Monkeys: pt 3

Monkey Disease Transmission

This, to me, is the big one. Animals are sometimes cute, often harmful, but many times they breed disease. And it is unacceptable to me that we have animals interacting with humans who breed disease. We do well enough on our own creating resistant-strains of everything already known to man - we do not need to deal with additional random strains of things currently unknown to man that will stump our researchers for years to come.

1) SIV v. HIV:
SIV stands for simian immunodeficiency virus, a retrovirus deriving from african primates. What's rather interesting about SIV in its two major forms is that it typically doesn't cause immunodeficiency symptoms in hosts unless it passes from one species to another. In the case that such symptoms occur, you have SAIDS, simian acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.
What's interesting is that evidently, monkey SIV strains do not infect humans and HIV-1 does not infect monkeys. The presumption here would be that the age-old belief that the AIDS crisis began with a random man who slept with a monkey would seemingly be untrue. However, other research in no way supports this, so it isn't at all clear what the science is behind this claim. To break it down more, it is important to note that SIV can cause AIDS in other monkeys who are susceptible and moreover, that humans with skin lesions etc. can be exposed and thus develop the disease. Most importantly, the symptoms present in the same way.
My only point is that AIDS is a terrible disease to get and if hanging around with monkeys is going to expose humans to this, we just shouldn't be hanging around with monkeys. Simple enough.

2) Simian Foamy Virus in Asia:
Yuck. Well the British Parliament cut right to the chase in pointing out that Simian Foamy Virus was transmitted to humans who ate monkey meat, much in the same way it is postulated that HIV was initially transmitted. By definition, a foamy virus in general is "any of the various retroviruses found in primates and other mammals and characterized by the lacelike changes they cause in monkey kidney cells." It is extremely common in animals in captivity, with about 70-90% of non-human primates born in captivity having SFV.

So, surprise, surprise, a HUMAN foamy virus sprouted up that is a direct result of the primate one. Currently, humans act as hosts after accidental transmission, typically as a result of laboratory conditions or interactions in the wild and have not experienced any symptoms. Nor has there been any showing of a human-to-human passing of the disease. Of course, provided that this is a normal virus, it will eventually adapt to its new hosts and learn how to spread to other humans, as this is merely the way of the virus. Although there are no known dangers at this point, this hasn't stopped the Canadian blood authority from altering its policy with regards to blood donations to exclude those who have been in contact with primates, specifically to avoid potentially passing on these diseases.

3) Not quite on point: Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD):
Chronic Wasting Disease comes from deer and elk, is a fatal disease, and is prominent in the American west. The symptoms include "weight loss over weeks or months, behavioral changes, excessive salivation, difficulty swallowing, polydipsia, and polyuria and in some animals, ataxia and head tremors may occur. Most animals with the disease die within several months of illness onset, sometimes from aspiration pneumonia."
The CDC has mixed data on this, although from their reports, it appears that something like CWD (probably a mutated human form) has infected and killed humans, particularly those who hunt and eat deer and their kin.
I feel okay including this here b.c. tests that involved shooting monkeys full of CWD resulted in them developing related fatal symptoms, although they could not be called CWD, per se. It reiterates that disease can, and does, travel from other animals to primates and as it is already established that inter-primate transmission is possible, this is relevant.

4) Monkeys and Yellow Fever:
This isn't so much their fault and involves another party, but monkeys are considered to be the source of one form of yellow fever, which is carried to humans via the aedes mosquito.

Basically, the topic I'm on here, a particular pet peeve for me, are zoonotic diseases. To get you started, here is a sense of how serious this problem is and how little press it gets. Thinking logically about it, diseases are designed to infect whatever they can to spread themselves - natural instinct. They don't care what species you are. Problem being that if a species isn't exposed to something, it is much more vulnerable to very serious outcomes as it doesn't possess the necessary antibodies, see current scare over bird flu. So this is a, be conscientious, post.

Dowry Extortion in India

This is a deeply weird idea to me, even given a knowledge of how dowries did/do work. And it's also delightfully complicated and a wonderful story of how laws designed to improve conditions can often have bizarre outcomes.
So as a background, typically a dowry payment is an amount of money, goods, or a combination of both that is given by the wife's family to the groom's family as part of wedding. This was pretty standard practice worldwide, but has been phased out, in part just as a matter of cultural realism and in part because it was having some really ugly effects.

