Snickersnee

Obama and tax "compromise"

2010-12-06T23:53:00.003Z

Just now the President made a rather interesting speech about compromise w/r/t personal taxes. What was interesting was that there was already a very clear compromise and the one that he decided to agree to gave away far more than he needed to.

The politics of the thing are that, for whatever reason, the democrats don't have the votes to limit keeping the tax cuts in place (i.e., not raising taxes for those of us not caught in spin) to the "middle class," which evidently consists of 98% of the country. I get the 98% figure from the fact that this whole debate has to do with maintaining tax cuts for 2% of the country.

What just happened is that 2% of the country held 98% of the country hostage. There wasn't even a 50/50 split - 2% won about 70% of the concessions.

What's odd is that a Democrat, someone who ran on a platform of change and commitment to average people just did this. It is odd, and it isn't odd. I've no doubt that he's reading the climate in Washington and making some sort of decision based on that, but it is very very strange for him to attempt to claim that he should not engage in actual compromise and back-and-forth because then people would have more taken out of their paychecks in two weeks than before. That is true, but when we're talking about an average of 3,000 over a year for this average middle class family, it's not really very much money. On the other hand, the amount the 2% will be retaining IS a lot of money.

The genuinely difficult part came with the claim that two years hence, we will have to make serious cutbacks and talk maturely about the future of the nation. It seems that one could easily have done that now, simply by engaging in a compromise that may have cost him more in terms of short-term political soundbites, but would have been the right thing to do. Moreover, if he had let this simmer for a little, constituents would have gotten a balanced compromise. We do have a democracy and while representatives may feel free to vote for their own interests when they don't hear the voices of their constituents, subjecting this to public debate and media coverage would have resulted in more than enough political pressure.

But maybe this ignorance of the power of public sentiment is consistent with the belief that 2% of the country is the equivalent of 98% of the country. Perhaps most of us just don't count.

New Rule

2010-02-12T20:57:00.002Z

Company-wide email requests for assistance MUST be preceeded by, at a minimum, a google search with regards to your request. You must determine, before sending your email, whether it is absurd and in particular, whether it requires greater detail/specificity. For example, you cannot send an email to thousands of people you don't know asking, does anyone know of a lawyer in Africa? To clarify, "lawyers" aren't a generic commodity and "Africa" does not have a uniform legal code or mode of judicial implementation. Obviously, if it is just a quiz or survey question you can send it, but I would imagine that is well outside the bounds of approved use for such emails.

Census 2010 - Race & Ethnicity

2010-02-03T22:43:00.002Z

Ordinarily, I obviously couldn't care less about the census. It is a tragically and permanently flawed entity that pretends to count people and take in a little biographical information about them as well. It counts very poorly and takes in very little data. And a massive number of human beings are actually employed to walk around and count people. Truly massive. I mean, it's just obviously idiotic but so are a lot of things (not keeping subway trains running on schedule during rush hour comes to mind).

But this year, they're switching things up in the race section. In fact, dramatically so. Hispanics/Latinos etc. are no longer a race - they are an ethnicity and they get their own question, separate from the race question.

At first that seemed kind of cool. I get irritable when I have to guess at checking boxes to define who I am on a form. I've called and complained and refused to fill things out on this basis. And I don't appreciate the idea that one of my ancestors should trump another in terms of government or statistical importance. But then I noticed the second part - that there was no hispanic for race.

Then, I was confused. I know there are people who feel strongly that this is the case - hispanic is an ethnicity, not a race, and that's cool. But I just don't know what the heck you are supposed to check of what is left in the "race" section.

(Here is a copy so I don't go painstakingly through it)

You basically get to choose white, black, native of some area where we care about natives, or asian. For some categories (natives and asians) they give you a lot of options in terms of identifying yourself. For others (whites and blacks) you get an extremely cursory discussion. I mean, really? The Alaskan Natives get to write down the individual tribe they are in and you expect people to check a box marked with a color because some of their ancestors were on the same continent with a bunch of other people?

So annoyed with this, I do some quick research and stumble upon the decision to make this change. It's a bit of madness throughout, with, for example, small groups of people insisting on recognition but then there was a pretty fascinating bit of information about one of the race categories - as of this census, "American Indian" includes natives of central and south america.

You may have no idea why that matters. It matters to me, for example, because then I get to check a box that feels more racially exact than marking a color. Like many Hispanics, my Hispanic heritage is a mix of native Spanish and native Mexican. Which means, in part, I am now officially for census purposes, American Indian.

Moving forward one more step, imagine if a lot more people (including those crazy liberals I mentioned who count people individually on the street) think this through? I have a feeling there will be a massive upsurge in the number of American Indians. So that's one issue.

But before I found the entertaining bit about defining my own race, I started searching because I realized I really had no idea what they were basing these categorizations on. Why did a race suddenly turn into an ethnicity and what was that supposed to mean? (it sounds absurdly offensive to me, while I understand and respect that the opposite is true for others)

So I searched rapidly, again, and stumbled on this article.

I read the first fellow/person's first few sentences and shook my head out of its reading slumber as I realized I was reading something very very old. Dalton Conley states you can only have one race and makes the incredibly weird comment, "You can identify ethnically as Irish and Polish, but you have to be essentially either black or white." So, a) do you mean that there are only two races? why two and not one or two and not four? why?, and b) assuming you are not absurd and do not believe there are only black and white people, why would all people of Irish or Polish heritage have to be black or white? I mean, it was weird and I assumed, I think quite reasonably, that it was an old racist thing. Nope. 2003.

Okay, so I read on. "The fundamental difference is that race is socially imposed and hierarchical. There is an inequality built into the system. Furthermore, you have no control over your race; it's how you're perceived by others." Wow. I mean, that's just wildly incorrect. If you read it closely, rather, it is. See, the sentence structure actually says that "race is socially imposed," which means it is not an independent thing. It's just magically invented by society. Weird. Then it says, reifing the earlier point, that you can't "control" race, that it is defined as how others perceive you. First off, those two phrases contradict each other because if something is controlled by how others perceive you, you can always change yourself to change the way others perceive you. But regardless, it's useless as it just sounds like prattle to me.

Next up: John Cheng. John, unfortunately, is way off base too. "Ethnicity isn't just a question of affiliation; it's also a question of choice. It's also a question of group membership. And it's usually associated with a geographic region. It's also often confused or conflated with nationality, but that's not the same thing. Today people identify with ethnicity positively because they see themselves as being part of that group. People can't just simply say, "Well, I want to become a member of that race." You either are or are not a member of that race. Whereas, if you wanted to look at ethnicity based on culture, you could learn a language, you can learn customs - there are things that you can learn so that you could belong to that group."

John totally weirded me out because he makes ethnicity sound like a club you can join. You CANNOT join an ethnicity. That isn't how it works. He doesn't seem to understand at all how it works. It also is not optional and has zero to do with choice. In all truth, ethnicity is basically a way we came up with of defining cultures that don't rise to the level of being interesting enough or don't have stories sad enough to define as races. As someone pointed out later, Irish used to be a race in America, back when Irish weren't allowed in places and signs were posted saying they wouldn't give any work to the Irish. Then they moved up and suddenly, they're just white, with a little Irish "ethnicity" dropped in. See that I also find offensive. But it's not worth going into the struggles of the Irish.

Next up, Sumi Cho: "In the law, I think there's a failure to seriously grasp the significance of the impact of racial exclusion and white supremacy in this society." Huh? Really? What cases have you been reading? It's pretty much explicitly spelled out and has been addressed about a million times over in lower court rulings and legislation. It's also a really dated view - I would appreciate it if these "scholars" picked up on the fact that they are staring into a class/wealth divide, not a race divide. But let's continue on.

"There are many who don't believe that racial divisions are much different from ethnicity-based divisions; i.e., what African Americans have faced in this country is little different from what Irish Americans or Italian Americans have faced." Given that I just brought up the Irish and their treatment, I'll bite. Yes, not the same thing. But I'll give you that only because of course it's not the same thing as we're not talking about the same thing. (quick side-bar, the italians were WAY better off than the Irish - that is an offensive comparison) That really doesn't help with defining race at all and the situation is WAY WAY more complicated than simply comparing apples to apples between the irish and african-americans, but whatever.

To finish up: "There's an asymmetry that's important to keep in mind when we're talking about race versus ethnicity. Yet politicians deliberately further this non-distinction between race and ethnicity, especially conservative politicians who want to downplay the significance of racial discrimination in this country." I think the irony here is that I am going through all this trying to find out what a "race" is. I started because I was trying to figure out what I was meant to check on the census form. And as I was going through I started thinking about friends of mine and wondering what they would check, how they were supposed to define themselves in a little box under "Race." I'm trying to think of groups I see discriminated against (old people, homeless people, ugly people, fat people, young adults) but none of the pictures that are coming up are racial. Sure, the imaginary people or memories of people I'm conjuring up have colors, and if I had to I could put some of them into one of three big categories, but it really doesn't play into the everyday.

By which I don't mean to say there isn't discrimination because of course there is and as I told my high school students a few years back, don't forget that racism goes in every direction and comes from every conceivable source. But I think there is a very significant generation gap here, perhaps even in the course of a decade, I don't know. But things have really changed. You see it in people socializing together. You see it in who people are willing to vote for. You see it in (something that always drove me insane) people not being described to you in part via their race. Which begs the question of why I care that I lost a race. I see a racial categorization as society's way of saying it cares. Losing that means society doesn't care anymore. Making it an ethnicity that has its own race diminishes the significance of my heritage. So I'm offended. It's not some "decision" I made about people I want to hang out with or cultural traditions I want to carry on - I have no traditions and don't hang out with anyone who does. It's the opposite of that, it's the race that he was defining. It's something you are born with and that is that.

Can't use your old plates because you're missing too many?

2010-01-13T22:03:00.002Z

I honestly can think of absolutely no one who uses a computer who I could share this with, but I am sure there are plenty of people out there who can use this information and I think it's rather fascinating so here goes.

Summary: There is an online store called Replacements, Ltd. Basically, they have tons of china and silver and that sort of thing and while they do carry patterns that are still in stores, the hook is that they carry discontinued lines as well. So if you broke too many tea cups from the set you got X number of years ago, you have a chance to replace them.

