yes, yes, I know what your thinking. I will address that in the caveats upon closing]) have never gone through that process. Some have, and there’s negative evidence for effect, yet they are still sold as somehow having an effect on your health. Several new age therapies also have been tested, and still are being tested, showing negative effects, or indistinguishable from placebo. I’m staying close to the supplement, pill-form of alternative medicine. Getting into those other modalities also requires tackling the mindset associated with them, which can get complicated. Another time? Good.

THREE (Bear with the Tangents)

I want to make two things clear in this part.
1) Diseases have a natural progression, either simply due to a life-cycle, the time it takes your body to mount an effective response and win against the organism, but most likely a combination of the two. If something is meant to be taken propholactically (boosts, enhances, supports) then it is pointless to take it when the disease process has started. Bt my real point with this one is explaining “confirmation bias.” You get sick, and take a supplement. Even though it’s likely bogus, and it’s your own body’s immune system that kills the disease, your associate your feeling better with the pill you took, and will carry that belief with you even when someone points out to you that Australian Dingo Placenta was shown in a clinical trial not to do a damn thing. That’s confirmation bias, and we are all susceptible to it. Trust me, all sickness runs its course in due time. Now eat your chicken soup.
2) All real medicine has a real effect. It doesn’t matter to me if the active ingredient did come from a Dingo’s womb, but you do need to prove the extract actually does something, and I’d appreciate if you’d isolate which chemical(s) in the aforementioned placenta do what you’re claiming, establish how much of it I need to have an effect, but also how much is too much, and if you don’t mind, please replicate the chemicals in a laboratory so that my body can’t tell the difference, and we don’t have to kill any more pregnant Dingoes. Real medicine has real effects. We use them for the beneficial effects, and since there’s no free lunch, balance the good against the negative side effects. All those medicines that have those horrible side effects on TV, they actually do what they say they do, and it’s up to you and your doctor to decide if you want to risk the side effects. Medicines have side effects because, while they affect certain processes, or functions, they have no way of knowing you only want those processes to affect just the liver, so they affect everywhere that process happens, which may cause problems if they affect the same process in your pituitary gland. But who knows, you might luck out.
Supplements not only aren’t allowed to make specific claims, but they don’t list any side effects. Isn’t that strange? Makes me think it’s either a sugar pill, or whatever’s in it doesn’t do a damn thing at all. It’s cheaper, and healthier to go eat a apple, chock full of proven nutrition. If something’s had the money to go through the levels of testing our pharmaceuticals have gone through, it’s going to cost a lot of money. Even generic drugs are expensive, comparatively. I’m not saying price is always an indicator. There is plenty of bullshit out there that’s got a ridiculous asking price. I’m just here to save you money, whether it’s $5.99, or $59.99.
I haven’t even gotten into the weasels of red in this section yet! They are: RESEARCH SHOWS, and STUDIES SUGGEST, and sometimes, though more in verbal advertising, SCIENTISTS SAY/AGREE. Research means it’s in the process of experimentation. The results aren’t out yet. You don’t even know where they are in the research. It could be that research was just started because someone suspected an effect, but the lab isn’t even open yet. It might however, mean that legitimate research is being done by reputable organizations, and some preliminary paperwork is available, but regardless, don’t put the cart before the horse. You don’t get a prescription for anything manufactured under the auspices of research shows. RESEARCH SHOWS is empty techno babble, and means nothing: absolutely nothing.
Studies is such a vague term, you should ignore that one as well. While plenty of studies are legit, they aren’t clinical trials. Another example of dyslexic cart harnessing. Also, a study bandied about in the way alternative medicines use them could honestly mean anything, including that one person looked at a beaker, and pronounced he had studied it. Ignore this one unless you can track down literature, and it produced by reputable sources.
SCIENTISTS SAY/AGREE, and indeed they may, but they never tell you who, or what their specialty is. 20 veterinarians agreeing that the cosmos is collapsing doesn’t make me despair for creation.
All these are used to make the products sound authoritative, effective, safe, and to make you think somebody actually did the work. Well, to be fair, a chemist did make that $4.99 starch pill you're taking.

FOUR (Nice and Short)

“THEY DON’T WANT YOU TO KNOW.” Mmmm hmmm. It’s all a big conspiracy by government, Big Pharma, and no doubt the Illuminati. Right, why suppresses it, when they could make a mint selling these supplements, and home remedies legitimately? This one just drips of pure marketing. It’s an instant Do Not Buy.

FIVE (Sucker Punch)

ANCIENT WISDOM. I’ll be very brief. I will be the first to affirm that our ancestors were in no way stupid, but they were not technologically advanced, and had NO IDEA how the body really worked, beyond perhaps that the heart pumped blood, and a few other obvious things. And I will gladly proclaim their hits (remember aspirin?), but unlike some, I won’t ignore the monumental number of misses. Theirs was a world of trial and error (so is science, but very systematized, with ever increasing technology, and transmission of accurate information doesn’t depend on WORD of MOUTH) and riddled with ignorance. We have and are discovering that they got a few things right, but they got a spectacular amount wrong. A few hits in the Iron Age in no way means everything they did must be right. It’s like saying because you can balance your checkbook, your differential calculus must be right. And why do Orientals get special medical reverence? Ancient Oriental medicine is chock full of just as much “does not work, never did” as Europeans. Lastly, just because a culture has been doing something for 1000 years doesn’t make it work. Some traditions are stupid.

FINIS (Been waiting for this)

So there are some of the weasel words and red flags to be on the look out for when shopping in the world of alternative medicine. You’re looking for something that works, to relieve symptoms and pain, and make you feel better. I hope this essay gives you the skills to evaluate what’s likely to not really do anything but put your wallet on a diet. The best way to stay healthy is not in a pill. It’s diet, exercise, moderation of your vices, and a good attitude. When your sick, use the proven medications, all of which (well, perhaps not aspirin) were clinically trialed, and prescription once, so they have a long history of efficacy and safety, which you can look up anytime. If you’re really ill, consult your doctor, whose training, experience, and expertise you rely upon.
In closing, I just want you to know, I don’t have anything against the idea of supplements and alternative medicine in general, per se. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask that if you want me to buy something, I should know exactly what I’m buying. If your claiming it affects my health, all I ask is proof that it does that. The above weasels have been used in the promotion of snake oil after snake oil, so if I seem harsh, it’s just because I have standards: efficacy and safety. Why shell out money otherwise?
Nearly all of our pharmaceuticals come from plants, or other biological sources. I’d never deny that. That in no way means, however, that just because it comes from a biological source, it does anything at all, much less that it’s inherently good for you.
As for energy-based modalities, such as chi, charkas, or meridians in the body. Sorry folks, there’s no evidence for those energies. The body is an energy system, to be sure, and it’s that, ahem, vitality that no doubt was the genesis of the aforementioned belief systems. But 1) we’ve learned that the body is a chemical engine, using the heat generated from the transfer of electrical energy from chemical bonds (this is way simplified) being created and broken, and 2) we are very, very, very good at detecting and measuring invisible energies. For example, the Voyager 2 probe is over 9 billion miles away. It’s radio output is equivalent to a 20 watt light bulb. We can and do receive radio transmissions from that probe. We have instruments that can see a 20 watt light bulb 9 billion miles away. Sorry, but there’s no empirical evidence for chi, and all the rest.
Sure, there is plenty that we don’t know, in fact far more than we do. I’d advise against leaping on the gaps in our knowledge as a place to lay your favored belief, which inevitably turns out to be hope. Those gaps have a way of quickly closing within a human lifetime these days. Sure, evidence for other modalities may show up one day, and I even think it would be fun if they existed, but it would require altering our whole physics to incorporate them. Until that day, however, it makes no sense to give them any credence, as decades of study (tee hee) have shown nothing.
I'm not against every supplement, or alternative therapy. There are a few that actually do somewhat what they claim, and research is being done on them. This in no way makes the rest of them in any way correct.
Anyway, do good things for your body, real good things, and good things for your mind, and you'll find you inevitably do good things for your wallet.

Random Acts of Quotation!
On Evidence...

"Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk."
Henry D. Thoreau

"The fact that an opinion is widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd." Bertrand Russel

"Don't accept your dog's admiration as conclusive evidence that you are wonderful"
Ann Landers

A Featureless Friday

2009-01-30T16:51:00.002-05:00

I haven't been surfing the web all that much, so I don't have any funny links or pictures. I've spent the last few days hanging out with friends (see previous post) so I haven't been doing the reading I normally do. Much of my energy for socio-politial writing has been going towards school. My disk defragmentor wouldn't work for C: drive because I didn't have enough space left on it, so I copied all of my various and sundry writing folders, and tossed them into my D: drive, akin to dumping all of your paperwork into a box in order to vacuum (what? you mean you don't store all your important papers on the floor? How Bizarre! How else will you know where they are if you don't have to step over them every day?), so I'm a bit too disorganized to go in and fish out some near-complete essays to finish. I've been doing laundry, cleaning the kitchen, and listening to weighty lectures on my IPod, so I'm not in a very humorous mood today.

Aha! I garnered a book of quotations from my folks the last time I was there, so I'll do a few Random Acts of Quotation!

Politicians:
"A conservative politician is one in office." Columbia Record

"Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even when there is no river." Nikita Khrushchev

"A political war is one in which everyone shoots from the lip." Raymond Moley

Repentance:

'The best part of repentance is the sinning." Arab Proverb

Others:

"If you try to cleanse others, like soap you will waste away in the process." African Proveb

Luck:

"Depend on the rabbit's foot if you will, but remember it didn't work for the rabbit!" R.E. Shay

Eve of Destruction

2009-01-29T15:53:00.005-05:00

I woke up this morning, more than once, a sad caricature of a human being. Walking home from school yesterday, I happened upon Dee, a delightful and talented friend of mine. Both eager to visit with me, and pitying my sad financial state (while I realize I only get better at them, it would be nice to finally win one of those damned essay contests) she offered to buy me a drink and some snacks at Striper's. We went to the 3rd floor, where spirits are served, and I reacquainted myself with my old demon, vodka.
When one is in the early stages of inebriation, one doesn't wish the evening, or the feeling to end, as you well know. We retired to Dee's apartment for a delightfully stimulating evening of conversation, fueled by liberal amounts of yet more vodka. Over an 8 hour period, I easily consumed nearly a fifth of Stoli and Smirnoff.
I awoke in the callous embrace of suffering, holding me as tightly as any lover invited to one's bed would, and such a generous lover suffering is, selflessly giving and giving. This hangover was arguably a work of art in its magnificence, and like many dedicated artists, I was consumed by that which I had created. The rolling waves of nausea were actually enjoyable for their complete integration with my being, and as well for their sheer perfection. I actually staved off the inevitable as long as I could to remain immersed in such meticulous misery. When at last I could no longer hold back that which demanded to be brought forth, I assumed the position of pious submission in front of that cool, white, impersonal diety, that was stoically eager to receive my offering unto it. It is often said there are no atheists in foxholes. As well there are none is this position either.
Akin to surrendering one's will to the will of deity, I was sundered from willful control of my body, and as I made offerings of not just my abandoned digestion, but my dignity as well, an orgasmic, if not religious, feeling washed over me. My muscles locked in waves of spasm that purged my sould as well as my stomach, and from deep within swelled yet more suffering, glorifying in its monstrous elegance, its distilled purity. All pain that went before was mere prologue: this was transcendant pain, that split my skull, and all conceptions I had previously had of suffering, with Truth.
With at last the sacrament fulfilled, I was drained, admittedly on many levels, including literally. I, trembling, made my way to a chair, allowing the daylight streaming through the open windows to slice through my eyes like spears of a spiteful god, and rattle like hammers against the back of my skull, shattering all conceptions I possessed of identity into a haze of misery of delicate power, and utter completeness. Like a symphony, each moment would bring notes of exquisite agony from a new point within my body, and I could only admire the intricate balance of subtle suffering, and monumental agony that played counterpoint to each other, a coherent cacophany of pain, with a broad palette of intenisties that shaped my enduring consciousness with deftly overlapped emotional and physical textures: sharp, dull, smooth, silky, plunging, cutting.
This was indeed the "Starry Night" of hangovers, an enduring masterpiece that scarred my soul with its magnificence, as all great works in history pierce and scar us. As even the mighty Pyramids shall one day blow away into the desert, so too did this wonder of the world ebb, as all things must to relentless time. Even so, I will enshrine this morning in the museum of my memory, where it will hold a place of honor, that I may again and again revisit, and cherish its power, its beauty, its mystery. Prints are available in the giftshop.