In India, dowries, much like the caste system, hung around even though they were outlawed in 1961. Moreover, the content of dowries has adapted to the times, with grooms demanding modern appliances and things like motorcycles. Yeah, demanding.

That's weird, but the problem is that it's not enough that the bride's family gives the groom's family these items and cash at the time of the wedding. Frequently, the claim is that the amount is insufficient, or that additional payments must be made after the marriage. As the bride is the portal to her family, she is mistreated and abused, sometimes killed, when the groom doesn't get what he wants. It's really nasty and has led to a practice also common in near-neighbor China, female foeticide, the killing of female fetuses (and sometimes newborns). I don't even want to get into what a nightmare that is going to turn into - the consequences are just so wide-spread.
Interestingly, there is another side to this story. Men who take advantage of this situation, or whose rights are abused because of it.

Under the first scenario, men play into the traditional dowry system, take the gifts, and then take off, get a divorce in a foreign country and are "free." That, obviously, is unreasonable. As a result of this and the abuse and death suffered by women whose dowries were "insufficient," India passed laws to make such actions illegal. And here's where it gets interesting.
Imagine this scenario - you actually didn't harass your wife, but she and her family go ahead and claim you did. Imagine you've left the country b.c. you're estranged and looking for new opportunities. If you violate a country's law or really if there is a claim that you have (e.g., your wife has claimed you engaged in "dowry harassment"), the country can put in to Interpol for a "Red Corner Notice" - what this does is anytime you enter or exit an Interpol country and your passport info is run through the system, you're flagged and, normally, pulled aside. Evidently, this is not such an issue in the U.S., but a disaster if you enter India.

Obviously, I don't think that most of these people are innocent, but it is rather creepy, especially when you read about real-life experiences of people being extorted by government personnel on this basis. Particularly when there is a sliding scale for bribes so you can get your passport back and go on your way, based on your nationality.

Monkeys: pt 2

Monkeys, continued!
Legal Monkeys

No discussion of monkeys would be complete without a discussion of law and monkeys. Admittedly, if you are a rational person, you might think, what exactly would monkeys have to do with human law? Good point. But sadly, monkeys are seemingly a rather touchy subject and as such, there is indeed material here.

1) The infamous Scopes Trial:
The Scopes trial really didn't have to do with monkeys at all, but touched on the discomfort of the American public with the relationship between humans and monkeys and as such, is often referred to as the Scopes Monkey Trial or some other version of "Monkey Trial." The "Scopes" in question was John Scopes, a teacher in the obviously intellectual state of Tennessee, who broke state law in teaching his students the theory of evolution. As with many of the great cases in history whose initiators/victims are lauded, this wasn't really Scopes' idea but a test case put forward by the ACLU. In fact, all the evidence seems to point to this being a flat out farce, with Scopes and his students perjuring themselves on the stand to establish that evolution had been taught, when it actually hadn't.
This is really just the standard boring argument about teaching evolution to students in schools. Honestly, everyone just needs to take a deep breath and say, okay, even if I don't agree with it, this is the way the world thinks about things so my children need to know about it. Tell them about any contradictory religious beliefs on the side and move on with your lives.

2) Matthew Hiasl Pan, your primate friend and mine
I like Austria, even with their creepy xenophobia, but demanding a legal declaration that a chimpanzee is a person? I can't jive with that. I mean, just using simple deductive logic, surely there is a reason we call them chimpanzees and not people. Monsieur Pan is about 27 now and ended up in the legal system after the shelter where he had spent most of his life filed for bankruptcy - but that's not the rub - the deal is, under Austrian law, only a human can receive a gift. M. Pan requires approx. $6800 a month for expenses and while donors have stepped up to offer that, he can't receive the donations under current law. So the Association Against Animal Factories decided the best idea was to say he was a human, based on the notion that the only legal remedy involved giving him a guardian, also not available to animals under Austrian law. Really? That's the best plan? What about passing a pet trust law or creating a NFP or any number of NORMAL legal solutions?
Just to give you a sense of how off the radar this is, see the public statement of the organization representing the chimpanzee: "Group president Martin Balluch accuses the judicial system of monkeying around. "It is astounding how all the courts try to evade the question of personhood of a chimp as much as they can," he said."
Yeah. Of course, a chimp isn't a person. It's a pretty straightforward analysis. A horse is also not a person. Nor is a giraffe, an amoeba, or any number of other random beings. Oy.