My relationship with them started via some spam a year or more ago. Evidently, some pattern of china, of which I had bought some for a friend's wedding at some point (I can only assume), had been discontinued. However, there was still some available at Replacements, Ltd. I think I ignored the first few emails and then clicked through, out of curiosity, as it was obvious it wasn't spam.

The pattern of the first set of plates was really lovely and I think about them to this day (no really - charming bright floating butterflies - sort of a calming daydream). Since then, they've been sending me hideous sets that I can't imagine anyone I know ever wanted but taste cannot be bought, borrowed or stolen. In any case, I appreciate the business plan and in particular the creativity.

The store was founded in 1981 by a guy and evidently has an "inventory of 13 million pieces in more than 300,000 patterns, some over 100 years old." Which is, of course, insane. They even have a 12,000 square foot showroom. They even go and search for your patterns for you when you can't find them.

Anyways, just a shout out to a rather innovative business plan for the material era, particularly as we drift back into being more economical. No reason to throw out a whole set of plates because a few are broken or missing when you can actually replace them...

Being Ill

2009-10-08T17:47:00.002Z

There are few things I enjoy less than being ill. They almost all fall in related areas (to illness and death generally) so there is no real reason to go into detail about it. You start out in pretty much complete denial. You are entirely certain that you are not ill. Then you start to think, well I must have upset my stomach with something, it just needs to work its way through the system. Then it's just a matter of cleaning things out and resting a bit and then finally you wake up a couple hours later and feel even worse, albeit in a different way, than you did before. And that's when acceptance has to come.
In our society, illness is really looked down upon. I didn't realize this until recently and I can only posit that most adults simply don't get sick. I have quite a bit of difficulty understanding people who claim that they go to work while ill. When I say I'm ill, I'm talking about not being able to stand for periods, occasionally crying out in pain, and a mental collapse on par with sleep in terms of loss of consciousness and ability to complete tasks or reason. Evidently, this does not happen to other people as I can guarantee they would not be at work if it did. I think others don't get the "full system" effect, as I refer to it. When I get sick, it's not a cough or a chest thing or a headache - I consider that occasional miscellany that I generally don't even think about; in fact, I wouldn't even think to associate those things with illness. When I talk about illness, I'm talking about the entire body shutting down. Your head is exploding in pain and as you writhe in bed trying to find some position that isn't going to cause you to vomit again, you slip in and out of dreaming and/or consciousness. That, is being sick. Anyone who claims to be able to deliver a decent work product under those circumstances is a liar and a fraud.
So it is likely that when people get sick, they simply aren't referring to anything like this. This jives with my conversations with others, whose faces tend to drop in uncomprehending stares as I explain my cold/flu symptoms. Also when people do get sick, they get sick, but they don't get the full body thing and most importantly, the brain is not implicated. They don't lose the ability to open a door because they can't remember how you do that and while trying to figure out how, use up all remaining physical strength and have to crash to the floor and generally fall asleep there, at least temporarily, remembering, perhaps a couple days later, what the point was of opening the door in the first place.
All this to say, I am terribly ill. I am hoping it a short term bug or food poisoning, really anything but the flu. And if it is, and it is that crazy swine flu thing, I think I should be able to sue the government for preventing me from getting a vaccine because they're oh so worried about the children. I'm sorry, but weren't they on top of this a while ago? What exactly is the point of the CDC if it can't even bother to protect us against pandemics that are only minor variations from known strains? What a joke. And furthermore, I would like to know whether there is preferential treatment in terms of the distribution of the vaccine as I heard last night that Stephen Colbert had gotten it and he does not fall into any of the high risk groups and it came out like Monday. I am not amused.

United Headsets

2009-09-30T21:21:00.004Z

Recently, while listening to a video in a friend's home office, I removed the headphones to take a call. And I remarked that on the inside of the headphones (which had somehow ended up on the friend's desk after a United flight) it was marked "Will not work outside aircraft." Clearly, this is false. My question for the general public and the FAA is - are airlines really allowed to lie?

I understand that it is a lie intended to prevent what is perhaps inappropriate behavior on the part of airline travelers - and I understand that the lie isn't related to safety or other such matters but more of a bottom-line thing - but I still have a problem with it. If United is going to brazenly lie on its headphones, what can we believe and what can't we believe about what they say? And are they allowed to lie whenever it helps them financially? For example, if it makes me feel more safe, can they say things that are obviously false?

For example, will that seat cushion really support me if I need to float in the ocean (and how long are they anticipating that I can hold my arms around it while floating in the ocean)? Does the door really weigh whatever they say it weighs? Can I actually believe that a lithe or rather chubby flight attendant can lift that door? These are similar to questions already asked, and in their minds answered, by travelers. For example, the rule that phones must be turned off during flight (and particularly during take-off and landing) is routinely flouted, in large part because travelers believe the airlines are lying about interference with air traffic control communications. Similarly, passengers will frequently pass on purchasing a "fresh" type food option as they (rightly) do not believe that food served on a 9 hour flight can really be "fresh." There is outright laughter at the announcement "we know you have a choice" in terms of choosing a carrier, because it implies that the airline is making an effort at customer service, which is made very evidently false by the exceptionally surly flight attendants. When the pilot comes on and announces that the plane is encountering light turbulence, passengers honestly don't know what to believe. And I think in large part this is due to the duplicity of the airlines in other practices. Claiming you've paid the fare and then charging extra for taxes, bags, food, alcohol, and now even flying home for thanksgiving. Saying your bags are covered and then refusing to pay you when your bag is destroyed or permanently lost on some bizarre technicality. Selling you a ticket and then not allowing you to get an assigned seat even though over half the plane is full and forcing you to show up at the airport hours early or log-on to the website exactly 23 hours ahead of take-off to get the earliest spot on the list, and even then, you can get bumped by someone with higher "status." Honestly, given these experiences, how are you supposed to believe anything the airlines or their employees say? The only things I believe are the ones I overhear flight attendants gossiping about before flights. I have learned a lot about the financial status of the airlines far ahead of the markets while listening to these conversations.

Peter Singer and some conclusions

2009-09-23T16:27:00.003Z

Peter Singer has some inconsistent and problematic opinions, this I have known for a while. But I've never cared enough to actually read any of his "philosophy" - I'm not sure I knew that such a thing even existed.

However, while reading a totally different book, I came across a quote summarizing his views on animal rights and was fascinated that he completely lost me immediately, as I will respect a well-crafted argument regardless of its content : "Take the premise of equality among people, which most of us readily accept" Huh? Where do people readily accept this and how do they do it? I've traveled vast swaths of the world and have never seen this. As a general rule if you have money, good looks, athleticism, intelligence, stylish clothes, a well-known family, creativity, opinions etc. you are better than other people who lack these things. That's how it works. And that list goes on forever and varies by culture and sub-culture but it doesn't matter. No one who spends more than 5 seconds thinking about it can actually honestly believe that our society treats people equally.

It goes on: "Equality is a moral idea, not an assertion of fact" - that of course, means nothing. There is a bit of explanation that follows: "The moral idea is that everyone's interests ought to receive equal consideration, regardless of 'what they like or what abilities they have.' Fair enough" - no again, not fair enough. In no way shape or form do people honestly believe that every person's interests should receive equal consideration. It doesn't even make any sense. Some people's interests are useless and even detrimental to society while others are quite beneficial. If we gave every person's interests equal consideration, we'd be living in the third world, in a best case scenario.

And finally, the, I'm sorry you took this where?, tour de force: "If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his or her own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit non-humans for the same purpose?" - right so, beginning with the first clause, having a higher degree of intelligence ALWAYS entitles you to use other humans for your own ends. That's how corporations, firms, household cleaning services, governments, families, pretty much everything in our society works. We, in fact, believe just the opposite - that a higher degree of intelligence allows you to control anyone less intelligent than you, unless they possess other qualities we deem more important (like money etc.). Now, that's just within the human realm. As to animals, I personally have no opinions on this subject, but there is an essential logical link missing here - that being that somehow animals are the same as humans. And here is where I get confused.

It seems to me that if animals are the same as humans, so are vegetables and water and the rays of the sun and pretty much everything around us. I've never once understood the distinction between animals and vegetables by those who are vegetarians and I've never had someone give me more of an explanation than that animals were alive - well, so was that lettuce before you chopped it up to eat it. I rather doubt there is an explanation for it. I searched for "vegetarian philosophy" and this came up as the first hit, a piece by Peter Singer vilifying McDonalds.

McDonald's is a throw-away for so many reasons, mostly having to do with the fact that the organization engages in mass production of food for people with limited budgets and so you can expect things won't be ideal anywhere along the food chain. It's very very easy to criticize. But the interesting part was a quote from a group that was attacking McDonald's with regards to its means of raising animals: "Their deaths are bloody and barbaric." And then, I thought, perhaps I had landed on it. It was simple anthropomorphism. Perhaps because you can have a "bloody" death with an animal, it can somehow be barbaric if you think the animals are people. And because you're not allowed to kill people that way, you shouldn't be able to kill animals. But it doesn't really work.

I don't deny that Mr. Singer does an admirable job for his cause by throwing in supply and demand and fully agree that people can't ignore this fundamental force of our economy when they calculate the impact of individual choices on the world as a whole - too many people are bizarrely ignorant of the way in which multiple individual choices combine together to create a market force. It's just that he never explains why there is a problem with treating animals the same way we do lettuce or tomatoes. I don't deny that the explanation exists, I would just like to hear it in a form that doesn't presume the belief that animals should be treated "humanely" - the argument needs to be made for that as well. Indeed, given that all humans aren't treated with the same stanards, that many are treated quite horribly, it's difficult to even know what a humane standard would be if then applied to something we know relatively little about, like cows. The bases for defining "humane" treatment have to do with how humans interpret things that happen to them and then how they project their feelings onto the potential feelings of others. Somehow it is humane to kill someone by lethal injection but not by strangulation. It seems to me that for the person being killed it can't matter very much at all, but in any case, it is clearly highly dependent on the concept of a "human" and what is appropriate.