New Feature # 2

2009-01-27T20:42:00.008-05:00

Tangent Two-fer Tuesday

Anytime the subject of blogging comes up between my dearest dear, Gretchen, and I, she’s always after to me to increase my output, which is the epitome of random. In my defense, I have school, and a whole host of google docs I am constantly contributing to. That said, I also waste inordinate amounts of time on Facebook, and read as if I’ll never get to again if I stop, so my defenses are pretty thin. I’m just undisciplined. I have a whole folder of unfinished blogs, because I only write while I have steam, then something shiny twinkles, and off I go, only to return to the blog I started many moons later.
Gretchen is, of course, brilliant, (or else I’d be nice to her only because she’s Jon’s wife), and is, of course, one (of two) of the readers who follow my blog, even though I write as if the whole world is reading (one day, muhahahaha!) A good idea is a good idea, no matter where it came from (cupping is NOT a good idea), and she had a good idea. She suggested that I start writing thematically, with inane, yet relevant witticisms alliterating the theme to the day of the week. Ok, why not? I do want to accumulate a body of work to refer to, perhaps publish one day, and the best way to do that is to write. Maybe these theme days will help me focus, finish, and fling my essays to the world.
I’ve got one already, Skeptical Sundays, since I’m aiming to establish a career in science, science journalism, and popularizing science. That will rotate between exposing cranks, snake oil, pseudoscience, and downright dishonest people (John Edwards, step to the front of the line), and offing argumentative tips and techniques, all aimed towards improving any reader’s critical thinking skills.
Tangent Two-Fer Tuesdays will offer two posts, but that’s about it. They may be related to each other, they may not. They may be long (good odds as I’m a babbler), or short, or lists, or something entirely new. Gretchen’s point is well made, that people like regularity and consistency, else why would TV series stay on for years at a time?
People also like regular features, so Tuesdays are a day to try out this or that. Tuesdays are to give me flexibility, and provide readers with variety. I’ll think about more as I get into the habit of posting on these days.

New Feature to the Features: Random Acts of Quotation

"That which doesn't kill fools, needs to be made stronger." Me, 2008

Tangent #1
Irregular Feature…
Bards and Brainsuckers: Books I’m Reading

1) Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus, by Mary Shelly. I’m too poor to acquire nice, leatherbound editions of classics, so I collect collections of mass market, or occasionally Trade paperbacks, of genres I’m interested in. I’m collecting and reading classic science fiction novels, and while Frankenstein isn’t technically quite science fiction, it’s sci-fi enough that I consider it the first sci-fi novel ever written, far predating Verne or Wells. I’ve had this edition for over a year now, and it has lived on the “Shelf of Shame.” This is a shelf dedicated to all the books I should have read. You know, many of the ones you were forced to read in high school and college. Whenever I hit the thrift store (the BEST place to shop for books, but support you local bookstore too!) I inevitably come out with something that has endured, no matter how inexplicable. Frankenstein was written in 1816, which is an era in English literature I just despise. It’s contemporary with Jane Austin, to give you an idea of the kind of language it uses.
On the good side: it’s fascinating how NOT like any of the movies it is. It’s also a hoot to read of the affected mannerisms of the period, wherein overindulgence in passionate emotions would make men swoon, and be consigned to convalescence for weeks on end. How pussy is that? On chapter 7 of 24.
2) Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. Published in 2007, it’s a weighty 613 pages (nothing to me), but supposedly a layperson’s guide to economics, bereft of charts and jargon. Sounds good. I’m on the last page of the introduction, and I already approve of the plain, direct style. This should prove informative, without the associated dryness I’ve so far encountered with most texts on economics, but with more meat that pop-economics books (though this book is on it’s 3rd edition in just two years…impressive.)
3) Religion in American Politics: A Short History, by Frank Lambert. Uber-timely with a 2008 copyright, this book sates two of my obsessive lusts: history, and my conflicted views on religion. Just a few pages in, and already I’ve slated it as my go-to-bed-yet-stay-up-3-extra-hours book.

Recently finished books:
The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins. My second read of this elegant, powerful volume by “Darwin’s Bulldog.” Unlike Sam Harris, who gets brutal in his critique of Christianity, Dawkins is merely blunt, as his point is well made: why does religion deserve and get special treatment when it comes to criticism? Good question, but the real power of this book comes in his simple explanations of scientific principles, especially evolution, graced with beautiful perspective that left me shivering with awe.
Pushing Ice, by Alastair Reynolds. A rising star in science fiction, and currently my favorite genre author, Reynolds skillfully paints a grand canvas of immensity and grandeur, both in space and time, but keeps the focus on the human characters and their relationships. Too few modern authors get that the play is about the people, not the sets.
Letter to a Christian Nation, by Sam Harris. It’s not that I don’t agree with many of Harris’ sentiments, but too often he delivers them with palpable venom. I think it’s both healthy, and essential to call the various Christian sects to task on their hypocrisy when their moral absolutism actually increases human suffering, but Harris ignores the fact that Christians are a spectrum, not an extreme. Point by point he’s often (but not always) on the mark in his criticism, but just as often fails to distinguish particular versions, denominations, and interpretations of Christianity. What could have sounded like a thoughtful dialogue, giving the various churches much-needed food for thought, ends up sounding like a rant, and unfairly lumping all Christians into a uniform mass, completely forgetting that while religious, they’re still people. As an atheist, I think Harris’ approach is completely unproductive.

Tangent #2
Facebooked!
This is an exercise an old Lost Colony chum tagged me to complete, which I ignored for weeks on end. I finally started looking at what other people were writing about, and realized it’s a terrific exercise in self-reflection. Besides, I had nothing else to write about for #2, so thank Bill Gates for cut and paste.

Rules:
Once you've been tagged, you are supposed to write a note with 25 random things, facts, habits, or goals about you. At the end, choose 25 people to be tagged. You have to tag the person who tagged you. If I tagged you, it's because I want to know more about you.
(To do this, go to “notes” under tabs on your profile page, paste these instructions in the body of the note, type your 25 random things, tag 25 people, then click publish.)

1) I've an extremely addictive personality. I have yet to successfully quit smoking, have to tear myself away from games lest I turn into a dead husk in front of this computer, and must always keep one eye on my drinking, just for starters.

2) I've made the bargain with myself to remain on the constructive side of functional, despite the above. Having demons and monkeys at least means never having to sleep alone.

3) In regards to the above, at least I love animals. Ferrets are by far and away my favorite pets, with dogs and Benders running neck and neck for second.

4) I am an atheist. To paraphrase Dawkins, every believer is an atheist about all the other religions. I'm no different, I just include yours.

5) I love to write. I hate to write. I love to write. I hate to write. Gardenfuls of petal-less flowers about that one.

6) I do not use the word "friend" lightly, certainly not in the frivolous way Facebook uses it.

7) I love making lists.

8) I'm terrible at completing them.

9) I'm somewhat terrified that while I yearn for greatness, I'd likely be contented with comfortable mediocrity.

10) I am terrible with money. Please see #1.

11) I have moments of unequivocal intellectual brilliance. I have no idea how to do this consistantly.

12) I sometimes want to get paid for just being me. Please see # 9

13) I have hierarchies of love, devotion, obligation, and other emotional aspects associated with other people. Please see # 7

14) I am often ashamed that I appear to learn how to be a better person by being a complete shit to others. I console myself that at least I do learn.

15) Every year I suffer fools less and less. These people I am yearly less ashamed about being a total shit to. Please see above.

16) I could stay in school for the rest of my life, and no pile of shit would satisfy any pig more than I would be satisfied.

17) I often fail to perceive the difference between due pride and undue arrogance in myself. I rely heavily on my friends to tell me the difference.

18) In regards to the survival of our species, I'm the most optimistic person I've ever met.

19) I sometimes debate whether we deserve to, however.

20) I try very hard not to use the word believe anymore. There's not enough space on here to explain why.

21) I have experienced no suggestive, much less convincing, evidence of life after death, of any kind. Admitting this has made me acutely aware of the suffering of others. Please see #14 This can be correlated with # 4

22) I sometimes envy religious people their absolute convictions. It is far, far more difficult to actually think through tough moral and ethical problems on a case-by-case basis.

23) I do not think any of the world's problems are insolvable. There are, however, far too many people who are intractable, and therein lies the problem.

24) I don't think we are the only life in the Universe. Regardless, most people believe that we are. I am daily flummoxed that they don't act as if that were the case.

25) No one's better at being me than I am. I'm daily thankful I got the job.

2009-01-25T19:56:00.001-05:00

New Feature

2009-01-25T18:37:00.005-05:00

Skeptical Sunday
Our logical fallacy of the week...
False Dichotomy
Simply put, it’s when someone in an argument sets up an either/or choice that can be either blatantly false, or simplifies an argument that ignores a whole spectrum of choices in between the end extremes of either side of the argument.

One of my favorites: "Evolution can’t explain X, so Intelligent Design must be right."
Commonly, evolution is so poorly understood by ID proponents (see: Cameron, Kirk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Az8k0uzQ6sA) that the first half of the above statement often incorrect. Add insult to injury, and conclude that ID is thus, by fiat, the correct explanation.

I actually understand how evolution is so misunderstood: it’s pretty complex. The biology alone is mind-boggling (which makes it so fascinating), and is corroborated by a dozen or so other scientific disciplines, which also require years of study to get a firm grasp on.

Tangent: that’s one of beauties of science, that as our body of knowledge grows, so does our need for ever more people to work together to progress our understanding, and create beneficial applications based on our understanding. I'd like to buy the world a coke, and an education.

One of the biggest problems in the E vs. ID debate is that E is poorly explained. There are some pretty basic, and simple principles involved. How to make them interesting to an audience is problematic. ID debaters usually rely on charisma ( and a whole host of logical fallacies ) to appear to win debates, even if their facts and reasoning are torn to shreds. It’s a matter of presentation, and approach, and most scientists aren’t equipped to present complicated facts concisely, and simply, and with the appealing flair of a game show host. This will change, however. My greatest fear is that it won’t be in enough time to combat more ideological insertion into science classes, currently under the guise of “academic freedom,” passed in a bill in Louisiana, and currently under fierce debate in Texas.

Example 2: “You weren’t there to see it happen, so your theory can’t possibly be right.” Every murderer in the world would absolutely adore it if our legal systems adopted this kind of reasoning. I’m assuming anyone who’s a fan of any one of the 415 CSI’s can see right through this one. Additionally baffling is how even if this illogic was even remotely reasonable, how would it make the other position (ID) correct?

“Academic Freedom!” Who can argue with that? Isn’t that the essence of democracy? If it was an honest principle, sort of, though it presents its own problems. One could attempt to ban the study of Shakespeare based on academic freedom, arguing that it’s not necessary to study 400 year old English plays, and even if it was, it’s entirely subjective that Shakespeare should be the one we study, and not some more obscure author from the period. So difficult not to Tangent here, because I have plenty to say about Shakespeare; how and how he’s taught. Alas, discipline. What makes the current premise of academic freedom despicable is it’s utter dishonesty. It’s yet another re-branded tactic to insert ideology where it doesn’t belong.

Tangent: Hooray! Another gorgeous aspect of science is its intellectual honesty, which I can distill to the succinct phrase, “Holy shit, we’ve been so completely wrong about nearly everything for just about our entire history! Let’s use a method of inquiry that makes that very assumption, and devise it so that any assertion made must pass a rigorous amount of testing and review before it’s accepted, and even then we’ll look over our shoulder for ever after just in case we’re wrong even after all that!” Science is often claimed by apologists to have nothing to say about God (or gods). Debatable, though very polite. What science does have is plenty to say about human history, and human nature, and is the most honest we’ve been with, and about ourselves yet.

There might be a positive to all this academic freedom nonsense. While it’s purpose is to challenge evolution, there’s nothing to say that it couldn’t as well be used to challenge Intelligent Design. If ID is actually brought into a science classroom, and evaluated with the same rigor as evolution (mini-tangent: challenging evolution is also throwing a gauntlet in front of geology, archeology, paleontology, astronomy and astrophysics, chemistry, and nuclear physics. Really, they’d all have to be wrong to allow ID remotely even footing with evolution. They being wrong wouldn’t mean that ID is right: it would still have to prove its case if it wanted to claim being a science) it would be torn to shreds within one classroom session.
That’s where introducing logical fallacies comes into the picture. Logic is a main component of critical thinking, and while the scientific method is taught in schools, it’s taught as a list of steps. What it is, is a constantly evolving, self-improving method of inquiry that involves thinking skills that are simply not innate, generally, to human beings. We go through life shooting from the emotional hip about everything. The whole paradigm shift in the way one has to think is just lost in a miasma of facts. I think a curriculum is required to teach this way of thinking. Critical thinking isn’t just about logic, but also the ability to evaluate evidence, and is self-reflective, in that one has to analyze one’s own arguments. These are skill sets that must be taught, as reason is a product of education, not birth.

If good critical thinking skills were a required component of public education, the benefits would reach far beyond the controversy about ID (make no mistake, it’s ID that’s the controversy. It’s proponents’ tactic is to reframe it into what is wrong with evolution, when the real issue is inserting a specific religion into public schools), though it would help students see through all the crap that surrounds the ID issue, and allow them to evaluate it on its own merits, which would be disastrous for ID if it’s done in a science classroom. Additionally, it would save the American consumer billions of wasted dollars. I can’t even get a handle on how much money is thrown out the window on pseudo-scientific snake oil, and numerous other products that with a few seconds of rational thought, would be seen to be unable to deliver on ridiculous claims of benefit. Incidentally, I’ve personally discovered that militantly reducing my consumption of television provides some immunity to the advertiser’s rhetorical charms. Absence makes the heart grow fonder, but it also appears to make the brain more careful. In addition, future generations that are brought up to give careful thought about the claims of others, and to their own decisions, would eventually filter into a government that might just think twice about going to war for no good reason (yes, I know the real reasons for war in Iraq are numerous, and far-reaching: it doesn’t make them wise or right) other than an executive that goes with the momentum, and believes he’s anointed by a very specific, intelligently designing creator, to go to war. Oops, did I just get all political?