3) No, animals that could easily kill you are not good choices for pets
So this is a touchy subject lately, due to the ridiculous woman who decided to keep a chimp as a pet and was in no way equipped to deal with complications related to such a decision. For whatever reason, the story really caught people's attention (my guess is that it dealt with white people in Connecticut, but that's just me) and as a result, the U.S. House just passed a bill to limit the interstate transport of primates for use as pets (Captive Primate Safety Act). Tons of state legislation is in the works. Now, to be fair, I don't understand at all the interest in having a chimp as a pet. It's just not a pet. It's a rather complex being that is very similar to humans, but lacks the social restraint that is required in our society. It's pretty well summed up here: "Chimpanzees can live to be more than 50 years old, and many chimp owners get rid of the animals when they become too much to handle at 6 or 7 years old, Truitt said."
So, first off, you're saddling yourself with an animal that you're going to have to get rid of after about a tenth of its life. There are limited places to put the animal - there are sanctuaries (see the Primate Rescue Center, e.g.) but that's basically placing the burden for your absurd decision on someone else. Seriously, even Jane Goodall has spoken out about how chimps are not pets, stating that "a chimpanzee can never be totally domesticated" and further notes that by taking them out of the wild and raising them in a home, it assures that they will spend their lives in difficult conditions, at best, as they can never be returned to the wild after being abandoned by their owners because they have become potential killing machines.
I can't help but make the point here that people who engage in this sort of thing clearly have issues that should be dealt with professionally. Just like children aren't a good way to deal with your personal issues, nor are pets.

NB - ridiculously lame monkey who will receive no extended analysis here.

Lame Ideas

Idea of the day: The Blankie Keeper

It took me a reasonable amount of time to figure out what in the world this was supposed to be. I would normally simply have moved on, but I rather liked some of the fabrics and was wondering if they were being made into something interesting. But, no. This store sells three sizes of rectangular-shaped pillow-covers that are meant to be filled with a child's old blankie or bedding. Now, for one thing, it's just a stupid idea. I can imagine some frigid anal under-worked housewife being interested in a sterile, stylish and unnoticeable to outsiders way for her child to hold onto symbols of childhood comfort. But seriously, hide the blankie in a pillowcase and pretend it's a pillow? What kind of a stupid idea is that? Who exactly does that help? Why can't the kid just have his stupid blanket? If he's so attached to a blanket then you've probably failed to adequately nurture the child and he really does need the comfort of an inanimate object to continue to brave the uncertainties of the world.

I can actually imagine this project really messing kids up. Huge thumbs down. But I do like some of the fabric they use.

Monkeys: meanderings pt 1

Obviously this is a rather broad topic so I plan to take it in steps.

Topic 1: Human monkey hybrids of some sort.

Meet Oliver the Chimp.
Issues with Oliver were that he consistently walked upright, had facial and hair characteristics more similar to humans than chimps. Also he was sexually attracted to humans, not chimps, unlike the other chimps where he lived. One comment on the clip suggests that this genuinely could be a human/chimp mix, pointing out the valid fact that such cross-insemination is possible for a number of other related species (personally my favorite have always been ligers and tigons). He has been called a humanzee, for example.

Another further point is that in the area where Oliver was raised, there is substantial interaction between humans and chimps. Now, just extrapolating from what I've heard about young men isolated on farms, it seems not at all unlikely that it really could be the result of a human/chimp sexual interaction. Of course, the issue is whether this is really possible. More unrelated species simply cannot reproduce.

Evidently with chimps 99% of basic chemistry is shared with humans and so DNA strands can theoretically match together to create a functioning being.

Then, as a random twist, a Manhattan lawyer decided to buy a chimp (seriously? you can just own a chimp? I'll assume he had the appropriate regulatory approval). Also related, a fascinating possibility of having chimps acting as surrogate mothers for human babies. Now, that could be a boon for any number of people, although the potential consequences are surely unknown.