To go full circle, it seems to me that there is also little support for the divide between animals and humans and vegetables; we only support such a divide because we need to in order to have a functioning society - we can't have cannibalism running rampant, we can't have people beating each other up in the streets, it just doesn't work, it would create a wildly inefficient society in which people were fighting merely to stay alive. Perhaps there is an argument that we have a more developed society and thus no longer need to maintain that animals are different from humans, but then I have to ask again, why do we get to keep raising vegetables to kill and ingest them? I don't see how this line is drawn and at the end of the day, we have to eat or else we die as well. Assuming factory farmed animals aren't being raised and so the environment isn't being unduly harmed, it is hard to see the argument for using animals to create energy for our bodies as being worse than using vegetables.

ACORN - the need to organize the organizers

2009-09-17T16:04:00.004Z

So recently ACORN, the miscelleous entity, ended up all over the news again and once again, for completely awful reasons.

As a quick summary, this fellow who is 24 and a law student went around with his 20 year old female friend to a number of ACORN's what appear to be counseling/mortgage storefronts around the country and proposed some inappropriate situations (largely illegal) to which the ACORN employees responded as though being asked for perfectly normal counsel. Oh, and he got it all on tape.

Here's the thing - if a number of your employees at different locations are giving people walking in off the street legal advice on how to commit federal crimes and not get caught and all this ends up on video that is distributed widely across the country and world and you've already had similar problems and you care at all about public perception of your organization, you don't go the defensive route. You don't go the crazy outraged route. It just doesn't work. Especially if you already used up that chip over the voter registration forms. Which is why I didn't understand why ACORN would post this article on their website: Attack Videographer Caught in Manipulation and Lies.

As a contrast, and as proof that the people in charge actually understand the significant implications for the future of their agency and its cause, you can see the primary article posted on the home page, ACORN Announces Major Steps to Address Issues Raised by Videos.

Returning to the "news" article (which is at best a mixed news/opinion piece), was what the O'Keefe fellow did "manipulative"? Possibly - I don't think there's a meaning of that word that doesn't involve projection of an individual's insecurity onto the target, but let us take it down a notch and say that what O'Keefe did was designed to elicit certain responses and reactions. That is true. It isn't really manipulaive, in my opinion, because he wasn't trying to change people's opinions or thoughts or alter how they dealt with situations - it's the entrapment question, but this is pretty straightforward. From the employees' extensive explanations of how to get around laws it seems to me that they were rather adept at doing this (counseling people on how to violate federal law) and didn't seem as though they felt pressured or out of their element. I just want to clarify for people that someone isn't engaging in "manipulation" just because you're not the one controlling the situation. It's an absurdly inflammatory choice of words.

Next up: lies. Did he "lie"? Technically, of course he lied. That's a given and it's part of the style of investigative journalism that he engages in. The point is to see how people deal with situations and to get on tape when you disagree with the manner in which they handle themselves. People generally don't engage in investigative journalism when the subject is something they believe strongly in. I mean, I've never seen it and it would be totally illogical so I assume people don't do this. But again, "lie" is not in the title of the article to make the technical point that O'Keefe was not a pimp as he claimed to be, it's there to suggest that he was engaged in deliberate falsehoods and requires that one subscribes to the kindergarden age appropriate belief that lies are bad, regardless of circumstances. Again, not really the angle you want to take here. It's whiny, self-righteous and just underlines the point that you don't understand what the problem is with being an agency that claims to be doing social good that flouts laws in favour of helping certain types of people. That just isn't how people think in America. I mean, moreover, if your employees are recommending that people who make their living off breaking laws should lie to the federal government and banks and any number of other entities or people, it's a bit much to complain when someone else uses tactics that you're recommending against you.

But as to the "story" - the woman mentioned here claims that she knew it was a fraud and that she was making fun of them by responding to their statements with even more incredulous statements.
1) That just isn't an appropriate professional response. If someone is messing around with you, you show them the door and tell them to have a nice day. End of story. Why would you play games with them? Why are you wasting the organization's and taxpayer's money in that way? If you don't think these people need help, why aren't you helping people who do? It rings false and seems weird that she would continue to engage with people she thought were mocking her - of course, she could be incredibly insecure and need to feel validated by mocking other people, but it doesn't really matter what her personal issues are, she needs to behave professionally at work.
2) Why, if you were mocking them, would you see fit to say that your employer wouldn't approve of your actions: "Further, as the actors repeatedly noted how nice she was being, Ms Kaelke responded, also repeatedly, that her"niceness" was just her, not ACORN. "My supervisor would shoot this down like faster than a bat out of hell."" I mean, hmmm. That isn't terribly amusing. It isn't a sense of humor at all. I have a terribly terribly dry sense of humor and I can't imagine any world in which that would be funny. The only legitimate interpretation of that statement is that she was in fact saying things that her employer would't approve of, which may or may not be true - I don't know as I don't know who her supervisor is or what exactly she was saying at that point but again, it doesn't really matter. It just isn't funny to say that your supervisor doesn't approve of what you're saying. If it's true, you shouldn't be saying it, especially not at work. If it's not true, that's the type of joke you'd have to tell at a bar with your work buddies so the irony was caught, not to some complete strangers.

It sort of continues on in the same vein from there, ending with "Ms. Kaelke, who did not know she was being filmed, is appalled that her defensive attempts to deal with a troubling experience have been manipulated into an attack on her work helping low- and moderate-income families fight the foreclosure crisis, work for needed health care reform, and face the economic crisis in San Bernardino. " I don't know ACORN well enough to comment on the substance of this but again, let me throw some marketing it its direction. The sentence screams defensive. The way to say this was to have an explanation of ACORN's work placed separately from this. ACORN works to help etc., explaining in detail what they do and why what they do is important. THEN you say, completely separately, and probably much earlier in the piece that she didn't know she was being filmed, although I would probably drop that as it doesn't help the case. And you drop the "manipulate" business because it's simply too much. You can't go from "radical" to "important social vehicle" by calling people names. (yes, I recognize they did not write this article but if you post something on your organization's website, you may as well have written it as you implicitly endorse what it says unless you explicitly do not)

As I mentioned I don't know enough about ACORN's actions to make any statement on what they do but assuming they actually are working to help lower and middle income individuals have better lives, wouldn't it make more sense to present this as a matter of maintaining proper standards for living in our society, respect for our fellow man and reminding people that America is based on the belief that we help our neighbors when they need help? It just seems to me that if you stick with the fundamentals, stay on message and do a good job, you accomplish a lot. When you go the radical route, you lose most of your potential audience. It's an especially problematic angle to take as a non-profit and especially in America with regards to the issue of poverty and relative poverty since there is a notion that one is meant to pull oneself up by the bootstraps - not that it's right or anything like that, but people do believe that. So you have to get around that and you don't do it by being radical.

What is wrong with these people?

2009-08-14T16:16:00.002Z

I hadn't thought much recently about teachers. Mostly because I'm not in school, no one in my family is in school and the people I know who teach know what they're doing and don't whine to me about it. And then, today, someone sent me this Washington Post Link: Schools Need Teachers Like Me: I Just Can't Stay.

Now, in my defense, I didn't read the whole title when I got the link. I stopped reading entire sentences sometime over the past few years and now just pick up keywords and if I can't tell what's going on, will read a phrase here and there. If I had read the title, I would never have read the article. The title itself says exactly what this girl's, Sarah Fine's, issue is and I certainly didn't need to hear it again. But I read so fast I didn't realize until I was three-quarters of the way through how absurdly offensive it was.

Sarah Fine is evidently the child of an upper-middle-class suburban upbringing who then went onto an ivy league school and then felt oh so terribly guilty about who she was that she went to teach children at a DC charter school. Immediately, you've lost me. I know these bratty little suburban idiots and they have nothing substantive going for them. They are sheltered and whiny and waste everyone's time with their incredibly boring monologues about the depth of their thoughts and how oh so unique their circumstances are. Most importantly, they can't for the life of them see the big picture because, in real world terms, they are simply dumb. It doesn't matter where you go to school or what you study if you know absolutely nothing about people - about how they work, how to influence them and how to improve both your and their lot in life - you will achieve nothing of substance.

The reason I was done with this piece before I started has to do with many things. I know a lot of teachers who teach genuinely challenging student populations and who had privileged upbringings and aren't engaging in a public display of self-pity over it. In part because they actually know how to work with people but mostly because teaching is not akin to slaving over a series of cutting-edge scientific discoveries. You're literally doing nonsense like teaching children to read and write. I'm sorry and I don't care what population you're working with, it simply does not rise to the level of "difficult." It may be difficult for an individual due to his or her circumstances and psychological weaknesses, but it is not objectively difficult. I would also like to note that teachers are MORE than fairly paid for the minimal (compared to the rest of us!) time they spend working (and yes, I am including time outside the classroom) and maybe Ms. Fine should try living someplace a little less trendy than DuPont if she wants to cut down on expenses rather than whine about how she thinks an underfunded public school system should give her a raise.

Ms. Fine reveals her absurdity rather clearly when she notes that she was near or in tears upon being told by a school administrator that he/she didn't like the way she was conducting her classroom. Um, why the tears? Why not come up with a constructive solution? Oh wait, I know why. Because you're a spoiled little brat who has never considered for a moment figuring out how to work within the system, exploit the administration and use the over-burdened hierarchy to your advantage. You don't realize that in the real world, people try to thwart you every step of the way and you have to constantly hold your own if you ever plan to succeed in achieving anything. In sum, you aren't smart enough to be a teacher at a real school.

Of course, the title more or less alludes to this obscene level of self-involvement - why exactly would schools need teachers like her? What does she have to offer to some grade schoolers or high schoolers that millions of others her age across the country don't have? Nothing, from what I could discern. She seems unable to reach her students, unable to overcome administrative hurdles, unable to marshal forces to her side in favor of her cause, just generally unfit to teach. If you can't ignite intellectual curiosity in your students - wake up! - you're not a good teacher. It requires innovation, creativity and above all, intelligence, none of which she evidently has. And it was odd how the story was just about her. Not about her students or their lives or the community or the purpose of the charter school or any of the things that are actually interesting and she should care about, if she is actually interested in teaching. I don't know why she would think anyone would care about her. And I can't imagine why she thinks the system needs her.