So thus, I introduce Skeptical Sundays, the goal being to introduce a new logical fallacy every week, and attempting to use timely examples from the real world. Keep it real. No, really.

And 2009 starts its engine

2009-01-18T12:54:00.002-05:00

Here we go, 2009. The world has kept on spinning (so far), and, as usual, it's ignored our devices to mark time. Despite all the hope heaped upon Barack Obama, his is a job I do not envy. The problems, the very real, very deep problems he has to address, and is expected to solve are legion, and complicated, and long-term, and difficult. An historic President, history is ready to cast its eye on him with a long, hard stare. He will, of course, be remembered for being black, no doubt, yet history won't cut him an ounce of slack for that. His biggest problem is going to be his own image. He was elected as (dare I say it?) a savior. The expectation for him to rebuild the nation is, honestly, unrealistically high. There's a longer post in here about how we, the electorate, have abrogated our responsibilities and privileges as citizens of a unique government in favor of near-tyranny by funneling all of our expectations onto a single position, the Presidency. Indeed, our own Congress has abandoned its last real power these last few months, by abrogating the power of the purse. I speak of the bailout, which control over was immediately handed over to the Executive branch. That's not how it's supposed to work, at all. The stimulus promises the more of the same. Pity. I often debate my mother about the parallels between Rome and the United States. My mother, being more religious than I (well, who isn't, really?) dwells on the tiresome litany of parallels of decadence, and fraying morality. It's difficult to convey the complex issues, politically, and economically, that I feel are the real issues, and the dangerous parallels, when the debate devolves into the (admittedly, sometimes shocking) morality of the Romans, so I have to politely remind her that both Western and Eastern Roman empires were Christian when they fell. Delightful to have that historical trump card, really. I think dwelling on how we and the Romans fuck is irrelevant, largely. It's the frightening parallels between the end of the Republic and the ascension of Empire that really scares the shit out of me. Again, that's a longer post, and for another time.
The real blight on 2009 is the Israeli invasion of Gaza. Allow me to state this for the record: I am not anti-Semitic. I am not a racist. This has to be stated, because if you are an American, and criticize Israel, you are inevitably branded as anti-Semitic. Criticizing actions and politics in no way reflects personal views on a particular race, except, apparantly, if you target Israel.
I've never been a fan of Israel. I think it was a huge, guilt-driven mistake, but now that it's there, I suppose that's water under the bridge. The issues of forced relocation, disturbingly reminiscent of American treatment of Native Americans, can wait for another, more detailed post. The Western world's treatment of the Palestinians, from the get-go, which has been blatantly racist, can also wait for another time. Israel's brutal, and barbaricly disproportionate, responses which completely ignore civilian casualties (yes, yes, suicide bombers, and missle attacks target civilians: my point is the lack of any kind of moral compass on Israel's part.)
The last straw was Israel's bombing of the UN school. Oh, sure, it was an accident...several days after the event. That day, however, an Israeli military spokeperson assured us that Hamas was operating from that school, and the targeting was intentional. The school was registered with the UN, including its GPS coordinates. Israel is using weapons guided by GPS.
All of my life, I've only seen news reports from Israel's point of view, and I acknowledge that living in fear, surrounded by often unscrupulous enemies must be terrifying. Those same news reports usually tally the dead, and as I grew older I got decidedly uncomfortable with the large casualties inflicted on the Palestinian civilian population, often an order of magnitude larger than Israeli. Rolling tanks through tent villages (yes, many Palestinians are still living in tents 60 years after the creation of Israel) and indiscriminantly shooting to kill is unbelievable to me, especially considering how radically outmatched the Palestinians are.
Our communications revolution is amazing, and the night of the school bombing, films from the scene made it out into the Western press. Dead children. Dead women. A man sobbing because his entire family was killed. Despite these scenes of horrific suffering (suffering, suffering, so much in the world, and we still insist on meteing more upon each other: once in awhile I wonder if we even deserve to survive,) it somehow is each and every Palestinian's fault. They brought it upon themselves. Even if you are a hapless, unarmed Palestinian civilian, who desperatley wants to simply live your life in peace (and wouldn't mind some infrastructure, say, a grocery store, and running water instead of getting them out of the back of a UN truck) you are responsible for the terrorism against Israel, and your life is forfeit. Unreal. I meant to lay out a bit of history, and the points of incredible double standard that are levied against the Palestinians, but I'm too upset to continue right now. I'll leave it at this for now.

Thanksgiving

2008-11-27T13:41:00.000-05:00

I’m first of all thankful that I woke up this morning, alive, reasonably healthy, and all of my unnumbered days still awaiting me. I’m thankful, as I am nearly every day, that I woke up an American, the most imperfectly perfect community humans have thus far devised. I’m thankful that the poverty level here is so high (and I’ll be lucky to just scratch past that line this year) that it means I have to buy my headphones at Family Dollar instead of Staples, that I can only buy NY strip when it’s on sale, that I can only buy one or two songs a month online instead of a whole album and must content myself with hundreds of free pod casts, that because I can’t afford to fix my car (or, more properly, I can’t afford to insure it) I have to walk to my job, my college, my grocery store, my movie theater, my convenience stores, and my friends’ houses. I’m thankful that being poor in the United States only rarely means hunger, homelessness, and early death. Poor in the US almost never means lack of opportunity.
I’m thankful that I have friends who are more than willing to let me put my foot in my mouth. Friends who offer me rides when it’s cold, raining, even snowing. Friends who put up with me are pretty impressive people.
I’m thankful my parents are still alive. I’m thankful my sister and I only grow closer every year. I’m thankful I have a nephew, who’s just as strange as the rest of us.
I’m thankful there are more people alive than there have ever existed (despite all the problems that entails.)
I’m thankful that no matter what horrible things are happening at this very moment, there are far, far more kind, generous, selfless, and wonderful things happening as well.

Random Post in November

2008-11-24T10:11:00.000-05:00

While finals still loom, the big crunch of my first semester is over. Multiple papers and tests coagulating on the academic calendar nearly gave me an aneurysm. I believe that one’s living space reflects a great deal about one’s personality, and even more so on a short term basis. Of late, my room has looked like a transfer station for municipal garbage collection. This would be greatly mitigated if I lessened my consumption of beer. I think that’s such a selfish positive, though. Despite the physical and mental costs of the functional-alcoholism I live with, bereft of beer bottles I’d have nearly nothing to recycle. Indeed, the more I drink, the more I’m doing my part to save the environment.
While I’ve lately entertained the embittering thought that, at 35 I’ve slept alone vastly more nights than I haven’t, I console my self with the thought (beer in hand) that I certainly don’t let the space on my bed go to waste. While the partner side of the bed (interesting that I still sleep on the same side of the bed as I did in my last relationship five years ago) is always home to some papers, notes, and a few books, of late it has swelled to include nearly every text I’m studying, covered like a smothered steak with the precious few clean clothes I’ve enjoyed the last two weeks. While still sleeping alone technically, a pile of knowledge that can’t dress itself at least feels like I’m sleeping with a clone of myself.
I have four internet classes this coming semester, which frees me up tremendously for more hours at work. What a delightful tragedy that I live in a summer resort area. I shudder to think how much my recycling will suffer.
Ah well, there’s hope on the financial horizon for fall semester next year. All my paperwork will be in order for application to every single possible scholarship, grant and award that I even remotely qualify for. One of note is an essay contest for Ayn Rand’s works. I had originally thought I’d be reading anthem, her mercifully brief novelette set in a far, dystopian future. Nay, nay, foo foo. The only one I qualify for is the $10,000 award, which is no small change, to write an essay on Atlas Shrugged. 1069 pages. Make no mistake, I’m a voracious reader, and a large tome is not even a consideration when I read (nor a series, much thanks to Stephen King.) I read Atlas Shrugged 15 years or so ago, so at least I’m familiar with it. Ayn Rand is an extremely interesting philosopher. She’s also an extremely pedantic writer. Arguments via fiction are rarely well-written. Sorry, Ayn, but you’re no exception. I do hope I win. $10,000 will just about cover the tedium of not only reading that overblown tome, but actually researching and analyzing it.
Interesting: since starting this blog and school, I’ve added nearly 200 words to the spell check on this computer. It’s a 2005 Sony. Very interesting how technology has inflated the English language in such a short time. Well, away to school, where today I will continue assembling my first Power Point presentation. Oh, but college and education is so way cooler than it used to be. For example, my biology teacher posts her lecture notes online in several formats, including those I can download onto my iPod. How f-ing sweet is that?

Oh My God, I am so weak

2008-11-14T11:16:00.002-05:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RgL2MKfWTo

Click on this.

Education Ideas

2008-11-11T11:49:00.001-05:00

A tiny bit of Utopia
The Department of Education’s Budget for 2008 is 62.6 billion dollars. For those who don’t know me, what I’m about to propose will seem simplistic, if not ignorant. Rest assured, it’s nothing of the sort. It is presented in a simplistic manner, to be sure. But only for the sake of brevity do I risk such generalization here. I’m proposing the following based on an extremely complex infrastructure that includes not just our various and sundry systems of education, but our position in a tangled web of global economics, analysis of long term trends in business and international relations, with a generous smattering of historical perspective.
Let me just get right to the proposal.
1) This is a long-term, perhaps as much as 20 years, proposal. It could take that long to reap the full benefits, but this is investment money. This is an investment in the long-term health and stability of the U.S., and on a year-by-year basis, it’s a pittance of our Federal budget.
2) The short and sweet version:
A) Freeze spending at current level for Ed Dept.
B) Shrink Dept to 12.6 billion in allocations directly to schools and school programs. Require a 5% maximum overhead for operations, though I know it can be done for less.
C) The remaining 50 billion to be divided up into grants for scholarships. I’d do this in two ways:
I) 37.5 billion in direct 4-year package grants. The grants are scheduled at $100,000. This is how I arrived at that figure: http://www.collegeboard.com/student/pay/add-it-up/4494.html
This is a 4 year grant for 375,000 people per year. This is not to say you must attend a four-year program. I would be willing to be flexible in distribution. More on that later.
II) The remaining 12.5 billion to be distributed to existing scholarship and endowments. This is roughly equivalent to current spending on Pell Grants. Yes, there would be no more Pell Grants, but this way more than offsets the loss, at least in the long term it will. I propose here to endow 1250 private endowments, memorials and foundations, devoted exclusively to scholarship and financial aid for education awards, $1,000,000 per year for 10 years. No endowment would be eligible for the award twice (though I’d consider reviewing this if a good argument could be made.) This would endow 12,500 programs across the country with $1,000,000 over 10 years.
I have to run to class. I have a biology paper and an English paper to finish as well as math to get to, but I’ll try to expand on at least the rationale and benefit analysis for this tack tonight: no promises.

Science: The Atheist Agenda

2008-11-07T14:22:00.001-05:00

Another point…
There’s a perspective among Creationists I’ve noticed, and it’s one they believe in and implicitly and explicitly promote. While evolution is their poster child for the explicit, the implicit is that science=atheism. The radicals in both camps have presented us with a false dichotomy; that it’s either science or religion, and not only never the twain shall meet, but they can’t even coexist.
Firstly, let me dispose of the myth of the “Atheist Agenda.” I’ve reviewed all the manuals I’ve been sent, reread all the literature and the handbook, and while the plans for aborting all unborn children and Federal funding for pornography are pretty detailed, I couldn’t find any encompassing agenda. Being only 2% of the world’s population, we all fit nicely into the Fortress of Godless Science for our monthly meetings. I brought up the lack of a published manifesto of our agenda. While we all agreed that the destruction of religion would best be brought about by voting Democrat, we still can’t agree whether to outfit the White House in Pottery Barn or Akia, nor whether when marriage is destroyed forever, should we force people to have one same sex partner or multiple ones. Oh, wait, I’m confusing that with the Homosexual Agenda. Either way, it’s the same every month: grand plans, but bicker, bicker, bicker and nothing gets done.

I couldn’t resist the satire. All the same, the point is that there is no Atheist Agenda.
Science is irreligious, sure. It doesn’t favor one religion over another by not dealing with the supernatural. Instead of revelation, science’s aim is to explain things by examination. You’re welcome to look at science through any lens you want, but no matter if you’re Buddhist, Muslim, Christian or atheist, the results will be the same for everyone. No matter who created the world, this is the world we ended up in, and that’s the world science deals with, not the next one. Naturalistic? Yes. Materialistic? In the strictest sense, yes. Science reveals we live in a world of atoms. Fine, now go to the church of your choice. Because of this non-religious bent, science indeed allows atheism. Bacteria and galaxies aren’t much interested in your religious, or lack of religious views. Facts are facts, and they’re pretty impartial I’ve found. But one thing science does not do is “promote” atheism.