Oddly, the commentators on this rather well-produced video series indicate that somehow humans are rather interested in a hybrid human-chimp. Personally, I certainly couldn't care less, although it doesn't strike me as a particularly good path to puruse. I suppose my major issue is that typically, chimps don't have the same self-control and social acclimation. Evidently, the press made it out as though he was quite human when in reality, he was quite chimp-like. But rather fascinatingly, when they actually did a chromosome analysis (and this was a while ago, so we aren't talking about an advanced analysis) it turned out that Oliver had one more chromosome than a human and one less than a chimp. Bizarre. NB that a later analysis found that this was inaccurate and that in fact he had the same number of chromosomes as a standard chimp. I find this discrepency confusing and question what exactly was going on, particularly as the second analysis did find a number of genetic variations that seperated Oliver from normal chimps.

Hysterically (and not shocking for the Japanese, and I love them but they can be weird) a Japanese actress planned to broadcast on television her mating with Oliver, for scientific purposes. (nb that typically with cross-breed children, they are incapable of reproduction - a normal outcome given that nature didn't intend for these hybrids to exist and continue on through generations...although...it kind of begs the question of why they would exist at all if the intent wasn't for them to exist. I guess I would like to know what people's god says about that)

I don't follow how this could have "profound implications for human evolution" - we pretty much get that the chimps are pretty close to humans, right? The conclusion that, genetically speaking, he is not a human-chimp hybrid, doesn't really matter as the whole point is that you go from chimps to humans. So you could easily have a chimp show up that is on a similar path of evolution, either current or stalled in a previous development.

Of course, when you cross into the politics of the situation, there is potentially a very slippery slope. If a chimp/human is a human, then are we going to have to treat "animals" as humans and where do we try to draw that line? That is a consistently troubling pothole for those seeking humane treatment for animals as well as average people dealing with more basic situations - in many ways, this doesn't differ from the abortion debate in that the essential question is, at what point does this being become a human and magically become protected under all the laws of humans, but not other molecular constructions.

On Oliver, it sounds like he had a rather difficult and confusing life, enjoying people, being shunned by his fellow chimps, and generally not fitting in, as well as being exploited by media outlets. And I also disagree with the notion that we should create these things for scientific research. It seems that we've managed to do fine without them and I'm becoming less and less comfortable with the notion of using living things to involuntarily test products that could kill or seriously impair them. Yes, I don't want toxic lipstick. But can't you more or less figure that out based on current scientific knowledge? Also, given that reactions of rats and mice to pharmaceuticals is very far off a typical human reaction, what is even the point of these tests other than to harm the animals and provide the federal regulatory agencies (whose bills are paid for by the same companies who want their products on the market - I know that sounds outrageous, but it's true and thus truly is outrageous) with a random benchmark for saying that tests should proceed forward and drugs go to market? The FDA has to be radically overhauled, more on that later.

Did Obama use a Ghostwriter?

So, as with all things that I come across, I came across this entirely accidentally. But it is a rather compelling and detailed argument for Obama's first book, his early memoir, having been ghostwritten. It's rather lengthy and if you're the type of person who actually cares about this, I would recommend simply reading the entire thing as the manner in which it's written makes an even more convincing case than a synopsis does.

It turns out that a rather extensive analysis of "Obama" v. "Ayers" has littered the internet (see blog thoughts, yahoo answers nonsense, misc republican thoughts, etc.). To clarify, the quotes are there because at issue is who exactly is responsible for texts published under these names.

Again, as I was suggesting in my initial paragraph, this is not something I particularly care about, since most people who write memoirs use a ghostwriter. I also flat-out don't care whether Obama actually authored a book or not. In fact, for me, ghostwriting is a non-issue. There are plenty of people out there who have strong arguments against taking a broad view of this sentiment. And I agree that if, for example, articles for medical journals are signed by top doctors but are actually authored by pharmaceutical companies, that presents an issue. Of course, more importantly it makes the point that far too much credence is given to the ramblings of these individuals, merely because they are "doctors" and not "pharma employees." I am certainly no supporter of the nasty medical industry that is American pharma, but things are not medically accurate and useful to the public merely because they are spouted off by doctors, and the inverse is true; information isn't irrelevant and dangerous merely because it comes from a pharma company. Yes, critical reading seems more important when reading an article written by a pharmaceutical company, as it has a vested economic interest in what is being discussed. The assumption is that you should in fact read more critically than you would an article by a "disinterested" doctor (assuming such a thing exists). My parenthetical there again reiterating my point -there is always an economic interest in what a doctor does, since he is constantly selling himself as a product. So whether it's getting published, promoting a drug he's getting a kickback on, establishing his presence in the industry so he can get trips and free meals from pharma cos in the future or merely to get more patients, there is always an economic interest.