I worry a bit about her, really, as it seems to me she is unfit to do much of anything. News flash Sarah - of course people ask lawyers and doctors and consultants why they do what they do, and often it actually is with a condescending note. It's not some huge conspiracy against you - it's your personal belief that teaching is some sort of sacrifice you're making, that you are somehow "better" than teaching, that is causing you to construct a negative association where there is none. I don't doubt that some people say things with precisely the intention you suggest but people say completely absurd and offensive things to me upwards of 50 times a day. You just have to ignore most of what people say or the world is an overwhelming place.

But, as someone who grew up in a privileged environment, went to an ivy league school, and taught in the DC public schools, I have to say that this piece really underscored why most Americans hate me before they meet me. It is people like Sarah Fine, who feel they are entitled to a certain standard of living, both monetarily and psychologically, who are going to destroy the country as we know it. If I were the head of a rebel group seeking to implement a socialist agenda, I would use her story as an example of why we have to remove the privileges of the wealthy and create a new system based on "merit" (quotes as I don't believe we currently have a definition of "merit" that makes any sense or adequately measures the skills and talents that are of use to society). What a horrible little girl.

Dullness

2009-07-10T14:00:00.002Z

Today was one of those days. I started out by buying three 16 oz energy drinks (even though I had half of one at the office and another in my purse) and a jar of nutella. I then proceeded to eat the nutella with a spoon as I googled "how to shotgun a beer" not because I wanted to shotgun a beer (I'm allergic) but because I thought shotgunning one of the energy drinks might be a fine idea. I quickly realized I would be horribly nauseous and decided against it. Then, while reading about Shiites in Afghanistan forcing their women by law to do housework (which was so not a story to me - when are they going to actually start educating children in public schools and teach them that most of the world is a morass so I don't have to read the graduates of these schools post their shocked comments every time some "journalist" stumbles upon an incredible breaking story) and I see, "read your horoscope." I decide I will and get, for example, this: "there's excitement aplenty. Whether it will lead anywhere is another matter" What? what does that even mean? Where would excitement lead? Excitement is an emotional state - it doesn't lead anywhere. But I recognize that most people don't actually speak English. So then, the last three lines: "Don't become impatient. People may be moody or changeable. Unusual little things may occur." What does any of that mean? Of course I'll be impatient. I'm always impatient - it's a trait of my astrological sign, moreover. People MAY be moody or changeable? How about a heads-up when they AREN'T going to be moody or changeable. That would actually be informative. And what in the world is that last part supposed to mean? Unusual little things occur to me constantly. They irritate me to no end as it feels like I am living in an alternate reality. What a scam. There are legitimate horoscope folk, BTW. And it's 9am.

Random Prisoner/Census Data

2009-06-10T01:13:00.002Z

Obviously there are a lot of issues with the census and those issues are particularly serious when you deal with urban environments but I came across this randomly and don't have time to adequately investigate it now so will get back to it later, but: "Sixty percent of Illinois' prisoners are from Cook County (Chicago), yet 99% of the state's prison cells are outside the county." Now, evidently, but not entirely clear from this piece, the prisoners are counted as residents of the place where the prison is located, which is kind of technically logical and yet, probably terribly flawed. This is particularly true when the census data is used for the purposes of drawing districts and providing representation and the prisoners aren't able to vote. It's all very bizarre and I will return to it in depth later.

Zimbabwe/ South Africa Spam

2009-06-05T15:03:00.002Z

So sometimes I get confused, usually when I am tired or whatnot, and I think, well what if these people are really having difficulties...I'm not sure that has anything at all to do with these complicated scams, I don't mean the people sending the e-mails, but the people whose stories they steal. Like that's sad.

But my favorite part about this is the clause providing: "we planned to invest the rest of the money in your country under your guidance."

It's an interesting direction, and I suppose it could appeal to someone with a scam company that needs funds etc. I mean, theoretically, you could take all of their money, if you were unscrupulous :) But yes, bonne chance Mme. Konta

___________________________________________________________________

ATTN: THE DIRECTOR/C.E.O. FROM: MRS. HELEN KONTA JOHANNESBURG, R.S.A. TELL: +27-83-979-0894FAX: +27-86-558-8894 Dear Sir, A PLEA FOR URGENT FAMILY ASSISTANCE. With due respect, trust and humanity, I write this letter to you Seeking your help and assistance. Though it’s difficult since we do not know each other and have not met before. I got your good contact from Network onward here in South Africa, regarding your business profile and sincerity. I believe that you are capable and reliable in handling this urgent international transaction of this sort. I am MRS. HELEN KONTA, the wife of the COMRADE JOHN KONTA, the Zimbabwean former Minister for Youth & Gender Equality who is also a businessman and politician, in the Zimbabwean political arena. My Husband was the Famous politician who stood firm against President Mugabe’s idea of continuous Fight in Democratic Republic of Zimbabwe and my Husband also stood against the Seizure of white owned farms and the distribution of it to the blacks without compensation to the white owners. Because of my Husband sincerity, he was killed on 14th April 2007 by a planned motor accident along Mashonaland in Western Mashona Province of Zimbabwe. The planners of the accident are to be said dissidents Soldiers suspected to have the backing of the Government and President Mugabe himself. When this accident occurred at about 10:15 am Zimbabwean time, my Husband did not died on the spot rather he was rushed to Harare hospital by unknown soldiers and my Husband managed to call me and my elder son JOSHUA, through his assistance,He instructed me to take good care of our children and leave Zimbabwe immediately for our safety, which we have successfully did and now we are in South Africa as Asylum Seekers (Refugee) with the original Documents of the deposit money intact, issued by the Private security company. But because of the country’s existing law in South Africa which bars asylum seekers /refugees like us to operate an account with such huge amount (US$37 Million (Thirty Seven Million United States Dollars) and the fear of the money not raising eyebrows here in South Africa as our neighboring country, I decided to write to you to seek for your help for this money to be transferred into your private bank account as all arrangements for a hitch-free transfer have been dully made. I want to assure you also that this transaction is 100% risk free, as no other person knows about the real contents of this box apart from my two children, my brother and our family legal instructor here in South Africa and I. As for your reward for your kind assistance, we have resolved to enter into a joint venture establishment with you upon the conclusion of the transaction or Alternatively, we are ready give you 20% of the total amount, 5% has been mapped out for any expenses that might be incurred in the course of this transaction and we planned to invest the rest of the money in your country under your guidance. If you are willing to help us, you can choose any of the two options for your reward above and try as much as possible to contact my BROTHER JACOB with these above telephone/fax or email numbers to enable him detail you the procedure as he made towards concluding the transaction. Bear it in mind that our future lives solely depend on this fund and we do hope that this money will be safe when finally transferred into your personal bank Account. I do hope of establishing a rewarding and good relationship with you and your family after this transaction. I await your promptly Reply and you can send your direct telephone and fax Numbers in your reply for Easier and oral Communication and more explanation about the transferring procedure. Have A Nice Day as I wait for your urgent response via the telephone/fax numbers of my BROTHER JACOB above. For more information concerning the brutality of the Mugabe government please Click this links: h.t.t.p.:/./.w.w.w...time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1833968,00.htmlallAfrica.com: Zimbabwe: UN Political Affairs Chief Says 'Winner-Takes-All' Approach Will Widen Divisions, Produce Discredited Result (Page 1 of 1)h.t.t.p.:/./.w.w.w.america.gov/st/peacesec-english/2008/June/20080606162832dmslahrellek0.9750025.htmlh.t.t.p.:/./.w.w.w...ambafrance-uk.org/Presidency-communique-on-Zimbabwe.htmlhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/918781.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/715001.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1063785.stmBest regards Helen Konta (Mrs.)

New rule for commercial websites

2009-05-24T15:54:00.000Z

If you no longer have something in stock and it isn't going to be in stock again, don't list it on the only page that exists that lists things in stock, you frustrating teases. Set up a separate page showing what you've sold in the past, indicting the types of things you would be able to get in the future. Not a happy sunday.

Sarah Palin's Clothes

2009-05-19T20:24:00.004Z

So just to clarify, I couldn't care less how much the RNC spent on Sarah Palin and family's clothes. 150K, while obviously a big number, isn't necessarily that much when it comes to dressing a family in top-quality camera and crowd sparkling clothing. Particularly when you're running on a ticket with a man who can't remember how many houses he owns (the answer was ultimately determined to be 7, so that gives you a sense of what we're working with).

No, my issue was I wanted to know what exactly she bought. I understood she went to Saks and Neimans and Barneys, so put in context, I can see how you'd get to that number. But you'd hear this number thrown around, a lot of shock and awe, and then the handful of people like me were left silently asking, but wait, what did she spend it on?

I found at least one answer: 50k went to Escada. Now Escada just isn't for me. Too much a toned down version of the eighties power/socialite woman. It explained a lot, actually, because I kept looking at her clothes and wondering how she could have spent so much money and still look so blah.

Her glasses were $374 Kazuo Kawasakis (I never thought much of those and never understood the attraction - again, it seemed a really strong 80s throwback).

For her acceptance speech at the RNC convention she went with a $2500 Valentino jacket (see photo - cute jacket so not clear why they couldn't have given her a skirt that actually did something for the jacket).

A few tidbits. None that satisfying...

RIP online IHT...

2009-05-11T16:52:00.002Z

IHT

damn you, patronizing and bourgeois NYT

Cost of medicine

2009-04-24T23:43:00.003Z

This is obviously a very hot topic lately, so I want to post an article I came across that caught my eye: "Burned Baby's Parents Charged, Mother: Didn't Want to Pay for Ambulance"

As is often the case in these situations, many things went wrong. An infant was left unattended in a sink, a toddler was left unattended, the extent of wounds was underestimated and balanced against the estimated cost.