Yes, there are out spoken atheists who are scientists. Remember, it’s just their day job. Decrying science because of them is akin to decrying Burger King because of an atheist fry cook. There are atheist bankers, bakers, race car drivers and (horrors!) schoolteachers. I highly doubt there’d be much call to abandon finance, bread, NASCAR and education because of them.
Yes, I realize that evolution doesn’t jive with the strictly literal interpretation of Genesis. This doesn’t mean science says there is no God and/or that the Bible is junk. What I’d like to point out to Creationists is that the overwhelming majority of scientists in the U.S. are not only religious, but the majority of them are Christian, and the overwhelming majority of them have looked at the evidence for evolution (it’s massive and corroborative across dozens of disciplines,) and not only agree with the interpretation of the evidence, but also haven’t batted an eye spiritually.

You aren’t by any chance implying that they’re somehow LESS Christian than you are, are you? Or that despite being endowed with the same spiritual protection, any Christian with higher education is somehow more susceptible to the sneaky wiles of Satan, are you?

Are you?

The study of science doesn’t make you hate God or become an atheist, any more than the study of other cultures makes you hate America, or the study of other religions converts you to those religions. Does this happen sometimes? Sure, but rarely. Do you want to stop vaccinating children because a miniscule number of children have reactions to the antigens and die? If this seems a harsh and unfair metaphor, my point is that vaccination saves millions of children’s lives (shame, shame, shame on those who advocate non-immunization of children. Not only is there not a shred of support for any of the chemicals in vaccines triggering the onset of a genetic disease after over a decade of research, but you seem to have forgotten that the diseases we vaccinate for MAIM and KILL children.) Science does an incredible amount of good (actually, people to good things with science: science is a method, not a system of morals and ethics and codes of conduct in any way comparable to religion,) so why worry about the rare spiritual crisis? People lose their way for a whole host of reasons, but not because they look at bacteria under a microscope. Incidentally, most people find their way back, so the issue approaches moot.

If you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, you’re likely already comfortable with contradiction, so it surprises me that you’d hold back trust in other Christians supporting evolutionary theory, or astrophysics, or geology, or any other science. A reminder, if you fill a room with American scientists and throw a dart, you’re going to nail a Christian in the eye nearly 90% of the time. I would think at the very least you’d give them a hearing about what they say God’s doing with His universe.

One of my papers...

2008-11-04T09:37:00.002-05:00

For those who don't know, 1) Though I think I have 2 people who actually read this, I write as if the entire world is on the other end of this blog, and 2) I'm finishing my first semester back in school as a freshman (surprised that's not freshperson yet.) The following is an essay from my English Composition class.

Not-So-YouTube
Every second millions of people communicate with each other across the globe, using an ever-growing array of technologies that constantly evolve. Differences that have divided peoples for millennia could erode as the promise of global communications allows us to see each other for who we really are. But are we living up to that promise? Becky Roth, a student at Kansas State University, sows the seeds of doubt in, "Authenticity on YouTube", part of that school’s digital ethnography project. Weaving commentary and source footage from YouTube, a website of user-generated video content, she calls into question our assumptions about how we use technology.
The reality of global communications is that platforms, such as YouTube, provide us with the ability to shape who we wish to present to the world at large. We become producers of our own image, and carefully manipulate our own identity. We live entire lives online, separate from who we really are, blurring the distinction between entertainment and reality. Far from bringing the world together, YouTube creates a world of self-engineered celebrity and questionable authenticity, raising new barriers between people by casting doubt on identity.
LonelyGirl15, a home-schooled teenager with strict parents, was a phenomenon. Her story is the narrative thread in "Authenticity on YouTube", presented in a montage of video clips of her video log, other YouTube subscribers’ reactions to her, and news clips from mainstream media. At the height of her fame, she had over two million subscribers who followed her video log, until someone called into question her authenticity. Controversy erupted when it was discovered that she indeed was an actress, presenting a storyline crafted by three would-be screenwriters from New Zealand. Anger ensued and debate raged, portrayed in the latter "half" of the video as millions of YouTube viewers and posters struggled to define their expectations of honesty within a virtual community, wherein identity is infinitely malleable. Amidst this storyline, Becky Roth, via ghostly white text, suggests provocative questions on the nature of reality in a virtual world: Your "identity" and your real identity; which is the real you?
In the latter half of the video, respondents to the revelation of LonelyyGirl15 as a fabricated identity faction among "purists", who claim YouTube as a forum for "real" people, and the "creators", people who use YouTube as a vehicle for self-expression. It is in this portion of the video that masks become a prevalent motif. Some of the clips use literal masks, yet some simply shroud faces in black. One poignant example is that of an old man who takes on the persona of an old, opinionated man, with hat and glasses and a stereotypical speech pattern seen throughout Hollywood of the grumpy, opinionated old geezer. Moments later we see the creator of this character, a clean-cut, well groomed and articulate older American, who claims his character is "…just as much a part of me as I am." While asking mainly questions of us, Becky Roth at this point did venture an opinion: Creativity does not always replace reality. Indeed.
As many questions as are asked in the video, it suggested to me so many questions that were not asked, regarding how we perceive and present ourselves. Becky Roth’s questioning account of identity within the world of YouTube stunned me into looking hard at technology; how we use it, and how we interact with each other.
YouTube is a global video communications platform that invites us to create and share self-produced videos, and provides a comment forum for those who view them. YouTube is the logical result of a long evolution of technological innovation in how we, as people, connect with each other. Cell phones, many with cameras, text messaging, and internet access, allow us to carry on a two-way dialogue with the rest of the world no matter where we are. The internet provides email, chat rooms, discussion boards, and instant messaging with an unlimited number of people, allowing anyone on the planet with a computer and ever-growing internet access to communicate. Social networking used to be a matter of meeting people face-to-face. Now Facebook and MySpace are the paradigms for connecting with other people, who peruse our posted profiles like we flip through magazines at the dentist’s office. We keep innovating ways to communicate with each other and new ways to identify ourselves. It’s a natural, if not inevitable, progression to globalize face-to-face communication via the fusion of Internet and video.
What struck me is how we use YouTube to present our identity to the world. For nearly a century, we have used cinema and television to hold a mirror up to ourselves, portraying ourselves as we think we are, and as we think we should be: heroic, smart, beautiful, savvy, cool. We consume what we wish to be recreationally, and I think this has distorted what we assume to be reality. Have we turned every aspect of our lives into entertainment; scripting, rehearsing and editing "reality" in take after take? It’s said that art imitates life, but what happens when life imitates art? What happens in a culture obsessed with celebrity when the consumer becomes the producer? Enter, YouTube, a virtual community of people and ideas self-produced, polished, packaged and posted.
It’s said that you never get a second chance to make a first impression. On YouTube, that’s not true anymore. YouTube, a product of ever-cheapening and available video production and editing technology, allows anyone with software and a camera to rehearse themselves, and edit the lives they wish others to see countless times until who you wish to be becomes who you are. YouTube doesn’t just allow you to hide your warts but become someone who doesn’t even have them. In this environment, I believe the people who stake out YouTube for "real" people and not "fakers" are being unrealistic, if not naïve. Is there any difference between a scriptwriter penning your lines and you rehearsing your first YouTube video a hundred times before posting? Is trying to be as "real" as possible itself a form of production? Becky doesn’t answer these questions, but leaves us to think on them.
Beck Roth’s ethnography video on authenticity in the world of YouTube presents both thought provoking questions and implications. Using the narrative of an engaging girl’s story that proved to be manufactured, she calls upon us to call into question our own assumptions about ourselves and each other when communicating through electronic media, but most specifically, YouTube. What you perceive as reality is up to you, but assuming that sincerity is the rule in a virtual world of endless second chances, is naïve to say the least. YouTube shows that the technologies we embrace as mediums for honest cultural exchange are in fact a barrier to intimacy and the consequences an undiscovered country of more questions than answers.

A political statement...

2008-10-30T11:43:00.002-04:00

I got derided a few months ago for considering Obama as a way to improve race relations in the U.S. “Idiotic’” was the term I was lambasted with. This has yet to leave me as it was one of my best friends, whose opinion I greatly respect and value, agreement notwithstanding, who offered me this opinion of my opinion. He feels pretty passionate about the election, as do we all. I was a bit hurt that he implied it was the only reason I had, and it was a terrible reason at that. Having few feelings, I got over that within minutes, though I was miffed enough to think this of him: He’s a Christian and only voting Republican because it’s the party of the “religious” right, which I think is a ridiculous reason to vote for a candidate. Here’s how I see things:
Taxes: Taxes are a red herring. The real problem is spending and neither candidate is addressing this issue at all. A real leader would present us with the same options for our government that we have to face every day; namely, either, or. Especially in an economy such as this, with credit scarce and usurious interest when you can find it, all us Joe the Plumbers have to make tough fiscal choices every day. Somehow that doesn’t apply to our government, which borrows like it’s going out of style to pay for an amazing array of slightly necessary things. Lower taxes on everyone: rich, poor, small business and corporation. That’s real economic stimulus, not bailouts and insultingly small checks which are technically our money anyway. Obama would, in essence, raise taxes on the wealthy, punishing achievement and propagating the ridiculous class warfare politicians foist upon us as the norm. That’s envy folks, a pretty distasteful emotion. McCain would cut taxes on corporations (which technically don’t pay taxes…see the FairTax link,) which would also provide its own stimulus, but mentions nada about what needs to be cut. Both parties are tax and spend parties, with Republicans leaning towards excessive borrowing to appear less taxy than Democrats. Spending reduction is the real issue, not taxes, and neither candidate is addressing this because they know you don’t want to hear it and would swallow such a realist like a beer-soaked oyster. So to vote for someone based on tax policy is short-sighted to say the least. Remember, taxes are a red herring.
Foreign Policy: Fuck might makes right. It’s not working. A few religious radicals attacked us and we invaded two countries and doomed their populations to violence and death. What moral code are you living by that that disparity of reaction is justified? Please cite some source as to when we’ll be even. Neither war addressed the problem, which is Islam’s incredible difficulty adjusting to the modern world. They have the same problems Africa does, which is adjusting to a post colonial existence within arbitrary borders and left floundering without any investment in infrastructure and development. Europe had the benefit of the Marshall Plan. Neither the Persian states, nor Africa were granted that boon. Notice how many totalitarian regimes exist(ed) within the Persian states, then take a close look at Africa. A lot of similarities, huh? Poverty and despair are the problems, as they breed violence, racial strife, as well as political and religious extremism to deal with those issues. Bombing countries doesn’t deal with that at all, now does it? McCain and Palin are war-hawking about Iran and Russia. Enough! The State Department needs 10 times the budget it has. Building peace is incredibly hard and takes a very long time and long-term commitment. We need to make friends, not enemies. We are a wealthy and incredibly powerful nation (thus far,) and we should act like responsible, educated people. Not everything we do is right, either functionally or morally, so stop waving crosses and flags and act like civilized grown-ups who negotiate and compromise for mutual benefit. We should act with humility as the most powerful nation, by far, on this Earth, and not as the enforcer of our morality, come hell or high water and screw your culture and beliefs. Obama has my vote in this arena for two reasons: 1) The rest of the world likes him. We could use that. If you don’t care what the rest of the world thinks and think I’m a fool (at best) for that, then you’re living in 1947. 2) He has quite firmly stated he’s willing to talk with our enemies. So am I. How else will you understand if you don’t talk? Admittedly, understanding is no longer an American virtue. As for war, I’m tired of religious war. While perpetrated by religious zealots, make no mistake that September 11, 2001 was a political statement. The problems that motivated them are largely political. We have yet to deal with them politically. Plenty of people are anti-American. If you think it’s simply because they are Muslim, you’re ignorant beyond my ability to craft words.
Morality: Proclaiming your faith is just dandy with me and you’ll find no greater advocate of religious freedom than me. What sticks in my craw is focus on a “culture” war. “Moral” people make mistakes and bad decisions too. People of faith don’t appear to me to be any better at morality than anyone else. Wait, let me qualify this. Christians don’t appear to be any better at morality than Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Atheists or Pagans. Everyone has their radicals, everyone has their liberals, everyone has their moderates. What really appears to count is your situation: prosperity and security, generally, foster good behavior. If you have enough, you generally won’t steal. Affluent, educated people tend to be less promiscuous and have fewer children (though I staunchly believe the only morality regarding sex that counts is that regarding children and all that implies. If it’s simply a matter of consensual activity between adults, no harm done, please show me your anointment to dictate anyone’s sexual behavior.) Abortion is a horribly divisive issue and I’m torn about it. I envy anyone who has clear-cut convictions about it across the board. In most instances, I find it repellent. In some, I wouldn’t dare intrude and pity anyone who has to deal with that kind of choice. No one’s addressing the causes of needing abortions (other than only promoting abstinence without the benefit of a complete sexual education, sigh,) though Obama did mention that in one of the debates. That’s a first for me, and I’d be curious to see what he has to say about it in detail. But I’m sorry, these days the issue is relegated to the bottom of my cultural in-box.
Here’s what I think the REAL issues are:
International relations: creating more allies and/or fewer enemies, helping poorer nations develop (that’s a HUGE subject, more another day,) nurturing understanding and eliminating the causes of war, not just the people who might want to make it.
Global Economy: Not just ours, but ours is the lynchpin. I’m WAY Democrat regarding regulating the financial sector, but in what I think is a positive way. I have far better ideas than Washington does.
Infrastructure: It’s old and crumbling. How are you going to hold a “gays-are-the-cause-of-all-evils” rally if the bridge is out?
Energy: We need an Apollo-Program sized effort and investment (which, hmmm, would cause huge economic growth) to clean, green and diversify our energy infrastructure (decentralizing and diversifying it would make the Grid far less susceptible to natural disaster and terrorist attack!) Ahem, being the leader in green technologies would also go a long way towards improving our image.
Education: The single greatest long-term investment in peace and prosperity we can make. We need smart people to run the country, create the new energy technologies we need, mind the economy, design the infrastructure, deal with climate change and educated people contribute most to the wealth, health and growth of a nation. We need to teach, not to tests, but how to learn, critical thinking and creative thinking. Oh wait, that’s science. We should teach more of that (but better than the drudgery we pass out as learning currently.)
A minor intermission to address a crossroads with education and morality. W. once said we need to promote science and math as we do and will need ever more now and in the future. At the same time he’s said he’s for teaching Creationism in the science classrooms (oh be quiet. Intelligent Design is Christian Fundamentalist Creationism, period.) This is dichotomous at best and unbelievably (really, I find it incredible to believe) stupid at near-worst. Putting an uncritical, unassailable religious dogma into a curriculum that teaches critical thinking would be disastrous at worst, both for religion and especially science. This would hand our technological lead to any and all nations who wanted it in a box wrapped in purple velvet.
I suppose I should get to the race thing, but as I have to go to school soon, I have to cut it short. Blacks in America need an intelligent, educated, ambitious and inspiring role model, not another gangsta rapper. Just look at the news to see the hope in black high schooler’s eyes. That inspiration just might inspire more blacks to stay in school and continue on to higher education (good for the economy,) as well as reduce the sense of entitlement from centuries of racism on the part of white (Christian) America. So, we might see fewer gangs, less violence and drugs, lower pregnancy rates and an entire segment of our population raise itself out of despair and poverty to become educated and productive, and just might reduce the need for welfare programs, which would reduce government spending. It also just might get some racists to rethink their views of blacks as inferior, lazy and sucking off the government teat either via entitlement programs or exploiting affirmative action I think that would be a great thing. Anyone who thinks this is a stupid reason to vote for a black man has a moral code that puzzles me and as the above shows, apparently has no concept of the complicated calculus I base my political decisions on. This is unnerving in a good friend. In fact, NOT including this facet of possibility strikes me as either racist or unimaginative and living in complete denial of the reality of race relations in the United States, how divisive and destructive it is, and the potential for at least furthering the healing process. Voting for Obama because of his race and thinking strategically and MORALLY about the potential consequences is in fact a very GOOD reason to vote for him.
I need to continue the list of real issues that face the nation, in order to show where abortion, gay marriage and prayer in the schools (just to pick a few) really end up on the list of “actual, real, pressing and important issues that desperately need to be addressed in order to keep this nation going.” It’s a long and sometimes scary list, and they’re pretty fucking low on it.
Incidentally, Sarah Palin believes man and dinosaurs walked the Earth at the same time. Sorry, that completely disqualifies her to be a part of the Executive Branch. I want people in there who will deal with reality. The world is extremely complicated, not a fairy tale.