So why go off on the above tangent as part of a discussion about ghostwriting? The assumption is that using a ghostwriter is somehow misleading - that it presents Obama as someone he's not. But that's only if you're working under the mistaken assumption that people are actually responsible for things published under their names. Even under the best scenario, the editors have enormous control over what is ultimately published, often contrary to the preferences of the writer. A memoir is merely one form of narration, providing a more compelling, inspiring, and empathetic read than a standard biography. To jump to an unrelated conclusion from reading Obama's memoir, that it is proof of Obama's brilliance, is to make the mistake I alluded to above, associating content with the author.

Everything you read has to be read with the assumption that the person behind the article has absolutely nothing to do with it. You need to read it for its content alone, and analyze it on that basis. It speaks to my views on equality and universal opportunity but more importantly, it's a necessity in a world where anyone can publish anything on any subject. It's also necessary in a world where those with the power to control ideas are increasingly devoid of what most individuals assume is basic morality. You can never assume that a writer is looking out for you, no matter what it sounds and feels like. The writer is looking out for himself.

Kentucky Fried Chicken Materially Misleads

KFC is currently running an ad indicating that its chicken is fresh. I initially rather liked this as KFC is my favorite fast food chicken place - I think their chicken is far superior to what you find at other outlets. But back to the commercial...A lady from a Swanson truck appears and then there is a lady in a KFC outlet reiterating that she knows the chicken is fresh because she is the "cook" - it was at this point that I initially became confused. Why do you need a "cook" at a fast food restaurant? I was also suspicious of the notion that the chicken was "fresh." I have no idea what they mean by fresh, but it really can't be that fresh unless they're killing the chickens in the backyard and most of these are surrounded by concrete and you couldn't really house them inside the restaurant as this would violate health regulations, so it was a little confusing.

So on my like fifth view of this commercial, trying to figure out what exactly they were saying, I notice that there is a bunch of legal-looking language at the bottom of the screen. I can't quite catch it all on the first view, so it takes a couple more before I make out something to the effect of "does not apply to drumsticks, thighs, wings or breasts." Hmmmm. Okay, well if the fresh chicken guarantee doesn't apply to "most" (I didn't know they sold chicken that fell outside these categories, but they must or the commercial is a complete fabrication - see chicken menu here) chicken they sell, then the commercial is really wildly misleading.

Even if we give them that they use "fresh" chicken in all these other products, so what? How in the world is chicken that has been totally removed from its origin and reconstited into "sticks" or "poppers" somehow "fresh"?

Here is a great example of how it is pretty much impossible that this commercial is accurate - see the ingredients in "chicken" in the Crispy Chicken BLT Salad without Dressing & Croutons:
"Chicken: Potato Starch, Sodium Phosphate, Salt, Breaded with: Wheat Flour, Salt, Spices, Monosodium Glutamate, Leavening (Sodium Bicarbonate), Garlic Powder, Natural Flavorings, Citric Acid, Maltodextrin, Sugar, Corn Syrup Solids, With Not More Than 2% Calcium Silicate Added as an Anti Caking Agent.
Contains Wheat.
OR
Chicken: Potato Starch, Sodium Phosphate, Salt, Breaded with: Wheat Flour, Salt, Spices, Monosodium Glutamate, Corn Starch, Leavening (Sodium Bicarbonate), Garlic Powder, Modified Corn Starch, Spice Extractives, Citric Acid, and 2% Calcium Silicate added as Anticaking Agent.
Contains Wheat.
OR
Chicken: Chicken: Containing Up to 32% of a Solution of Water, Seasoning (Salt, Monosodium Glutamate, Garlic Powder, Spice Extractives, Onion Powder), Soy Protein Concentrate, Rice Starch and Sodium Phosphates. Battered with: Water, Wheat Flour, Leavening (Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate, Sodium Bicarbonate, Monocalcium Phosphate), Salt, Dextrose, Monosodium Glutamate, Spice and Onion Powder. Predusted with: Wheat Flour, Wheat Gluten, Salt, Dried Egg Whites, Leavening (Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate, Sodium Bicarbonate), Monosodium Glutamate, Spice and Onion Powder. Breaded with: Wheat Flour, Salt, Soy Flour, Leavening (Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate, Sodium Bicarbonate), Monosodium Glutamate, Spice, Nonfat Dry Milk, Onion Powder, Dextrose, Extractives of Turmeric and Extractives of Annatto. Breading Set in Vegetable oil.
Contains Milk, Wheat, Egg and Soy.
*Will contain one of the two breading statements above, depending upon regional suppliers"