A couple thoughts. It doesn't matter what your opinion is about whether or not people have a right to health care (and from what I read on message boards, many people do not believe there is a right to health care), when the lack of affordable health care leads to serious injury and potential death, you have a social program that destroys its citizens. The issue isn't that these parents made a mistake, but rather their thought process. They love their child, but can't afford the cost of an ambulance and couldn't get a ride to the hospital. The wounds didn't look serious, so when they could get there they didn't go, because they couldn't afford the cost of care. Now society wants to charge them for not giving the child care they couldn't afford.

I think it's a very difficult question. It seems not unlike debtor's jail - if you can't afford your child's medical treatment, you are a criminal. Yes, a child is a human life and as a result, anything done to hurt the child is an attack against a human. And my response here would be that by deciding to have a child, these people took on that responsibility until the child is at an age of majority.

The only problem is, you don't end up with a child the way you end up with a pair of shoes you don't need. Particularly when you're poor and grow up in circumstances that put different values on family and motherhood and validate a sense of identity for a girl growing up in what are highly unusual circumstances to the people in the judiciary/jury who would pass judgment on this case when she becomes a mother. She finally becomes someone. Moreover, children have a tendency to pop out, often regardless of whether precautions are taken.

Point merely being that, as with many of these situations, the issue is extremely complicated and is far from being a simple case of abuse. It actually doesn't sound like abuse at all to me. And furthermore, I think we undermine the importance of going after abuse when we call what are rational actions in certain people's minds, as a result of their circumstances, abuse. We owe the people who end up in these circumstances far more than to call them criminals and post their photos on the web. They need to be treated like human beings. They needed that a long time ago. And instead of doing anything about it, we chastise them years later when their actions are inconsistent with what we think is appropriate. Where were we when they needed to learn how to deal with these situations? What solutions are we providing?

Why do CA and LA have the same license plate?

2009-04-24T20:25:00.004Z

I recently found myself in the south of the United States and stumbled upon something that has deeply troubled me.

I first noticed it because I tend to unconsciously scan license plates as I walk past and I was struck by how many California license plates were in Louisiana. Of course, some, sure, that makes sense. But there were tons.

Until I looked closer.

I've spent a lot of time in California and so am intimately familiar with the standard California license plate. But it turns out that Louisiana's is basically the same. Red right-leaning script of the state's name on the top across a white background with the license plate number in block dark blue letters/numbers.

Apart from it being an odd coincidence, it really lacks creativity. And begs the question of what exactly, on a deeper level, California and Louisiana have in common.

Wow...

2009-04-23T02:51:00.001Z

So someone else is evidently as amused with humanity as I am:

See, Craigslist Underground

I have also added this to my permanent list of sites.

More scam email...

2009-04-19T03:34:00.002Z

I really like this one for some reason - it just seems absurdly improbable, so I can't imagine why anyone would sign up for this. Maybe the use of all caps is meant to entice a sense of security...oh, but no, it does the exact opposite...

This is actually a little tighter than some of the others - for example, a phone number is provided, the country code of which is actually the country the e-mail purports to come from, a street address is provided, although the address is of Afribank and not a part of the government. Sadly, as per usual, the horrific spelling errors give it away - the person writing the e-mail clearly did not even have an english word processing system built in to detect obvious orthographic missteps. Also, there's no indication of what 30th anniversary is going on and why in the world the WHO, U.N. and E.U. would randomly be giving money to people who haven't entered a contest and who were theoretically involuntarily and unknowingly entered into it, like it even makes sense that they would be joining together for something like this. But I digress because it is late. Enjoy.

______________________________________________________________

BATCH No:(W-342-8876,U-500-32)

Saturday, 18 April, 2009 12:18 AM

From:

"OFFICE OF THE SENATE HOUSE"

To:

undisclosed-recipients

OFFICE OF THE SENATE HOUSE FEDERAL
REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA COMMITTEE ON
FOREIGN PAYMENT(RESOLUTION PANEL
ON CONTRACT PAYMENT)IKOYI-LAGOS
NIGERIA14th FLOOR51/55BROAD STREET.

DEAR BENEFICIARY,
CONGRATULATIONS WE BRING TO YOUR NOTICE!!!
THE OFFICE OF THE SENATE HOUSE HAS CHOSEN YOU BY THE
BOARD OF TRUSTEE AS ONE OF THE FINAL RECIPIENT OF THIS
NEW YEAR 2009 PROMOTION CASH GRANT/DONATION, TO
CELEBRATE THE 30th ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATE, WE ARE GIVING OUT A YEARLY
DONATION OF THE ATM CARD VALUE IS USD($500,000.00) FIVE HUNDRED
THOUSAND UNITED STATE DOLLARS TO 7 LUCK RECIPIENTS, AS NEW YEAR
PROMOTION FROM THE W.H.O,UN,AND THE EU in ACCORDANCE WITH THE ENABLING
ACT PARLIATED.THE ATM GRANT/AID ONLY COLLECT EMAIL ADDRESS OF FINAL
RECIPIENT FROM DEFFERENT COUNTRY: UNITED STATS, GREECE, SAUDI ARABIA,
EUROPE,ETC.AND WITH AN ELECTRONIC BALLOTING SYSTEM, WITHOUT THE
RECIPIENT APPLYING, YOU EMERGED ONE OF OUR LUCKY BENEFICIARY.

YOU ARE TO FILL OUT THE BELOW INFORMATION AND SEND IT BACK TO THE
PAYMENT REMMITANCE OFFICE VIA EMAIL CONTACT ADDRESS.

WINNING BATCH No:(W-342-8876,U-500-32)

FULL NAME:________________________
RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS:______________
OCCUPATION:_______________________
NATIONALITY:______________________
PRESENT COUNTRY:__________________
AGE:_______________________________
SEX:_______________________________
TELEPHONE NUMBER:________________

ONCE AGAIN CONGRATULATIONS.....
(PAYMENT REMMITANCE OFFICE CONTACT)
Mr.Fred Usman
E-Mail:fred.usman@msn.com
Tele- +234-805-1860-375

What is up with the U.S. Governors?

2009-04-17T19:13:00.010Z

Now, governors, while generally thought of as statesmen, are of course primarily politicians. It isn't that they are primarily motivated by politics - the good ones aren't. It's that in order to productively effect change in American society as currently designed, politics, in one shape or form, is the best forum.

And to back up a second, "politics" isn't a bad word. There are two main classes of definitions for "politics" - one referring specifically to the act of governing/managing a nation or other governmentally-defined body and another that deals more with the derogatory notion that people are engaged in behavior that is not substantive but rather more along the lines of "social relations involving intrigue to gain authority or power." People tend to collapse the two into one since often to engage in the former brand of politics, one is required to engage in the latter. It's the nature of our electoral system. But in no way does that mean that the former is actually just the latter. Trust me. People are actually doing real things to help people and our society and it does absolutely nothing for them. You won't hear about it a lot, because it doesn't fall in that second category and given that we all want the instant gratification of sensationalism, it just doesn't get coverage. But it's very very real.

Now given this, I've been deeply weirded out over the last few months or so by the bizarre behaviors of U.S. state governors. We'll start with Governor Rick Perry of Texas' recent suggestion that Texas might, again, secede from the Union. He claims not to have specifically said it would, but rather ominously in the midst of standard tax day protests: "Perry said he doesn't think Texas should secede from the union despite some talk about it on the Internet. But he said Americans are getting fed up with Washington and that it's unknown what that might lead to one day."

While I understand and actually respect the sentiment and moreover the lack of reverence for authority, it doesn't work that well when you ARE authority. It's fine if some bizarre anarchist covered with tea bags makes this sort of vague threat to the Union and Washington but really not cool when a governor does it. I understand it's posturing and all politics is local, but really, it's just hack work. Part of it is the impotence Perry must feel. And part of it has to do with the irresponsible behavior of the electorate. We really should not be electing these types of people to posts where they have massive power and influence. See, only a fifth of Texas voters would actually want to secede -and I can't imagine that's much higher than in other places. Again, it's posturing but the thing is, Washington doesn't need that much from the states. It doesn't really matter if Perry is upset or not. So it's really just a waste of the taxpayers' time.

See, e.g., the decision, well not decision but posturing, about not accepting federal stimulus funds. The problem here, again, is that if you're a radical with no one (or other radicals) to answer to, you can adhere to a strict belief system. In the real world, and particularly in the political world, and particularly in a diverse state, you are in the end beholden to your constituents. So Mark Sanford of South Carolina who went off about not taking stimulus funds, well, he's having to backtrac k. Sanford's particular issue was that he wanted to use the stimulus funds not for education, but for paying off the state's debt. My guess is the people of South Carolina, on the whole, would like to see their schools fixed and some jobs immediately created in the process.

I won't bother going through all the republican governors who played this absurd game because it isn't worth my time to pull up all the articles b.c., big picture, all the stories are the same.

Of course, this is the primary pool from which we pull presidents. And I worry about these behaviors because it appears to show that they don't know when to knock it off with the second definition of politics and get back to the first one. I will grant that there are numerous arguments against the use of stimulus funds in specific circumstances but none of them hold water when you consider that economies go beyond an individual state. So if a neighboring state is getting this money and yours isn't, that isn't going to help you, regardless of how laudable your long-term financial and economic view was.

Saying the government shouldn't give out money by not personally accepting it isn't going to stop the government from giving out money. That's just not how it works.

Somalia

2009-04-15T20:12:00.002Z

Someone misunderstood, entirely in fact, what I was saying the other day and thought I was expressing sympathy for Somali pirates. Apart from being an alarmingly stupid interpretation of anything I would say, it bothered me more generally because I fear that extremist left-wing individuals without much information are thinking that really, these "rich" Western nations are in the wrong and these "pirates" (it offends me that the term is used as their activities do not at all rise to level of impressive piracy) are behaving appropriately given the circumstances. It should be noted that this is a variation on the belief that Western nations are responsible for poverty in Middle Eastern nations (actually the fault of the ruling oligarchies) and so on and so forth and as a result, human beings are allowed to randomly attack other human beings without consequence.

Obviously, that doesn't make any sense. You can disagree with the world order but certainly anarchy is no solution. No one wins under that scenario.