A plan for the US, part one

2008-05-23T11:00:00.001-04:00

The first in a multi-part series on my plans for the United States, to not only restore economic health, but to radically increase it; to not only restore educational integrity, but exceed any standard now imagined; to not just reduce poverty, but eliminate it; to not simply promote domestic tranquility, but make internal strife ridiculous. Ambitious, no? Here’s step one:
Pass the Fair Tax. I have spent nearly two years researching this concept to replace income and payroll taxes with a national sales tax, one that actually has a bill floating through Congress, every year with more support. If you honestly and intelligently disagree with this proposal, I’d be happy to debate you and see if I could change your mind. If you are the kind of person who is opposed to it because you’re regurgitating soundbites, you’re ignorant. I won’t go any further into detail here as I have several links to the information you need posted: I’ve already done my homework, now you do yours. Suffice to say, as an economic stimulus proposal, it makes the current one from Congress (so nice of them to return our own money to us, in an election year to boot) look like pissing into Niagra Falls. While all my subsequent proposals don’t depend on the Fair Tax to fund the government, it would be an easy way to offset any tumult my others may engender and even if none of the others got done (long term bad!) it would still be the best thing that we did for ourselves since that whole Constitution thing.

don't write angry

2008-05-21T13:47:00.002-04:00

the previous post dredged up some pretty harsh feelings in me, especially the part about alternative medicine and the attitudes my peers have about my attitude. "Ancient Wisdom" oh how people just love that phrase. How it's imbued with secret knowledge and how utterly cold I am, how close-minded I am when I admittedly raise a skeptical eyebrow immediately at some recovered or revealed bit of what not that proves how much the "Ancients" knew.
"See," I paraphrase from one argument or another, "they were right all along!" Now, I am the first to champion our ancestors because I do study history. They were a lot smarter than most of us today give them credit for. Human is as human does and we've always been a clever species (if a bit short-sighted.) But we haven't always been educated or possessed the vast body of knowledge we do now. What bugs me is that while folks smugly revere the one "hit" the wise ancients got, they completely ignore the 100 "misses" surrounding it. One "right" somehow justifies a whole system of wrong. Or even better, retroactive revisionism, wherein a delightfully vague bit of wisdom is reread with a modern, educated eye to have meant what it would mean if was written today, much like a horoscope read to be accurate prediction, no matter what it actually meant to the ancients. Amazing how much they knew! We're only "rediscovering" it. Really? So much "wisdom" yet incredibly short life spans, dismal infant mortality, horrific susceptibility to disease, malnutrition and generally terrible conditions for thousands of years. One hit...one hundred misses. I'm not singling out any religion or culture, but I'm quite confident in my skepticism and call the progress we've made exactly that: progress.

A wednesday in may

2008-05-21T13:35:00.001-04:00

A bit of frustration
Currently in Florida and now in Maine are more attacks on science and science education, with uber-fundamentalist Christians trying to insert belief systems in place of science at a time when science education and the creative and critical thinking skills associated with it are needed more than ever.
In Florida, Creationism is being inserted into the curriculum via the clever guise of “academic freedom” and what legislator in their right mind would oppose any bill with that kind of language in it, other than an intelligent, educated and courageous one? Short supply, those. There is one tiny part of the bill I actually agree with, stipulating that one shouldn’t be punished for opposing belief; in other words, if you pass all the tests associated with evolution that are required, you shouldn’t be penalized if you don’t accept evolution as a valid scientific theory, in public schools at least. Once in the private sector, all bets are off.
Did I just hear a tiny cry of “discrimination!”? Look at it this way: I fully support a religious organization’s right to be discriminating in its hiring practices, excluding from employment anyone not of their same religion and/or denomination, or anyone who lives outside of their moral framework. Yes, I think it’s not only acceptable, but culturally healthy, if not mature, to openly (there’s the rub) be discriminating. No one would waste time or lawsuits. Yes, a fundamentalist Christian organization is perfectly allowed in my cultural paradigm to not hire an openly homosexual person, or a Muslim organization to not hire a Jew or a Christian, or any example thereof; however, a private company that specializes in products promoting evolutionary biology is as justified in turning down a degree-carrying fundamentalist Creationist over a prospective employee that accepts the evolutionary paradigm. Isn’t that far more reasonable and fair? Wouldn’t you rather know that you haven’t a chance with company A and not waste your time?
In Maine, School Board officials are saying ridiculous and ignorant things not only about evolution, but the “Big Bang” Theory as well, that both ought to be relegated to philosophy classes at best. Huh? These people are in charge of curriculum? If one asserts that evolution and the Big Bang theories are merely philosophies, then what one is really doing, perhaps without realizing it, is dismissing trust in the following (partial list of) scientific disciplines:
Biology
Botany
Chemistry
Paleontology
Astronomy
Astrophysics
Cosmology
Geology
Genetics
Anthropology
Archeology
This is just to name a few, generalized categories. Go jump on Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fields_of_science to see a more comprehensive breakdown of these and other sciences. Perhaps all of these disciplines should be relegated to a philosophy class. Perhaps we could simply just get rid of all “science” classes, since all these interrelated disciplines are suspect. We wouldn’t want to be hypocritical would we, and teach the scientific method about anything, lest there come a day when even the most innocuous “science” comes into conflict with Scripture. Since God will guide America to greatness, let’s just stop being innovators and producers of technology and simply buy technology from other nations, while we return to that idyllic life of the horse and buggy.
O.K., I’m being a bit asinine, but only a bit. There are some pretty serious consequences to rejection of science and I’m getting more and more annoyed that moderate and liberal Christians allow this small but extremely vocal minority of Fundamentalist Christians to further insinuate faith into educational policy, and to add insult to injury by calling judges who say, “no, you can’t do that,” “radicals,” or somehow rationalize that religion (Christian, of course) is “under attack.”
Maybe I shouldn’t be annoyed, as this is a scientifically illiterate culture, as a whole, one where a chain email carries far more weight in the public mind than a clinical trial, where despite scientific approaches to medicine that have more than doubled the human lifespan, practically eliminated fatal childhood disease in developed countries, made childbirth a largely survivable process, made many cancers curable, others treatable, many fatal diseases merely chronic and continually improves the condition of the accidental and genetically handicapped, the rise of “alternative” medicines and treatments continues, legislated as mandatory in some places, despite the unsupported claims of most and blatantly obvious fraud of some.
I catch a lot of flak for my skeptical beliefs about alternative medicine. The politest retort I get is rolling eyes. Most often I am accused of being “closed-minded.”
Riiiight. Let’s offer an example. I’ve slowly and grudgingly learned to control my cringing whenever one of these enlightened beings professes the benefits of some new Homeopathic remedy. Lacking a skeptical eye towards anything professed as “natural” (yet a plant extract that’s been through 20-plus years of research into toxicology, efficacy and effective dosage by thousands of intelligent and educated people in clean, controlled laboratories is immediately suspect and will probably cause cancer) their only information as to the history and mechanisms of homeopathic medicine comes from homeopathic websites, often with folks thinking homeopathy has some ancient legacy. It’s actually only 150 or so years old, thought up whole cloth by Samuel Hahnemann, a German physician in the 18th century, claiming that “like cures like” I.e., if you have a disease, you should ingest a substance that causes the same symptoms in a healthy person, the substance being diluted in water continually until there remains no detectable levels of the original substance (we’re talking parts per trillion here, guys) yet somehow the “properties” of that substance will be transferred to the water, the water will somehow “remember” or take on the properties of that substance and thus this solution of water, which would supposedly cause disease symptoms in a healthy person, will cure disease in a sick person.
O.K., let’s look at this with a skeptical eye. Firstly, the veneration of homeopathy as having a distinctive and ancient heritage is untrue. It was created during what was arguably the last days of the dark ages of medicine, before the germ theory of disease was understood, much less accepted and scientific approaches to medicine were just barely beginning to appear, in the late 18th century. What might give the impression of an ancient legacy is that Hahnemann may have based his hypothesis on ancient Greek principles of medicine, “like cures like” and the concept of balancing the four humors of the body. The four humors only persisted until human biology, via dissection, was actually understood ( I am greatly simplifying for brevity‘s sake). No physician today accepts the existence of the four humors and thus the need to balance them. Homeopathy efficacy has never been duplicated in a controlled clinical trial. An almost childish knowledge of basic chemistry will show that not only is the chemical composition of water completely unchanged by components introduced into solution with it, but there’s no explanation given by homeopathy as to how a substance has “properties” outside of its molecular structure (auras, maybe?), how water becomes some kind of recording medium for these said “properties” both in the complete absence of the original substance from the final solution (chemically a freaking glass of water) as well as not a single molecule of water being changed in any way from exposure to this substance and incidentally, the concept of “like curing like” not having a medical leg to stand on. So, in summary, homeopathy has no legitimate hypothetical basis for working at all, no detectable effects in any spectrum of analysis but most notably chemically, provides no explanation for its mechanism, is based on outdated and discredited medical knowledge and utterly false assumptions of biology and disease and yet grows in popularity every day, flooding websites with unsupported claims of the unbelievable number of maladies it cures, with unchallenged testimonials no different than the tactics of the snake oil salesmen of days no-so-past. Yet I’m “closed-minded.”
What does homeopathy have to do with the former part of my article? I’m pointing out the already pervasive illiteracy of science and dismal lack of critical thinking in American (Western?) society and pointing out how the very basis of scientific education is being eroded in place of…what? Is it offensive if I say superstition? Probably, but I’m at a loss for words here as I ponder the consequences of FURTHER reductions in scientific education, or limiting the application of critical thinking based upon religious radicalism, because where would it stop?
I suppose there is a conflict between faith and critical thinking, but which is doing and will do the most damage? Why does it fall to science to reconcile with religion, but not the other way around? I almost feel like fundamentalism actually limits its god, to one that doesn’t work on scales as immense as the visible universe, on timescales of billions of years, who plays tricks with evidence or allows the devil to do so to weed out the truly faithful, who makes a universe only seem to be what it is: vast, majestic, sublimely complex, ancient and in motion, growing, expanding and yes, evolving. Instead of shrinking your god and his creation, why not make your god bigger? I know plenty of Christians who have. So what if the Genesis account isn’t literal? That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t honor your mother and father. If you accept that fossils are remains of extinct creatures that lived a long time ago (more than 6000 years) that doesn’t mean it’s suddenly okay to murder or cheat on your wife. If the expanding universe leads one to conclude that it’s billions of years old, that has no bearing whatsoever on the verisimilitude of the Sermon on the Mount.
America isn’t going to hell in a hand basket because of science. Sure, we have problems, but they are complicated and aren’t simply due to fewer people going to church (attendance is up actually) or because evolution is an accepted scientific theory based upon mountains of supporting evidence from dozens of different scientific disciplines. But cutting science out because you don’t agree with the conclusions that are drawn from evidence won’t do a damn thing about any of the problems, global or national, that confront the nation, except perhaps set up America to become a technological backwater. No doubt that would somehow be God’s punishment on a sinful nation and not actually a consequence of intellectual (and spiritual) cowardice on the part of a certain majority that allowed a minority to lead a nation to decline.