If you have "fresh" chicken it has one ingredient - chicken. It doesn't contain all these other agents. Period.

I don't particularly care whether it's fresh or not, as I'm not idiotic enough to really think I can get fast food from a commercial chain that is "fresh." But not everyone is savvy enough as to the trickery of corporate america to realize this. As a result, the commerical is unacceptable and they should likely be pursued by the appropriate authorities.

Big Oil Sues Impoverished Villagers

There's been some press on this issue, although for whatever reason, I keep seeing the press that is concerned about the Alien Tort Claims Act.

First, the Chevron-Nigeria story. In short, Chevron, like many oil companies, drills in oil-rich areas of Africa. Chevron has one such off-shore oil platform in the Niger Delta, that has caused significant concern over the past 10 years. Basically, as you would expect, Chevron has kind of ravaged the area around its outpost and the local villagers are annoyed. It's a story that plays out all over Africa. Normally, the locals are shut up by officials of a corrupt government that is either directly getting a kick-back or is economically beholden to the foreign entity for its survival. This situation played out a little differently. Nigeria has maintained strong tribal ties and the local leader engaged in negotiations with Chevron Nigeria. Meanwhile, Chevron flies in Nigerian police on its helicopters, has them attack the protesters, two of whom are killed.

Normally, that would be the story. It might end up on a blog, or part of a rant by a liberal somewhere, but people wouldn't really be talking about it. Then the Nigerians did something unbelievably cool. They sued Chevron, in the United States.

Enter the Alien Tort Claims Act. As a general rule, someone can't just enter the U.S. and sue a U.S. citizen for something done abroad. The theoretical problem is that, as a general rule (there are certain exceptions), when you're outside the U.S., your actions aren't subject to U.S. law. It makes a lot of sense because life is just very different in different countries. But in 1789, law-makers decided it made sense to provide for state-side enforcement of international law. It was essentially dormant for a long time and had a sudden resurgence in the last 15-30 years. That's why everyone's talking about it. There were actually several bases for the claim, but this is the one everyone keeps talking about.

They lost in a recent jury verdict and are now appealing.

What really hits you, though, is in the very simple article that breaks it down to basics: "Chevron, which reported a record $23.93 billion profit last year, is seeking to recover an assortment of litigation costs from 49 plaintiffs - the villagers - who were involved at any time in the decadelong civil case. The amount includes $190,000 for photocopies of documents and $264,000 for court transcripts, records show...it's doubtful Chevron will ever recover its $485,000 because, among other things, the villagers are poor. She said the people Chevron seeks to bill for the legal costs include a number of children as well as the family of a man who was killed on the oil platform."

Average income in Nigeria is around $300 a year.

And they want $190K for photocopies. In part, from the family of a man they had killed for standing on their property. As well as some children.

So when do we stop supporting this sort of thing and admit that people in poor countries are people just like us? I read this stuff and feel like we're in the colonial era. And I suppose for the first time I actually understand why the people in these countries feel this way about the United States. It's probably a bad idea to let things stay this way.

"I trust WebMD because my doctor trusts WebMD"

Hmmm. I don't know why I just paid attention to this slogan now. If my doctor was checking WebMD to diagnose me, I would immediately get a new doctor. And probably report him. I've never even heard of a doctor talking about WebMD, or any other free online diagnostic service. What kind of a doctor trusts WebMD? I would guess someone who isn't actually a doctor. I'm evidently not the only person who found this a little absurd.