Somalia has been vaguely painted in the press as a horribly poor country just fighting for survival through these acts. That's not what's going on. This is just another form of the young men without a sense of propriety, discipline, or law enforcement to control their impulsiveness deciding to harass other people so they can engage in whatever marks tacky nouveau riche behavior in their society. There, here's what it is:
"With their black scarves covering their faces and submachine guns slung over their arms, Somalia’s pirates are the real Jack Sparrows of the twenty-first century, minus the eyeliner. One young woman who lives near Boosaaso bragged about going to a pirate wedding that lasted two days. A band was flown in from neighboring Djibouti. There was nonstop dancing and an endless supply of goat meat. “They drive the best cars, they throw the best parties,” she gushed. “We all want to marry them.” She claimed that her own pirate boyfriend had just given her a small gift—$350,000 in cash. For young Somali men, pirate life is becoming too much to resist. Fishermen all along the coast have traded in their ragged fishing nets for rocket-propelled grenades."

Sounds a lot like the Colombian drug lords back in the day, no? And the current Mexican drug lords? And like a lot of people in....well, I've decided against insulting people for a while (but think, hotbed for the nouveau riche).

The twist on this actually also follows the traditional route for justification of this behavior - someone has done something upsetting to the environment and so, drastic behavior that has nothing to do with the original issue is appropriate. In this case, a couple decades ago the country's government fell apart and then things were found floating in what I will assume were national waters for the Somali pirates' benefit in this argument and there was overfishing and so, there was a right to attack international vessels, hold people aboard hostage and extract huge amounts of ransom money. Um okay. Let's say they'd done this and used the money to fix the water, block international vessels from fishing within their waters, etc. Then, maybe, maybe, there would be an argument. It wouldn't be right, but it would be understandable, given that it was unlikely the fisherman could actually reach out to those corporations and demand restitution. Of course, that isn't what they did with the money. Instead, it's now a business, with investors, inventory, ROI estimates etc. without any connection to improving the nation. It is, however, dedicated to a redistribution of wealth from "wealthy" countries to violent people in developing countries.

Just a point - there's no need for violent people in developing countries to have more money. Ergo, there's no reason to support the actions of the pirates. And people who do can turn their money over to the pirates voluntarily. Go ahead.

Is CNN getting its news from gvmt propaganda?

2009-03-23T15:53:00.004Z

This struck me as a really odd coincidence. Today, CNN is reporting a "news" story that is not really news and that I saw a week ago or so on the award-winning Pentagon Channel. (no idea if the Pentagon Channel has won awards and I certainly hope not as it is essentially military propaganda, mixed in with weird stuff like my favorite, "Fit for Duty," an exercise/aerobics show with three people in what must be military work-out gear, generally using steps)

The reason the show caught my attention the first time is that it wasn't really news. Basically, the military is paying for enlisted men to get financial advice. The show I saw focused on forces stationed in Europe. It was sandwiched in between a bunch of other feel-good stories like a fellow in Germany getting a new car from Pizza Hut. So there was really no reason for anyone else to pick up on it.

So when I just saw this on CNN I had to wonder, why exactly is CNN reporting on this? It really made me wonder about what other CNN-origin "news" I saw was actually a product of government propaganda. Can we even trust the validity of things reported as news on CNN?

Signs we may actually be at war...

2009-03-22T15:07:00.008Z

***You go to the movies and prior to the feature presentation are subject to propaganda videos, designed for our times.***

Please see, "G uardian," courtesy of Kid Rock in conjunction with, yes, the NATIONAL GUARD.

The U.S., while in a horrible recession (I prefer saying depression but people give me a look of death), looking to raise taxes, cutting the professionals in the Navy claiming mass redundancies, while all this is going on, they choose to spend money on REALLY expensive commercials, including a rock video.

So yesterday I went to the movies, and the entire run of previews was sponsored by the National Guard and branches of the armed services. This was a little creepy and I became nervous. However, once the ode to the armed services became a rock video, I was genuinely troubled.

I alluded to the cost above, just because the production values were extremely high and seriously, the commercials I saw must have cost a fortune. But more importantly, and because the things that come out of my mouth when unguarded are more insightful, I turned to my boyfriend and said, if this isn't like putting cartoon characters on cigarette boxes I don't know what is. He, appropriately, gave me the, I can't believe you just said that as it is totally inappropriate as this is the government and involves patriotic values etc. Of course, the question is, does it.

The problem with military recruitment is the way in which it skews towards those with greater financial needs through its incentive programs and the opportunity to get a job without the connections that are typically otherwise necessary since we don't actually live in a meritocracy (see random Army recruitment video). There are always exceptions to this, but I want to talk about the bigger issue. Making the whole thing exciting and glamorous and having there be a rock video in which soldiers are these perfect heroes obviously exacerbates these issues. It panders, again, to those who have not been fully educated as to what the military really does and the impact it has on other nations. My biggest issue is probably that it panders to the image of members of the armed forces as precisely what they should not be - that is, violent, irreverent, blind balls of frenetic energy that can run off in any direction.

Most of all, the videos were obviously propaganda films, a la, WWII and various other wars. For those who aren't aware, previews in the cinema were a regular forum for these videos and the videos were often weird.

(as examples of weird I offer a couple of Walt Disney examples --> Donald Duck anti-Nazi film and a truly troubling example of a cartoon-style documentary, the style of which will be familiar to anyone who grew up watching these)

They're amusing to watch now, given that we won and all, but you have to remember that the Germans and the Japanese had them too. Everyone thinks they're right. And the distortion of popular culture for political/military ends seems a lot more like something an evil corporation would do for personal gain than something a benign but powerful capitalist democracy should be doing. It just troubles me. And I'm offended that I'm paying taxes for this.

Ponzi Schemes!

2009-03-17T23:47:00.008Z

People are rather riled up about ponzi schemes right now, because discussion of Bernie Madoff's business dealings was evidently some people's first exposure to the concept of ponzi schemes. I find this very hard to believe, but have no other explanation for the sudden intense upswing in scrutiny of ponzi schemes.

Background: What are "Ponzi schemes" and why are they called that?

Ponzi was an Italian immigrant to the United States who first learned of the concept, at least in a business context, from working at a Canadi an bank that employed this plan to entice people to deposit their money there - those depositing money were offered double the going market interest rate, this drawi ng in so many new depositors (the bank relied primarily on Italian immigrants), that it was able to keep up these interest payments despite bad loans, which i n any case, probably wouldn't have been sufficient to make the int erest payments and sustain a profitable bank. When the bank failed, the owner fled with a substantial portion of the money to Mexico.

Ponzi ended up slipping into a former customer's office and writing himself a check to facilitate his escape to America, but was caught by police and spent 3 years in prison.

He then got involved in a scheme to smuggle immigrants across the border and ended up spending a couple more years in an American prison when he met and studied the fashionings of a Wall Street scam artist, Charles Morse.

Ponzi's Scheme, Part 1: International Reply Coupons

IRCs are this rather fabulous device that allows people who are in one country and want to al low people in another country to send them things pre-paid to do so by translating a coupon bought in say, Italy, i nto postage in the United States. Basically like those pre-paid return envelopes you get from catalog companies. But the trick was that arbitrage was a valuable option due to the disparity in currency/postage values between the great wars. You paid for the cost of postage in the country of origin and then got to exchange that for the equivalent cost of postage in the country of receipt. In this case, Italy was a low-cost postage country, the United States a relatively high-cost country and as a result, money sent from the U.S. to Italy to buy IRCs which were then returned to the U.S. could then be turned into U.S. postage of a greater value than the amount sent. Pretty impressive, really. Evidently the profit was something like 400%, although it did have the complication of having to sell U.S. postage as a private citizen.

This is still a possibility, if you're on top of the fluctuations in cost of living between different countries. It was a solid plan, theoretically, but difficult to implement (potentially so difficult that the costs would have been prohibitive for a profitable company) and ultimately, Ponzi was lazy and a result he ended up paying off old investors with the investments of new investors.

In a dying interview, he expressed what sounds, uncomfortably like many financiers today: "Even if they never got anything for it, it was cheap at that price. Without malice aforethought I had given them the best show that was ever staged in their territory since the landing of the Pilgrims! It was easily worth fifteen million bucks to watch me put the thing over."

Many, many other Ponzi schemes:

If you are interested, there are plenty more examples, all following the same basic premise. Among the more interesting are a Scientology scam by Reed Slatkin, a "minister" of the "religion." Weirdly, at some point this involved a Grateful Dead roadie: "Federal prosecutors announced tax-evasion charges Tuesday against former Grateful Dead road manager Ronald L. Rakow and his girlfriend in connection with a scheme to conceal Rakow’s i ncome, much of which he earned working for convicted Ponzi scheme operator Reed Slatkin."

Other things that for average people are scams and thus categorized as pyramid schemes as some sort and about which a bunch of difficult people who don't mind average people being scammed whine that they're not really pyramid schemes:

Avon cosmetics, Mary Kay etc.: These really don't work nowadays because if you have a legitimate product, you don't want to rely on random "representatives" to sell the bulk of your product. You want to sell it online. In your online store.

So then what could possibly be the benefit of becoming an Avon representative?

Evidently, the solution is that you are meant to bring in other people underneath you, who are selling for you, thereby allowing you to sit around and do nothin g. Basically a pyramid scheme for anyone not at the top of a pyramid within the pyramid.

The thing that's really unreasonable about this, and other "work at home" plans that are just out-and-out scams, is that they prey on the most defenseless individuals - those who are least likely to be informed, most likely to be desperate, and least likely to be able to take action against those who scammed them. I mean, at some point, it has to be a legitimate claim that the "company" you dealt with misrepresented your opportunities, understated the risk, and deliberately tried to convince you that this was just an easy at home way to make money.

Video Professor Fellow: You always have to be careful when you are given "free offers." Particularly when the underlying product makes no sense, like a dvd that teaches you how to sell things on ebay. I mean, ebay tells you that. There's not a lot to it. At all. So I was not at all surprised to discover a plethora of horror stories about inappropriate charges following a "trial" with video professor.

There are many other infomercial type scams listed here. There are many more than these, but you get the idea.