Some of my favorite pics. Pyzam.com is a public service to the funny bone.

2008-03-25T13:21:00.005-04:00

Tee-hee!

I still laugh like a hyena every, I mean every, time I see this.

Hearing my friend Jon say this is good times.

This is everyone's favorite picture at work. Everyone still starts with "Nooooo..." in a silly fat walrus voice, with appropriate ebonics, when something goes wrong. "Noooo I be burnin they's quesadillas!"

Per Gretchen's Request...

2008-03-25T13:09:00.003-04:00

My dear friend Gretchen, my island of inspiration in the sea of mundane, a river of intelligence in the vast deserts of stupidity, a wellspring of friendship who slakes the thirst of loneliness, has lately, and rightly, decried, bemoaned and berated my lack of consistent posting. I tend to do things in waves and am currently in a trough (I also tend to use a metaphor in a work and beat it to death [I would argue that it is getting the most “value” out of a metaphor {like stretching leftovers.}])
I am verbose, to the point of pedantic sometimes, but mostly so in my writing. I’ve lately taken to more careful editing of my writing before I post; never a bad thing. I love to rant on some pretty touchy subjects, so I am constantly doing a lot of research to back up my arguments, or, at the least, not look like a complete buffoon or like someone who enjoys the taste of shoe leather. So, as I produce a larger body of work viewable by the world at large (think about that bloggers, the entire planet has access to your work, the only barrier is language and that gets less important every day [speaking of language, here’s another parenthetical aside: America, stop worrying that English is going to suddenly disappear tomorrow. It’s not. It is THE second language nearly every person learns {albeit imperfectly, but I wouldn’t trade hilarious instructions and signage for anything and I hope people in other languages get the same tickle when English gets translated into other tongues ((though holy crap, look at how tongue is spelled versus how it’s pronounced! For Pete’s sake, the “u” is silent [[thus useless]], but the “o” sounds like a “u” and an utterly useless “e” at the end. English is a terrific language, flexible, adaptable and easily expanded, but it could sure use some clean up!))} and there is no danger, none at all, that it will lose it’s prominence anytime soon. Most immigrants to the U.S. learn it eventually as a second language as it’s the easiest and best way to assimilate and become successful and it’s guaranteed {another useless “U”!} their children will learn and speak English. Must we do this every time there’s a new immigrant population wave? Wanna help Spanish speakers learn English? Get off your xenophobic horse and learn Spanish, then you can teach it to them. Most people I’ve personally met who advocate “English only!” don’t really speak English all that well, with a command of their native tongue akin to someone with no insurance steering a car with one arm draped over the steering wheel, the other out the window making wavy motions with their hands, recklessly speeding in a rust-coated jalopy with a four cylinder engine and half a tank of gas thinking they're going to drive from New York to Los Angeles. Better to be silent and thought a fool, eh?]) I’m striving to present a more streamlined and articulate body, devoid of overused metaphor and unlikely simile, uncluttered by excessive tangential thoughts, cleaned of abundant (and perhaps unnecessary) parenthetical asides and edited of proliferate use of commas, as well as eliminating run on sentences, which, while they do mimic the way most of us speak, just might be confusing to a reader.
So, in short, I don’t want to rush any important posts that need to present a well-reasoned and well-researched point of view in an articulate manner, though I do understand Gretchen’s urging for more consistent posting, as my blog is intended to inform and entertain you, my loyal reader (Gretchen, that’s pretty much you and that French chick in Scotland) as much as satisfy me. So, that said, I thought I’d focus another article on one of my favorite subjects: Nutrition! Here it is:

Eat less. Exercise more.

Snippets, most snarky, some not

2008-03-06T17:08:00.001-05:00

It was a transcendent moment in human thought, when we put a price and a value on our individual time.

Some see the glass as half-empty. Some see it as half-full. In an hour I’ll be so drunk I’ll see two of them no matter what; how’s that for positive thinking?

The meaning of life is what meaning you bring to it.

The purpose of life is to give life purpose.

Some see the glass as half-empty. Some see it as half-full. I think it all depends on whether or not it has a paper umbrella in it.

That which doesn’t kill fools needs to be made stronger.

If your support and practice of a religion brings out in you the worst in human nature, you might be missing the point.

Sure, life is a banquet, but some days I just feel like ordering in.

Some see the glass as half-empty. Some see it as half-full. Does it matter if you don’t have any arms? You can’t reach it anyway.

Life is like a box of chocolates…remember, a retarded guy thought this one up.

I keep hearing that homosexuals are the cause of moral decay in the world today. Does this mean we’re going down in flames?

“The truth shall set you free.” Not so much. Friends with bail money however…

When will black be “the new black?”

“I am that I am.” Cryptic fellow, this God person.

If life is a banquet, why do so many religions tell me I should be living on beans and rice?

Xenaphobia: fear of strange warrior princesses.

An Interview!

2008-02-29T10:15:00.000-05:00

A coworker’s daughter is taking a journalism class and needed to interview a blogger for a paper. The last week word has gotten around that had I stared a blog, so I was asked if I would be her interviewee. I was flattered so I said yes. She needed the paper within the hour after I received the e-mail, so the answers were fairly brief. I am working on several blogs right now that require a bit of research and no doubt will need revision, so for today’s blog, here’s the transcript of the interview:
1)What is a blog?
1) Short for web log, a blog is an unregulated forum for people to publish their opinions, commentary, news and information about their personal lives on the internet. While these are the most common forms blogs take, the medium is fairly young and still evolving.
2)Why is there this fascination with blogs?
2) Why are reality TV shows popular? We’re curious about each others lives, sometimes to the point of voyeurism. We’re also looking for connections with other people who perhaps share similar concerns, tribulations and ideas. Lastly, many blogs are informative and funny and who doesn’t like to laugh?
3)How did you find out about blogs?
3) Like most people, I had a friend who had started one, as her online journal, though I had heard of blogs years before in the news (television and periodicals) back in the dark ages when blogs were questioned as a legitimate source of information and commentary.
4)Why did you decide to start a blog?
4) A news blog may be more editorialized, or personal and contain more commentary than information and usually has far less content in general. While several people may share a blog, as a rule most blogs are single person-sourced, limiting the ability to news-gather. Also, while not always true, news blogs don’t do much independent research; most regurgitate from news websites or other news media.
5)What is the difference between a news website and a news blog?
5) I had lots of thoughts about lots of things and already wrote for myself to organize my thoughts and my worldview (kind of putting my philosophies on paper to see what I believed) and decided to test my worldview against the world at large. Instant publication is tremendously satisfying and it’s great to get comments (good or bad) from people. I was surprised how connected I felt.
6) Is your blog focused on your commentary and opinions on one particular subject, or your online personal diary on lots of subjects?
6) It is views and commentary, but as random as I am concerning what I’m interested that day. As for my daily routines, I find them boring, I can’t imagine anyone else wanting to read about them and for that matter, I find blogs that are just recitations of one’s day boring. It’s what you think and feel and how you react to things that’s interesting and blog gold, not the events themselves.
7) Do you think its important for a blog to have photographs/audio/music/videos to enhance it?
7) No, it’s not important. Sometimes, sure, it can enhance the experience, but mostly it’s just jewelry and not important to the content of the blog (unless, of course the blog is all about music or such.) It might give a little insight to the author, but too much of a good thing is too much. Think of it this way: does the cover matter when it’s a good book?
8)What specific types of blogs are there?
8) I mean this literally: any subject you can think of, there is a blog devoted to it. Sorry to be so general, but a specific list would take hours to compile. There are an estimated 100,000+ blogs started every day! Think about it.
9)Do you consider blogs a form of journalism?
9) They can be, but unlike a news agency which has a reputation to uphold and a financial stake in that reputation, blogs don’t. Blogs live on their popularity. With precious few exceptions, I wouldn’t consider anyone’s personal blog as a source of authority.
10) Do you worry about your personal safety, if you discuss your opinion on controversial subjects?
10) Great Question! It’s certainly in the back of my mind. I do have some controversial opinions, on evolution, religion, politics and I haven’t gotten them all down yet, but I admit I am holding back a little since my blog is so new from putting it all out there. There are zealous people in the world. I’m a bit afraid, but then again, there’s no assurances of safety in life in general. I’ll put them out there, but I’m going slowly, testing the waters.
11) Should everyone blog?
11) Should they? No. It’s a neat experience to be sure and many take it up, only for it to suffer as a fad in their lives and some have persisted for years. It all depends on the person. Some are remarkably well thought out and written, with engaging thoughts and neat facts and others are complete crap from layout, to writing style to content. It’s a whole spectrum that reflects the population of the world’s diversity in interests, skill and opinions, with all the good and bad that implies, but better to have it than not.
12)Is there anything else you would like to add?
12) Only that the neatest thing about blogs is their lack of rules. The door’s wide open and what blogs might be in the future is unguessable. And NOT knowing the future is what makes life so very interesting.

A Perspective...

2008-02-26T09:31:00.002-05:00

Perspective…
I was listening to “Science in Action” pod cast from the BBC (just love the BBC. Just as biased and snarky as American media, but so subtle and polite about it. Informative and makes you pay attention in order to catch the digs at the US. Delightful!) where they featured a laboratory in France that had created a self-healing rubber. That’s right. Self repairing. Tear the rubber in half, then put the broken ends back into contact and within an hour the atomic bonds between them will repair (totally simplified, just trust me) to nearly the same strength as before. Holy Science Fiction Batman, that’s cool! That got me thinking about the world we live in and how amazed our ancestors would be at the world that we live in. But then I paused. I think we constantly underestimate those who came before, that we somehow think their lack of technology makes them inferior, less clever, less sophisticated than we are with our technological majesty. The achievements of those who came before us should not be lightly dismissed. Their accomplishments, especially in light of continual revelations of their relative technological sophistication, should be all the more impressive because of their lack of technology. Not just the monuments we all know and love, though they are not to be discarded either, but as well their forms of government, methods of trade and travel and even the nearly modern cosmopolitan of their cities. I think a traveler from the past would, with minimal instruction, recognize and understand a great deal more than we might think they would. Any notions of their belief in us as gods I think would be quickly dispelled simply by watching us interact with our world. If you think their lack of education would be an impediment, consider for a moment how specific our education is to the systems and technologies of the world we live in. While the math we learn helps in the development of logical thinking, the majority of it beyond the simple maths we use for our finances becomes very specialized towards modern engineering and scientific theory; in truth, the overwhelming majority of us barely use any of the math we know, much less even have a conceptual grasp of the mathematics that govern our technologies and directions of research. Person for person, this isn’t all that different from someone who doesn’t know any math other than that needed to count sheep for barter. Uneducated doesn’t equal unsophisticated ( I mean in terms of reason, intellectual capacity and critical thinking skills. The other use deals with coarseness of tastes and I don’t think anyone can argue that we’re all that better than our ancestors. We have access to our entire civilization’s and our history’s art, science and literature, yet sex, violence, voyeurism and meaningless competitions wildly dominate our free time. The only real difference between the Roman bread and circuses and today is that we pay for them.)