Colombia! The only risk is wanting to stay!

I swear to god that is Colombia's tourism slogan. You know you're in a bad place when your argument for people to visit your country is premised on the belief that they think they'll be kidnapped or killed.

The ads themselves are remarkably intriguing:

Colombia
Bogota
San Andres

Of course, a friend pulled out the key point from the above linked article: "Is the only risk of visiting Colombia wanting to stay? The United States’s Department of State begs to differ." The state department is more conservative than rush limbaugh but the point still stands. And the line makes me laugh out loud.

Palin Watch! and sad slide into political analysis...

The Palin family, obviously, has about as much cultural savoir faire as a dead moose. But what's interesting is that they still know how to play the media game the big dogs play. To sum up, when the chips are down and especially when you haven't heard your name on a major news outlet in 24 hours, just start talking and don't stop.

Now, I don't think I've gone off in this particular forum on my feelings for the Palin family. I'll never forget the moment when, while getting ready to head out to an event and with the television in the background I heard CNN announce that McCain had chosen a woman. Of course, I screamed out loud, ran around and called everyone I knew. I also certainly gave him credit, even at the time, for playing ball. I've criticized the standard Democratic strategy but this was a classic in the halls of failed Republican strategies: when something the Democrats are doing makes you look out of touch and you don't otherwise have the upper-hand, do something totally inappropriate for the party so long as it makes you look like you're indistinguishable from the Democrats. In this case, find a woman no one has heard of before and throw her onto the national scene because...well...she's a woman. And they sure as hell wouldn't have been able to find an African-American they could run.

And the more I saw her, the more hysterical things became. McCain wasn't a good choice to begin with, in my opinion because he's insane, and there are plenty of other reasons. But Palin was an off-the-charts disaster. And here's where I get some slack. See for me, the person the politician is matters. A lot. If you have wayward children, that's cool, and actually relatively common. A weird spouse who would make me cross the street if I saw him coming is a little less excusable, but still, I would let it go. But you don't parade them on stage and babble extensively in public about it all. Your daughter is an unmarried pregnant teenager who hasn't graduated high school. Do you seriously start carting her waywayd boyfriend around on the campaign trail?

And most importantly, do you allow this? A public dissertation on her pregnancy? I mean, really. Her mother just makes me ill. The most interesting part about the article/interview, and the part that I don't quite follow, is the unspoken disconnect between what are apparently her views on sex/contraception/abortion and her statement that abstinence is unrealistic, combined with her comment that it would have been better if she'd had the baby 10 years down the road. As things stand now, the only way to achieve that latter goal, given the second consideration, is a liberal view re: contraception and if necessary, abortion. I'm not sure she fully gets that and that's fine, she's young (to even make the comment, having a baby isn't glamorous, just screams that she's young), but why in the world does slate not get that? : "Maybe Bristol Palin shouldn't be a poster child for teenage pregnancy. But she's doing more for the pro-life argument than a bunch of narcissistic twentysomethings who get abortions because they're drunk and forgot their birth control are doing for the pro-choice side."

Well, I guess I have to back up here and get a bit more complex. Implicit in the above quote from author Rachael Larimore is that we still don't have an unquestioned right to do what we want to do with our bodies AND that women have greater obligations, have to be more responsible, can't make mistakes, and can't have as much fun as men. And moreover, you can read in what she writes that she doesn't think women really should have those rights, that they should still be "acting" for the betterment of the cause. Her statement sounds like something out of a right-wing playbook or out of a bitter old feminist who can't accept the fact that the battles she fought for back in the day have largely been won and we are in a bold new era.

The reality is that most Americans, I repeat most, are pro-choice. That is, they believe that women should have a choice when it comes to the question of abortion (note that most women who are pro-choice also say that they personally would not have an abortion, but do not feel that there should be laws to regulate this). Very few people are pro-abortion, meaning that they are actually in favor of abortions. *Key point here - the opposite of the pro-life position is the pro-abortion position, not the pro-choice position. Pro-life is extreme right, pro-abortion is extreme left, and pro-choice is the middle position* Women don't enjoy having abortions - the cost, pain, and potential for physical scars is nothing compared to the emotional and psychological scars that stay with women throughout their lives. The fact that you can come up with some stories of women who obviously have other issues that haven't been dealt with by their families or professionals and who, as a result, are acting out in ways that involve sexuality, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this extremely important political debate.