Conclusion: Use some common sense, PLEASE

I've posted absurd letters from people claiming to be some variation on the son of a deposed African prince, including response letters I've sent explaining how their letters were preposterous. I think the rule is, if you're going to be scammed, it should be a good scam. Legitimate people should be confused. It should be scammish enough to send the individuals responsible to jail. If it seems too good to be true, figure out if it really is. Don't give in to the impulse to believe that wonderful unbelievable things can happen and magically fix one's life.

Free TV, on demand

2009-03-17T23:37:00.003Z

Just to make the point, www.hulu.com actually does work. There are both tv shows and movies - with tv shows, if they are on air, you can see up to 5 full episodes and usually a ton of random clips and web exclusives. Yes, there are random ads slipped in, but it's pretty much where you would see them if you actually watched the show on tv and occasionally, they offer for you to see a longer commercial at the beginning and not see commercials in the middle (a great innovation for the viewer, although from an ad perspective, I find it significantly less effective).

Why exactly is there a requirement to switch to digital television??

2009-03-11T17:42:00.014Z

Most Likely Reason - Greed

I've been wondering about this from some time. I assume there is logic (probably mostly lobbyists' money going into the hands of Congressmen, but also some logic) behind this. But the weird thing is, while you see all these television commercials telling you it's happening and how you have to get a converter box (which for some reason that is completely beyond me is being subsidized by other taxpayers who aren't idiotic enough to still be watching television off an antenna), they never tell you why. There's never any rational explanation for the move. I can think of some, but I'm pretty highly educated and read a lot, so I don't think it's fair to assume that other people can draw rational conclusions. The idea that the image is better is a completely ABSURD reason for such a radical action. I believe the Consumer Electronics Association is at the helm of this (see their annoying video explaining the switch).

Here is another explanation, that implicates both the government and industry, while doing nothing for consumers, so it sounds spot on and is indirectly via Consumer Reports: "The channels being returned to the government by broadcasters in February 2009 are located between Channel 51 and Channel 69 on the television dial, along one of the most highly coveted portions of the broadcast spectrum technically known as the 700 MHz band. Signals in this band travel farther and are able to easily penetrate buildings and other forms of interference.

Congress has directed the Federal Communications Commission to reserve about a third of the returned spectrum for public safety agencies and auction off the rest. The auction of those airwaves began in January 2008 and is expected to raise billions of dollars.

One of the most often mentioned uses for the returned spectrum has been wireless broadband, which could potentially provide a potent new competitor for existing high speed Internet providers, such as cable and phone companies. A host of other wireless applications are also being touted."

As things are pretty much fine for wireless applications right now, this is clearly an unnecessary step. I also wonder, honestly, why the government has a sudden need for more public safety channels that no normal people can access anymore. How would these be public safety channels? What would they do? Here is a long, somewhat interesting attack on the auction process via an amicus brief of sorts.

It just invites too much analysis. I mean even Reuters has an article lying about it: "Congress ordered the switch to digital, effective February 17, to free up public airwaves for other uses, such as for police and fire departments." I mean, really. That's obviously not why they're doing it. That's only a third of the bandwidth, and the remainder is less than is necessary to maintain analog channels.

See, for example, what they think on the internet:

The main concern is that there is a camera inside the converter boxes - "Matarina" from youtube posted a video trying to debunk this theory. I have to agree with those commenting that it was extremely poorly done and totally uncompelling. But 41K have watched it. Yes, a lot of people are c oncerned about this.

Possibility 1: Conspiracy on the part of the government to spy on Americans
The main reason I don't buy this is alluded to above - I don't know exactly how many people have old televisions AND aren't using cable, but I just can't imagine that's the target group for a mass government spy operation. Unless you can explain how cable currently allows for this, in which case, this would close a loophole in the government spy program. There is a suggestion somewhere in this madness that specifically televisions made after 1995 are spy ready and thus do not need this addition. Here are some thoughts from random people.

2 weeks ago, user "Bookkid900" posted a video on CNN's ireport (a bizarre concept that deserves its own analysis vis-a-vis the dumbing down of "news") - in his own words "I have a friend who is kind of a conspiracy theorist. He was trying to convince me that the many of the digital TV convert boxes that our coming out have microphones and cameras built into them. Knowing a bit about electronics I bought one of these devices opened it up fully intending on proving him wrong. To my surprise was right. This device has both a miniature camera lens and what looks like a microphone. I was so shocked I took pictures and video Please send this out to every one you know who is using one of these devices." Here is his video.
Intriguingly, after nearly 700 views, there is only one comment, suggesting that the government wouldn't be capable of transmitting this information anywhere. Which, "Southerner01," is wildly faulty, given that information is somehow going through the box. Why would it make sense that it can come in, go out into the television, but can't be broadcast elsewhere? You should really do a little research into how sophisticated spying mechanisms have become before making idiotic comments. Especially with the "southerner" moniker. I mean, really. You already have a strike against you in terms of stereotyped intelligence.

Remarkably, a crazy man broadcasting on youtube has made this point, by referencing an even crazier website.

Possibility 2: Goal of tricking Americans into beliving things have happened that haven't actually happened

The idea here is that digital is so capable of manipulation that the government would broadcast things that didn't happen to convince us they did, for unknkown purposes. The fellow who makes this compelling argument on youtube, against his best interest, goes on at length about the concern that local governments will use the information to enforce obscure sex laws. I'm not sure this creepy guy with a twin bed and child molester-style glasses should be terribly concerned about intimacy with his girlfriend being taped, but whatever. Over 21K people have watched that video.

Sure, that's possible. But who really cares? We don't have any way of knowing what's real and what's not as it is, and we never did. The government has lied to us about international affairs from the beginning of its existence. All governments do. So you need to accept that and move on.

Possibility 3: To harrass old people

No, not a serious concern. But an extremely funny video.

God Bless America...

2009-03-11T13:08:00.002Z

...and the occasional random laws that manage to pass that actually protect average citizens, entirely contrary to the goal of America, that being to crush 90+% of people's spirits into submission to the man. But, one of the winners prevents the jerk living somewhere in the radius of 4-5 floors on either side of me from using a jackhammer at 7am. Of course, if I find him, he will, mysteriously not be jackhammering anymore, ever. Let's say. But I did feel better on finding a maintenance employee a floor up frantically searching for the source of the noise as well. Better, as I'd specifically been told that this unacceptable maintenance and construction could not legally occur so early (because this is like the upmteenth time over the past 6 months, usually involving me finding construction workers who speak no english - see earlier posts - of course, query legality, as there is absolutely no shortage whatsoever of workers who will do construction in the heart of america at a time when the umemployment rate is hovering near 7-10% and it is relatively difficult to pass through the american educational system and have absolutely zero english profeciency. As in, unable to communicate in english that you don't speak english. I can, right now, perform that feat of wonder in 6 languages in whose countries I haven't illegally been working). So, WTF. Honestly, and they wonder why people are forced to resort to vigilante violence. Enforce the laws and make this world liveable, now. I really cannot listen to any more construction.

What is Modal and why is it so absurdly soft?

2009-03-10T14:49:00.006Z

I should start by recommending that if you are not familiar with modal, you should immediately buy a shirt made out of it. It is like really soft light cotton, just drapes wonderfully and is like magic. And it is not expensive.

Evidently it is made from reconstituted cellulose from beech trees. This evidently means it is a variation on rayon.

So what exactly is rayon? Absolutely fascinating. So rayon is "technically" not an artificial fiber because it is made from trees BUT is treated as artificial because of the enormous amount of work required to turn the beech tree into rayon. Which doesn't really make sense to me because it's not as though they just picked the cotton for my sweatshirt and boom, there it was, but whatever. Miscellaneous information: rayon was originally created in the late 1800s by the French as a silk alternative.

The process of production is rather complex, so I'm just going to quote it from here: "The manufacture of rayon begins with cellulose, frequently extracted from wood pulp, although any plant material with long molecular chains is suitable. The cellulose is steeped in caustic soda, which concentrates some of the cellulose into soda cellulose, which is then rolled or pressed to remove excess soda solution. After pressing, the cellulose is shredded into a substance called white crumb.

The white crumb is allowed to oxidize, forming shorter molecular chains, and treated with carbon disulfide. The soda cellulose reacts with this substance, forming yellow crumb due to inorganic compounds that emerge during the chemical process. This yellow crumb is dissolved in a caustic solution, which relaxes the hydrogen bonds in the cellulose, producing a highly viscous substance. This substance gives its name to the manufacturing process, called the viscose process.

This viscous fluid is allowed to age, breaking down the cellulose structures further to produce an even slurry, and then filtered to remove impurities. Small air pockets are forced out to ensure a strong, even fiber, and the mixture is forced through a spinner, which forms many even strands of fine thread that enter a setting solution to form cellulose filaments: also called rayon. The rayon is stretched to form a strong, even bond, washed, and then formed into rayon fabric."

The process for making modal is a variation on this, known as polynosic. So some of the differences that make rayon very different from the magnificence of modal include that the molecular chain length of the cellulose is twice as long as traditional rayon and it is actually a mix of rayon and polyester fibers.

Modal is trademarked by Lenzing AG, which also has Tencel, another excellent fiber. Here is a video babbling on about the lovely textiles -it is in German, but it is pretty easy to get the idea.

Monkeys pt. 9

2009-03-08T17:44:00.009Z

Commerical Abuse of Monkeys!

A broad subject. We will start with totally random things.

1) Career Builder's use of monkeys:

So career builder created an ad campaign that had to do with monkeys some time back. In case you don't remember, here i s a link to a boardroom full of monkeys dressed in rather elegant s uits, a table covered with bananas, and a disturbed regular white-collar worker. A little weirder, and as part of some sort of "alernative" viral marketing campaign, they offered up the monk-e-mail, an e-mail, the content of which contained a monkey. An example is offered here (courtesy of this site).

Okay, so this is just kind of weird and honestly, a general problem with using animals for commercial purposes. Not only is career builder relying on stereotypes to characterize monkeys but it is also using them for commercial gain, none of which goes to the monkeys. Actually, I don't know that. But I'm willing to guess that these monkeys didn't receive trusts as a result of their work. I'm actually not kidding on that point. I do kind of have an issue with this, just based on the general view that you should gain based on your work, so although perhaps the trainers etc. should receive some recompense, clearly the monkeys should as well. No really, I mean it.