My list of 10 things they would and 5 they wouldn’t be amazed at:

#10: The extent to which we take care of our handicapped
Not just those wounded in accidents but birth defects as well. The amount of resources we can and do expend making mobility, communication and quality of life possible might boggle the mind of someone who simply couldn’t afford to care for the wounded or deformed. The fact that a blind person can lead a normal and quite productive and quality life on their own without depending on alms or family might seem an amazing kindness. How much we can communicate even with the most severely mentally handicapped might just astound them just as much as the fact that we “suffer” them to live at all. I think our ancestors thought someone deformed and mentally handicapped was broken and unfixable, and considering the times and abilities as little as 100 years ago, one can’t really blame ancient peoples for this worldview. Introducing an ancient to an autistic child who can only communicate via a computer and quite eloquently at that might astound them, not just that we invested the time and resources to do so, but also the discovery that the disabled have been valuable human beings all along.
#9 Bigness
We constantly bemoan how our world, via communications, population and travel, is always growing smaller. An historical time traveler would most likely have the opposite view. Think on the wide, empty spaces between cities in the ancient world. While they seemed immense, how big are they really when compared to the sprawl of London or New York? And not just in two dimensions, but three!!! Modern buildings are gigantic compared to ancient ones, spacious nearly to excess. Not only that but many urban cities extend underground. The greatest ancient cities were no slouches in the large department, some coming very close to a million inhabitants, but even so, the amount of sheer 3 dimensional volume our cities take up and the number of inhabitants they support is unprecedented. The very ability to cross the globe offers horizons undreamt of by even the worldliest of ancient traveler. Add to that the dimensions of the very small, the microscopic and quantum, then pitch into the pile the unplumbed depths of the ocean and the world is suddenly filled with layers of space previously unknown. Put this world of vast oceans, continents and cities in perspective with the universe itself and even the staunchest of ancestors might tremble in awe at its mind boggling grandeur. Lord know we do, or should.
#8 Transportation
I doubt the whys and hows of most of our methods of transportation would much interest most peoples of the past. We live with them and are blissfully ignorant of the infrastructure elements concerning fuel, routing and maintenance, though the intricacies of any of them; railroad, shipping, commercial trucking, commercial and passenger air travel, are worthy of admiration considering the effort, planning thought and manpower needed to make them all reasonably safe and efficient, much less work at all. The fact of them, however, would cause ancients’ jaws to drop. The size of ships, the speed of trains and rail and the very ability to fly, much less carry people and freight, would challenge the very notions of human ability in one used to wooden barges and ox-drawn carts, with all the limits on speed and cargo capacity they imply. How much stuff we move and how quickly is pretty impressive. I also think they would be surprised at how generally safe our travel is, not just from accidents, but from piracy as well.
#7 Abundance
Some where in the world, at this very moment, is someone rescued from or who has fled from some relatively undeveloped area of the world, someone who has lived a life of privation, who is walking into a grocery store for the first time. Their reaction is likely to be the exact same as anyone plucked from the general pool of our history. The amount and quality of food available in the developed world is…at worst, a well earned reprieve from the norm of history. Malnutrition is waning on earth as the norm for mankind. The cleanliness and abundance of drinkable water would only be half as astounding as how much clean, drinkable water we use to bath, launder our garments and even wash our cars with! While the smells we regard as “clean” smells might seem bizarre to our intrepid ancestor, I don’t think it would be long before they noticed the abundance of cleanliness and perfume in our world. We (rightly so) shake our heads at roadside litter and moan about how dirty our homes are, yet to an ancestor, how immaculate, how free of dirt and refuse our lives are. And lastly, the abundance of knowledge, if we took our friend to even a small library. Repositories of knowledge were nearly legendary in former times due to their scarcity. A small library holds more tomes than at times were in existence for a 1000 years at a time.
#6 Beauty
Perhaps this is a bit subjective on my part. I think an overall increase in human beauty, while in the eye of the beholder, would be noticeable to a time traveler. Advanced (even just existing at all) dental care, clean, groomed hair and flattering clothes coupled with general good health and a more romantic and attractive view of coupling over the last few centuries has produced a generally more attractive population. This is my opinion, to be sure, but even the least (subjectively) attractive among us has the benefit of grooming, wardrobe, makeup, diet and exercise. It is these things I believe that our ancestors both lacked and had no time or need for that contributes most to this assertion, with genetics as a lesser, but nonetheless important factor. Controversial, no?
#5 Light
Few are the places in our world that have no artificial light. While even our ancestors had artificial illumination (except those poor nuns making lace) think on how much forethought and effort had to go into having light even briefly in the night. Collecting wood and tinder or vessels and oil( and just think on that!!! Killing a beast and rendering its fat!) or making candles (again…beef tallow anyone?) and even when you had it, the threat of fire was ever-present. We just flick a switch. How simple. How easy. This might be second only to flight in the more god-like powers we posses: the ability to light up the night, and what’s more, bejewel it with color, sparkle and beams of radiance. Not only are we no longer afraid of the night, we make the most of it. How much has progress been stymied and slowed by the ancient fact the only productive thing to do at night was sleep? Think on it.
#4The lack of Kings
And warlords for that matter. It would have to be explained to our visitor how (in theory at least) the most successful nations of historical late have had a largely self-governing populace. I’m sure all isn’t what it seems, but it will do for this demonstration. While there are still wars, fought with weapons of terrible scope and potency and some nations still bully others, just as much we might be learning to talk our differences out and manage our resources a bit more responsibly in order to prevent war. Maybe what I’m trying to say is how surprised they might be that our leaders didn’t fight to be where they are, weren’t born into the position or anointed by priests (usually after one of the preceding two) but were appointed for the most part by the public and that their stays in office are limited by consent in order to minimize the temptations of power that humans are so susceptible to. Who in the past got to CHOOSE their king?
#3 Free Time
I don’t think our intrepid visitor would much understand what we do with our free time, at least in regards to how we entertain ourselves electronically, though sports, music, and sex would be familiar. What would floor them is how much of it during each day we have, as opposed to former times when most every minute of their short, brutish lives was spent on the business of survival.
#2 Our Abilities at Prediction
Weather, earthquakes, tsunamis, tornados, volcanoes and even unto identifying and at the least mitigating the spread of infectious diseases among other natural disasters would seem, up there with flight, pretty darn godlike. The principles behind these phenomenon are not difficult to understand, they just require observation. Now our visitor would know what we do with some of our spare time. (someone from as little as a century ago would be impressed by this one.)
And #1 Our Music
One has to admit that there’s been a lot of innovation since Apollo first plucked at a lyre. Music is second to none as a thread of continuity in our species. The quality and diversity of our music is only the tip of the iceberg for our friend from ages past: the sheer quantity we’ve accumulated in the last few centuries outstrips the number of ditties in the previous entirety of our species. This too is another one of our free time pursuits they’d totally get. The invention of instruments and the time to practice! Without denigrating the music of villagers paying flute and drums outside of Babylon, think of their reaction upon hearing an orchestra play Beethoven (Or John Williams for that matter!)
What they would NOT be impressed by…
#1 Television and other electronic media. I might be wrong, but while they would think it amazing, the sights and sounds and duplication of human visage, the actual content would utterly baffle them, as it requires such long term immersion in the culture to grasp the references and even the point.
#2 Landing on the Moon. Impressive as first, I fear their first question would be upon learning it’s a dead planet would be, “You went back?” I think they’d find things here on Earth far more impressive than a lump of rock.
#3 Our Weapons. Other than explosives, because they are impressive, all the rest are easily grasped as fancy, more efficient versions of clubs and stones that keep our hands a bit cleaning while staining our souls just as effectively.
#4 Our Modern Art. They wouldn’t get it either.
#5 Our attitudes: With such power to shape our world (without the human cost of slavery at last) and amidst such abundance, they might be terribly puzzled that we still fight at all. To someone from the distant past, we live lives of luxury, plenty and security that would choke the greatest Pharaoh with envy. How we live is almost exclusively reserved for descriptions of a very rewarding afterlife, and our complaints about these lives would probably fall on incredulous ears and the ideological and religious wars we fight in the name of nation (a relatively new concept historically) would seem a waste of such precious treasure and lives. In fact, you don’t have to bend space and time and see with eyes of the past to feel that exact same way.

So, just my opinion; something for you to ponder. I am in love with history, not a teacher of it, so any mistakes are my own, as are my interpretations. Many thanks to Dan Carlin and his “Hardcore History” pod cast for the inspiration to 1) admit how much I love history and 2) think of history outside the box and outside the book.

Cheese...holy

2008-02-25T10:04:00.001-05:00

I love dairy. Cheese is but one god in my lactic pantheon, but oh what a god. One of many flavors and types. Like mythologies, cheese has minor deities of both good and evil. Extra sharp cheddar: good. The wedge of horror Jon’s parents tried to pawn off on me that smelled like an asslip and toejam sandwich: evil.

Years ago my mother, who’s not slender, for some odd reason decided to fat free just about that mysterious time in our culture when instead of eating less, it was universally decided that we’d remove the fat from our favorite foods, replacing them with hydrogenated solids for bulk, then doubling the salt and sugar content so they wouldn’t taste completely like ass. Into our house came a seemingly innocuous package of fat free, all vegetable cheese slices. How interesting! Isn’t science so darn clever. A quick scan of the nutrition info (this is back in the dark ages of nutritional packaging, circa 1991, when labeling was bereft of the breakdown of fats, percentages of whatnot and recommendations of this and that. How far we haven’t come.) revealed a perfect health food. No fat, no calories, no nothing really, including nutrition. It was like solidified diet soda! Cheese flavored at that! How awesome. What better way to take advantages of this cheese from the future than to slap it on some hamburgers of some 30% fat!!! Guilt-free at last, as we would adorn them each with a slice of beneficial living. Into the broiler went those cows that gave their last full measure of devotion to my lunch, the slow crisp and sizzle filling our house with the aroma of its smoky drip and a mouthwatering indifference to the suffering of animals. Browning and popping, the time came to flip the burgers and adorn them with orange-yellow absolution. I did so, gleefully braving the spattering grease, which spat and fussed as if filled with the angry spirits of all wronged bovines. On went the miracle cheese product, glowing like the promise of the 21st century in the sultry radiance of the broiling element.

Is there anything in human history quite like melted cheese? I think not. For what would pizza be without cheese (aside from healthy, I mean) but a half-assed sandwich? It is only on Christmas morn that children’s faces light brighter than when a string of steaming white reaches from a slice to cling to their lips. Who of us has not pursed their lips and pulled away the slice to test the stretch of its gooey succulence? And think well on the mighty quesadilla, a southwestern invention. It’s very name glorifies the nobility of its flavors: from the Spanish, Queso, meaning “cheese” and dilla, meaning “stuff my bad ass with.” Ham and no cheese is simply tragic pork on rye. A baked potato is blasphemy unless its holy trinity is fulfilled: Butter, Sour Cream and CHEESE. How much broccoli or cauliflower would never have been eaten by children, leading to malnutrition in our great nation, if not seduced by sauces of creamy, silky cheese. Can you even imagine how history would have changed without macaroni and cheese? Hitler would have won the war.

Block cheese, shredded cheese, canned cheese, cheese stuffed with peppers and peppers stuffed with cheese, soft cheese, hard cheese, cheese blends, why cheese shows the way, exemplifying the harmony achieved in diversity. Can we be any less than this holy thing? And when one cries about the spiritual damage we do ourselves by not only eating animals but robbing from them as well, well, I say unto you, where else is the cycle of life completed, what else is the essence of balance and a return to harmony, than when in nourishment to my poor soul, a cow is once again whole, ready to ascend to whatever bliss a cow’s soul may know, when reunited is their flesh and their milk. In the end we give back what was taken. In fact, every burger without cheese (called a hamburger no less, a further insult to bovine sacrifice) is a cow’s soul damned to wander the earth. Perhaps you too have heard the pitiful mooing on a dark night. Know the horror cheeselessness has wrought. Yes, I too weep my friends.

But to this yin if of course a yang. Cheese is fat. Sure, salt, enzymes and rennet too, but the overwhelming majority is fat. And too much of a good thing is indeed too much. Moderation is always an ideal philosophy, but perhaps we clever animals can use our wits to have the sin without actually sinning.

So, we find ourselves back in my mother’s kitchen with me preparing the buns for our lunch while the James T. Kirk of cheese is…

Not melting. Hmmm, gee it’s been five minutes already. Yeah, uh huh, the broiler’s on, about 550 degrees and damn, that stuff isn’t even breaking a sweat! No drooping, no discoloring or oil separating, all the signs of imminent cheese melting simply aren’t there. Puzzling. Well it should be fine, I’m sure. It’ll be at least five more minutes before the burgers are ready anyway, it’ll melt by then.

Five minutes later…holy crap. It’s still there, untouched, like saints in a bonfire. Still five more minutes later, smoke from the drip pan is rolling from the broiler, collecting just below the kitchen ceiling like a tempest of saturated fat. There’s nothing for it; the burgers must come out or doom will befall our lunch. A deep breath and I reached in, eyes stinging from the billowing wrath of all cow gods from antiquity, pull our now very done burgers from the shimmering heat, before a reddish-golden comfort, now the color of strife one sees in the eyes Hollywood demons and placed the tray on the stove for inspection.

My mother and I stood in shocked silence. Still wroth, the burgers sizzled angrily, but the cheese, oh the humanities the cheese! Unmelted. Untouched. The once warm glow of nutritional redemption had become the yellowed disdain of bad teeth, or the haughty orange of an ancient Cheeto excavated from a couch cushion. Science had indeed produced a miracle, but not the one we had pinned our lunch, our health, our very dreams of body-mass index on. It had produced an abomination of physics, an aberration of natural law, a mote in God’s eye. What have we done, my mother and I silently asked ourselves.

Tentatively, I reached out. To one side our buns slowly collapsed under the weight of forgotten mustard and mayonnaise, as if cringing from the slices of hellspawn. I touched the mysterious slice before me. It was cool to the touch even after the fires of our oven. My mind jerked to the descriptions of Sauron’s Ring by Tolkien and I despaired. I steeled myself and broke off (yes, broke, for the firmness of the slice had been unaffected by the heat, as if the monstrosity had been newly freed from the wrap after tenure in the fridge) a small piece of Newton’s Bane. Wide-eyed, my mother watched as I brought the small, yet potent chip of unknown to my lips. Years later, she would recall how she feared this would be her last view of her brave son. Trembling, I put the chip into my mouth and bit down.