Back on point, I don't know that Bristol Palin does anything for the pro-life movement. I mean, the pro-life movement is an extreme right-wing movement largely based on completely outdated notions of social structure and a belief that extremist interpretations of religion should be the basis for political order. It's really creepy. Bristol Palin is a nice 18 year-old who got unlucky (I have a feeling they did normally use contraception but something happened, like they didn't have a condom one night or something like that and I also think that she is probably, or will as her political views develop as she becomes an adult become, pro-choice, as described above) but is lucky enough to have friends and family who are helping her out so she's able to stay in school. I know plenty of people who have similar stories, but many aren't lucky enough to have family and friends who will help out. Often they're on their own, and often they don't return to school. And part of that is the goofy (normally overly religious) notion that it is a morally GREAT thing to raise a child, whatever age you are. It sends families and generations into a state of underachievement. It matters not just for them, but for our nation. When a large percentage of the members of our society are not getting the chance to achieve what they are capable of, we not only lose their potential, we end up liable for supporting their failure. These are not small matters.

That got very serious. But yeah. I'll send out my outrageous political proposal of the day - when girls first get their periods, they should be fitted with IUD devices so they simply can't become pregnant until they decide or they fail to replace it in a timely fashion (by which time they should be near the age of maturity anyways). At the very least, you won't have these ridiculously early pregnancies. Why not just solve the problem? We have the technology.

Scams

So I just came across this blog posting and did my usual scan of the text followed by a detailed reading of the comments and am fascinated. The absolutely hysterical point, made in the comments, is that this is supposed to be a blog about security. Like serious security. And the blog posting is about what can only be described as a beavis and butthead plan to get free food from a McDonalds. I qualify it as beavis and butthead esque because the pleasure that would be associated with such a scam is really that you are pulling it off, not that you are getting a free bag of grease that will damage every possible part and physical function of your body. What I really enjoyed about this is that it appears that there actually is a contingent of people like me out there. There is a very extensive discussion of ways to vary the scam, places the scam might be effective, where the scam would be most effective, what unknowns have to be taken into account, a discounting of the workers followed by a warning against that usw. It was like being stuck inside my head when presented with, well, pretty much anything.

The amusement goes on, though, when you follow the old link for a video showing the scam. The posting is old, so the link takes you to a general page where a french fellow does ridiculous things. A favorite is "L'escargot," a short 30 second video that shows cars slowing to a halt on a one-lane road and slowly scanning up to where the character is dressed in a snail costume (I doubt we even have such a thing in america but this would be totally reasonable as a costume in france) and he is moving very very slowly along the road, like a snail. Eventually the cars start going around him and the screen goes to black and says something that I just tried to translate into english for about 15 seconds but don't feel I can do it justice - the idea is that by engaging in total randomness/nonsense, you rise to the level of being "no one," which is the title of the site and actually means the opposite of what it says (you probably have a sense of why this was too complicated to translate - it also involves a pun).

But back to the point - I for one never tried to get free food from a fast food restaurant by telling the machine I had forgotten my money and would have to come back, to then proceed to the window and pick up the next person's food. In my opinion, it's okay as far as scams go. There's a lot of potential for being caught, particularly with security cameras and such nowadays and people seem to go nuts when people without much money or who are associated with things that people without money do, resulting in a greater likelihood of actually being punished (yes I am bringing up the ugly fact that people who are considered "undesirables" in our country end up in the legal system at a ridiculously higher rate than well-off people who engage in the same behavior). So it really isn't worth it.

Actual scams, ones that are funny, scam people, and are most likely illegal, I will not be posting here as I know that someone would do it, it would somehow get back to me and I would end up in jail b.c. some idiot didn't know how not to get caught (this is like a repeating dream in my life, except that it's actually how my life works - idiots ruin things and authority tries to crush my beautiful creativity). Sigh. But someday I will win this fight. (insert war cry here)