It all became clear in a shattering instance of epiphany. Firm, only somewhat yielding, the chip was pulverized by my chewing. No smooth melting, no silky dissolve characteristic of real cheese, the texture of warm plastic was apparent. The taste, to this day is difficult to describe, but the best I can do it that it tasted like cardboard feels. Uncomfortable and indifferent. Yes, indeed it was from the future, but a terrible apocalyptic one, a future gone wrong, wherein Vegans had wrested nutritional control of the world and sated the ignorant masses with inferior replications of their misguided tastes. A horrible, barren world of butterless brown rice, unseasoned legumes and the death penalty for creating salted pork; a caloric 1984, where Ray Croc sits side by side with Satan on the throne of evil. I felt like Sarah Conner to this product’s nutritional Terminator and I wondered.

We all too easily peeled off the waxen offenses, grabbed the remainder of the package from the refrigerator and removed them all to the outside trash, too shaken, too afraid of this harbinger of a terrible future of polyunsaturated fascism. Melting some pepper jack in a saucepan on the stove, thinned with copious amounts of whole milk and a generous glob of sour cream, I pondered our recent experience while I stirred the lactose talisman to soul buffering smoothness. Had this mishap of science fallen into our hands as a warning, or a prophecy? I could still feel its malevolent presence outside, only to be relieved of it in two days when the trash would be collected. I did not sleep well those two nights and still felt a small pressure of fear that slowly mellowed to a nameless unease that haunts me to this day.

Years later I discovered the disturbing persistence of this dire messenger. A careful examination of the launch video reveals the “foam” that broke off and doomed the shuttle Columbia was in fact several packages of the same cheese that had resisted all my powers of cooking as well as reason. Here, some 20 years later, science had indeed created the very substance so horrifying in my youth, applied in a noble and innocent application. I shuddered, remembering the certainty of that awful future I glimpsed on that terrifying day, in both hope and dread. Do we create the future or are we doomed to certainty? As I curl up at night, munching on a ham and swiss sandwich, reading Revelations from the Christian Bible, I am warmed and hopeful of images of pestilence, war and famine. A small comfort that this may yet come to pass and displace that awful vision of a true hell on earth. In Jesus name we eat bacon cheddar curly fries, amen.

Nutrition and stuff

2008-02-23T08:55:00.005-05:00

Nutrition labels certainly make you work for it, don't they? I had put on some weight this past winter, as I usually do, but this time I seemed to gain more than usual, enough I was worried I might be pressed to lose it this summer (there's nothing like a 110 degree kitchen to shed some weight quickly. Trust me, fat chefs are in the minority. Why they're proportionately more famous than thin chefs is beyond me.)
I have some bad habits, to be sure. I smoke. If there is anything that's truly vicious, it's the slow, insidious erosion of health nicotine addiction merrily layers upon your body like a Hungry Jack biscuit of cancers. The lack of energy and wind from smoking was impeding exercise, so I knew I had to quit smoking. I worried though. The last time I quit smoking I gained 45 pounds (which had everything to do with Ken's Wok in Norfolk, VA having the tastiest Crispy Garlic Chicken on earth and being one mere block from where I worked.) So I knew I also had to change the way I ate, lest heart disease, diabetes and a much more limited wardrobe reduce any gains I might make.
There are two kinds of chefs (not just fat and skinny): those that truly love cooking so much that it permeates every facet of their lives. Not only do they create masterpieces at work, but their efforts at home rival the finest restaurants in the world. Then there's me: after busting tail all day or night in the aforementioned culinary sauna, the last thing I want to do is cook for myself. Hot Pockets has made a fortune off of me. The walk to and from the China King buffet just ain't long enough to burn off Crab Rangoon soaked in General Tso's chicken (dreamy!) If it can't be prepared in 2 minutes in a microwave and doesn't have enough preservatives in it that I could rub it on a wound as an antibiotic, I'm not interested.
So, eating junk, whether out or in, was a serious impediment to all my plans of being reasonably healthy (of course I'd love to be Brad Pitt, however reason dictates small steps and reality is a harsh mistress: I'm 35, not Brad.) Incidentally, it's expensive too! One wonders how I can afford cigarettes. Oh yeah, I live in NC: they give away welfare checks for cigarettes. So, step one: change my eating habits to start weight loss in anticipation of quitting smoking (was I putting quitting off? Of course I was...still am, but not forever. It will happen. This is my year. That's right, mine, not yours. Sorry, it's my turn.)
So where to start? Oh yeah, I need to buy food. Sad when your refrigerator has an echo. I walked in one morning to a crew of spelunkers gearing up in my kitchen. "Um...what are you doing?" I asked. "We're touring your pantry." Ouch. People have definite expectations about my kitchen. I turn out some pretty awesome food at work. They expect a rack of polished knives, gleaming copper cookware, a pot of stock simmering on the stove, boxes of fresh herbs in the windows and pictures of Bobby Flay and Emeril on the wall. I have one word for you: Digiorno, baby.
So off to the store. I knew where I wanted to start: detox. I looked at my current diet and saw what was missing and what I needed and what I had in abundance. While I had a lifetime's supply of Sodium Benzoate in my cells, I lacked vitamins. I had the price is right showcase showdown of fats, but no protein. On and on. I wanted to start incorporating things I needed and start flushing out the residues of sloth (sloth is excellent...tastes like Breyers Mint Chocolate Chip.)
So, how to get rid of toxins and which toxins anyway? Ionic foot bath? Those Japanese foot pads? Colonic? What about those pills you take that scrape plaque from your intestines? Funny how you start even a little research into those and suddenly everything smells like snake oil.
So, a colonic. No doubt I have years of impacted icky clinging to my intestinal walls, impeding the absorption of nourishment and providing haven for bacterial orgies. So if a power washer can clean moss and mildew off of my deck, it stands to reason, right. No. [ I must pause for a public service announcement: I strongly recommend cooking your lunch over LOW heat when writing your blog.] Firstly, any legitimate use of the term "impacted fecal matter" implies a serious medical condition, which can quickly kill you. Secondly, while meat can take longer to digest than other foods, it doesn't stay in your intestines for years on end. No one has ever been autopsied with a 10 year old piece of meat (or gum) in their guts. This is actually the source of the phrase "This too shall pass." Thirdly, the only licensed use of the machines that hose your insides out like a colon carwash is for pre-surgical or testing (think x-ray) use. They are not licensed in the US for a potentially dangerous procedure of dubious medical benefit. Yes, that's right...dangerous. People have died from the introduction of bacteria into their intestines, most likely from improper sanitizing of the equipment. So, one begins to wonder (especially as I could find no endorsements from any doctor online as to the validity or benefit of introducing a hurricane to my guts) who are the people practicing this form of colonic waterpark? How did they get this equipment? What exactly are their credentials, where did they get them and for pete's sake what do you call them? Aquacolonic technician? Hydrointestinal therapist. I don't know anyone personally who's had one, but I hear tale of people who swear by them and even I must admit, after the discomfort (for the love of it all, an enema is uncomfortable, I can't imagine a kiddie pool up my bum) it might be refreshing. I would be curious to know if this feeling would be enhanced by Fresca. Sorry, believers, it's just not enough for me. If I must stick something up my ass (outside of a consensual, recreational context) I'm going to have to insist on it being done by a doctor for a necessary medical reason in a hospital where I can be reasonably sure of its sanitation and a whole hospital awaits if something does go wrong.
How about those pill thingies that remove that hideous plaque that supposedly coats the insides of our bowels with industrial horror? Surely you've seen those pictures, of long, ropey, yellow ahem "movements" that people taking these products for some unimaginable reason fish out of their toilets, pose and photograph (often with objects adjacent to show size) and then post on the internet as testimonial for my friend Jon to call me over and say "Hey Neil, look at this!" OK. Ew. The main ingredients in these products are a type of clay and another chemical whose name now escapes me,similar to gelatin. Once in the body they combine and with the dietary guidelines for all intents and purposes make a cast of your intestines, which comes out looking both appropriately horrific and bizarrely impressive. Basically, it's the chemicals you take that transform into that thing I was forced to look at. As for the "plaque" they claim to remove? Not a single known autopsy has turned up this mysterious plaque...no ropey yellow things coating someone's intestines. Pure snake oil. Those of you who fished one out of your toilet? How do ya feel now?
Those baths and foot pads? They never mention what toxins exactly they're supposed to remove, which is annoying as I firmly believed I was riddled with all the poisons of the developed world...but...uh, what exactly are they? But...but...those baths, can't you see them drawing out the toxins from your feet, turning the water an icky, 20th century brown? Well, yes and no. Yes, the water turns brown, but it's been shown that once you add the special "ionic powder" the water turns brown anyway, regardless of whether your feet are in or not. Crap. Snake oil. What about those pads? Full of vinegar that soften your skin overnight and pull off all the old, dead skin on your feet, so of course they'll look dirty, as if they sucked all the shallowness from our souls. Duct tape does that too (the dead skin part. Yes, duct tape fixes many things. It can improve a relationship...wink...wink...but it can't fix it or your soul.)
Also, with these two products, they never state the mechanism wherein toxins in your body bypass your liver and kidneys and are sucked through your feet. And here comes my point...our bodies come perfectly equipped to handle the overwhelming majority of "toxins" and other indigestible goodies we consume.
The liver is a truly amazing organ that literally transforms harmful (or unneeded) chemicals into fairly inert products that are then filtered through the kidneys and out they go in our urine. Some toxins aren't even absorbed into the body and pass out with our feces. Yes, there are some modern chemicals that do tend to stay and can cause problems, especially in large doses and/or with prolonged exposure. Don't use solvents like acetone or gasoline to wash your hands. Not good. But overall, our exposure isn't as much as we fear and on the whole our marvelous bodies, while they betray us whenever we treat them to Ben and Jerry's, are always cleaning us and looking out for us.
So, I thought to myself, "Self, why don't you focus on eating better and start off with foods that support and enhance the body you already have. What could possibly replace those marvelous products you now know you will never use? Oh yeah, fiber."
Yes fiber. Beans, whole grains, brown rice, yada yada. I've already covered far more about the digestive nether regions than either you or I truly wanted to, so I'll cut to the chase, because it's not about making a long story short (except in Jon's case) it's about whether anyone wants to hear it in the first place (insert bubble here: private joke: uninitiated may ignore.) Fiber: add slowly to diet, drink lots of water. Bummer when you find this out a week into it, after you've spent that week taping your blankets down so you can live through the night. As it turns out, I like food that's good for you almost (almost) as much as junk. But that, that is another post. Part Two Later.

I guess I should opinion on Something

2008-02-22T12:19:00.003-05:00

this being my own personal soapbox and all. How about some politics? Lesse...I feel the United States is ridiculously behind the "times" in regards to having a non-white or female head of state. History shows clearly that menstruation doesn't affect leadership skills and both good and bad leaders come in all shapes, sizes and ethnicities. That being said, I simply won't vote for Hillary Clinton for these reasons:
1) If she fulfilled two terms, that would mean that the same two families have been in the White House as chief executive for 28 years (excluding Bush vice presidency from 1980-1988.) I am politically uncomfortable with the presidency used as either a battleground for a family feud, or as a subtle extension of political philosophy beyond term limits (by this I mean that no matter what the stated differences are between them, the net result of either family in office has been the same, but that is another post.)
2) If Republicans ever regained control of Congress, embedded (and irrational) hatred of the person of a Clinton would leave Congress a wasteland of legislative immobility.
3) I am completely opposed to the apparent economic philosophy that the income of individuals and businesses is somehow public monies for politicians to redistribute and spend. This too is a separate blog.
I am hesitant to vote for OBama because:
1) I feel the reasons for not socializing medicine and health care FAR outweigh the reasons for doing so. There are better and more long-term ways of reducing the cost of healthcare. This is actually a strike against both Democrats.
2) I can't find as much specific information as I'd like, but no doubt this will change with time.
Does it sound like I"m leaning Republican? Yes, I suppose I am. McCain is certainly contentious, yet there is no doubt he is an experienced politician an an upstanding person. It is easier to look at his voting record and political aims than Obama (though I don't count Obama's newness as a strike against him, per se. Simply that it's harder to discern his specific political views.) Incidentally, I can't stand people accusing politicians of "flip-flopping" on the "issues." It's as if no one is allowed to change their minds in the face of changing circumstances and experiences. As if the flexibility to see new and different points of view is somehow a personal and political liability!!! I count growth in one's worldview as a tremendous strength, a sign of reasonable character and empathy. I'd rather see a person grow than see someone adhere to dogma simply for the sake of tradition or political expediency. So, McCain's growth as a person puts him in the front of the line, for all I agree and disagree with him.
Huckabee...I have had quite enough righteousness in the White House to last a lifetime, thank you. Disagree as you will, but religious people are no more protected from mistakes than anyone else and revelation is no substitute for reason when it comes to decisions of life and death and how we deal with the rest of the world. (Yes, this is yet another blog-to-be.)

This gets easier

2008-02-22T12:12:00.002-05:00

So far no catastrophe from clicking on random buttons. Sweet. I do wonder, though, if somewhere someone's garage door is mysteriously opening and shutting.

Here's the first entry...

2008-02-22T11:36:00.002-05:00

Easier than I thought, though I just recently discovered podcasts and am now a podcast whore. I wonder if I'll turn into a blog whore too. Still trying to find where I put other bits of information. Hmmm....I wonder what this button does?