2) Insane people concerned with monkeys in the media:

Um, right. So some character named "Mr. Monkey" rather unironically made a list of famo us monkeys. It is full of great information, like that Howard Stern had a monkey on his show - except of course that Baba Booey is not a monkey but a nickname for a person, so it really only vaguely has to do with monkeys.

Someone I had almost forgotten about - Elijah, the pet chimp in Being John Malkovich. I've seen the movie several hundred times but didn't think of him, I suppose because he actually is so human in the movie. And is really given more attention than some of the characters by Cameron Diaz (in one of her great roles). Theoretically at least, he is really treated as a human, being given childhood psychological trauma, just like everyone else who grew up when he did.

3) Monkeys and Reality:

Now here is a thought: wikipedia has an entry titled "List of Fictional Apes." Query whether it really makes sense to call real monkeys in movies "fictional" because they are playing characters - like if you're playing a character and you don't know it, are you really fictional? I'm not at all sure. It's rather Truman Show-esque --> so if I'm living my life and don't know that I'm a character in a film, am I really a character or am I myself? I think I'm just myself.

4) Actual documentation of my babbling:

Evidently, chimps acting are doing so in a state of terror: "In order to force them to perform, trainers often beat young chimpanzees with their fists, clubs, or even broom handles. Shock devices may also be used. This systematic pattern of abuse and dominance causes the animals to be constantly anxious and fearful, always anticipating the next blow."

Yikes. And it goes on:

"Apes are routinely beaten into submission and forced to pantomime human behaviors that are foreign and confusing. The public learns nothing about a chimpanzee or orangutan by watching him or her riding a skateboard or dancing in a tutu. In fact, it is misleading to portray these animals as cute, cuddly, childlike creatures, and doing so encourages people to acquire these intelligent, strong, and often dangerous animals as 'pets.'"

Fair point. Chimps are not particularly good pets, nor are they human. And, dear god, Jane Goodall is in support of what I'm saying, so clearly it's correct.

But really, the problem is the same as with anything - you can forget that people are horrible until you are faced with the fact that they treat animals horrifically. I wouldn't normally cite PETA as a source, but this handout makes a rather compelling case. "Steve Martin's Working Wildlife" is a fascinating example (NB that no, not the steve martin you're thinking of).

Wow. Does this guy look creepy, or what? It really isn't surprising that he disposed of an unwanted chimp in an inappropriate manner.

In any case, this diatribe could go on indefinitely. Point being, there is something to be said for not using actual animals in commerical media. Particularly monkeys. For some reason, it looks especially exploitative.

Monkeys pt. 8

2009-03-05T22:10:00.010Z

Monkeys and Cotton!

1) Sock Monkeys:

Sock Monkeys are, rather logically, monkeys made out of socks. What is a little weird about it is that the sock monkeys look like normal rather cute toys and not at all like socks. So you might be asking, what's up with with "sock" adjective?

Rockford Red Heel, a sock company that makes durable socks with red heels, takes credit for this particular creation. So much so that the socks and monkey dolls are presented side-by-side in the purchase area. Oddly, these sock monkeys cost $25-$35 each. I mean, yes, they are very cute and I am very tempted to buy one. But, really? Maybe $15? I don't know. Anyways...

Of course, the main question you're asking is, my goodness, the economy and everything the way it is, how I can afford to get Sally Jo that amazing Rockford sock monkey? Well, as luck would have it, the folks at Rockford are kind enough to offer FAQs (I will not get started on how annoying I find the use of "FAQs"). It is very simple. You need a pair of Rockford socks (you may need an additional sock if you want to make a hat) and you should probably use large size socks. Furthermore, you will need "stuffing, thread and two buttons for the eyes. Most people also do a small amount of embroidery on the face (black embroidery thread and an embroidery needle will take care of all your basic needs)." If you want accessories, facts, or delightful coffee table books, check here.

Here are the specific instructions.

I have to admit, I am extremely motivated to make one of these dolls.

And for the true aficionados, there is a sock monkey blog. Sadly, there isn't much posting, but I'm not sure how much you can talk about this subject.

There are a scary number of sites dedicated to dealing with sock monkeys:
Monkey of Sock
Sock Monkey Fun (includes a lawyer sock monkey and a featured monkey of the month)
Hazel and Melvin's Sock Monkeys (Just tons of stuff, including their saved adopted monkeys...)

Luckily, Hazel and Melvin have given me a good transition into the topic I really wanted to talk about, monkey prints.

2) Monkey Print Clothing:

Here it is, the Sock Monkey Dress. This piece is "a custom-designed, couture piece custom fit exclusively for you," including 30 faces with individual name tags. Oh, BTW, it's $1,500. For a sock monkey dress.

There are of course some more tasteful monkeys to be found. For example, the fabric finder in its "Monkey Jungle" section has a number of prints of monkeys dressed in clothes from the Renaissance era. Obviously, this is also pretty weird.

Alternatively, and while playing into the, monkeys love bananas stereotype, Hart's Fabric offers a more entertaining and kid friendly (and significantly more affordable) alternative with its "Monkey and Banana Cotton F abric Pink." Delightful, really.

Of course, what I was really looking for was a Lily Pulitzer print. Here is a great example for children, in Pink Monkey See Toile - a fun little bathing suit. You have to be a little creative to see the monkeys, particularly as they are small and rather monochromatic. But if you look closely, you will see that they have their arms interlinking and alternate between being light and dark colored. Very cute.

Cargill: Oh la pauvre bete

2009-03-05T19:07:00.003Z

So just a quick update on my high-fructose corn syrup friend of yesterday, today Cargill's rice production in Venezuela was seized by the government, i.e., nationalized.

As with many dictatorships, there are food shortages, so Chavez is blaming the rice shortage on the rice companies. Sort of an unlikely source, but hey, you don't get to be a dictator by being rational...:)

Of course, Cargill is just the beginning of the end for a travel-friendly (that is, my reason for being interested in Venezuela) country that is beautiful and could be a tourist mecca. I don't doubt that things will come back, but not any time soon (see, what happened to the Cuba of yesteryear...)

Cargill did, however, get a reassurance that no more plant takeovers were planned - not much of a reassurance from a company that just forceably seized your assets, but as good as you're going to get when you're exploiting a 2nd/3rd world country. You get what you pay for, in the end.

Intriguingly, the day before the nationalization, Cargill sold $450 B in bond notes (10 yr). Coupon about 7.35, rating A. But interesting. Did Cargill know this was coming? It was a private placement, so the info is limited, but it's a question that simply popped into my head when I noticed the timing. Given my personal business experience, the answer is yes. Which means, Chavez is in cahoots with western businesses doing business in Venezuela. Which means...a lot of really troubling things. That I won't get into, b.c. I need to return to another exercise.

Monkeys pt. 7

2009-03-04T16:05:00.009Z

Monkey Medicine!

Now I certainly didn't think I would come across this - an article on zoopharmacognosy (animal self-medication - click on the pictures to read the article), a topic that has always fascinated me, given me hope, and which I briefly got to experience while in the Amazon jungle. Over (emphasize over as this is clearly a low number, dependent on the direct derivation) 50% of modern medicines are based on natural plant sources.

The first example is of a chimpanzee experiencing fatigue, diarrhea, and discolored urine. She chooses, while separated from the group, to chew and digest some leaves of the plant Vernonia amygdalina, which contains venonine, an antibiotic and antiparasitic, that is evidently widely used by African healers to treat diseases as diverse as scurvy, malaria, and rheumatism.

A number of the other plants observed by researchers to be used by sick monkeys in the wild are antibiotics, antifungals, antiparasitics and so forth.

An interesting focus is on Aspilia leaves, the active compound of which is thiarubrine-A, found to be remarkably effective against solid tumors, i.e., cancer. (NB, that tragically, I do not have access to medical databases and as such, am limited in my ability to see how later western research may have played out - although herbal sites reiterate the findings in the wild) However, they have been shown in traditional medical circles to stop bleeding.

Particularly cool, is Karen Strier's belief that female muriqui monkeys use plants to regulate hormones. Evidently, at the beginning of their mating season, they eat a number of plants high in a substances that mimic estrogen and progesterone in the body. Subsequently, after giving birth, they eat different plants that limit the monkey's fertility. Kenneth Glander believes that howler monkeys have even attempted to control the sex of their offspring by ingesting certain plants that alter the electrical "potentials" in their reproductive tracts.

So monkeys are an excellent source of finding medications - highlight on monkeys and not on other animals, not because other animals don't engage in this behavior, but merely because they tend to do so either in a way that is more efficient or (more likely to me) in a way that is more obvious and easily comprehensible to humans and as a result, more reported in western media. NB, that insects, parasites and indigestion (due to a diet with a lot of leaves) are the main issues they face and as a result, the primary source of medicine with which we are familiar.

It is possible that in composing this series I have become somewhat biased towards monkeys in a way that I wasn't before, but this bothers me. The title, "Primates in Traditional Medicine and as Hunting Trophies" was a bit of a clue-in. In India, there are some who treat rheumatism with monkey brain consumption and asthma with monkey blood. I actually do feel a little squeamish about killing the monkeys for this purpose, but of course, there is also a public health issue since diseases can pass from primates to humans.

To actually treat primates, I found a great deal of technical information that is insufficiently interesting for me to discuss, but should you take an interest in say, the appropriate level of creatine in an adolescent chimpanzee, check out the excel chart, Nonhuman Primate Formulary.

Oh High Fructose Corn Syrup is SOOOO Good For You...

2009-03-04T12:48:00.003Z

Perhaps you have seen the HYSTERICAL commericals by the Corn Refiners Association?

Here is an example.

The Corn Refiners Association is, of course, the national organization representing the corn refining (aka, "wet milling") industry. Given the top-heavy consolidation of the farming industry, it is less than surprising that there are only 7 members of the organization, and the list certainly reads like a top ten for big gifts for good kids from Santa: Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), Cargill Inc., Corn Products International Inc., National Starch LLC, Penford Products Co., Roquette America, Inc., and Tate and Lyle Ingredients Americas, Inc. Each of course deserves its own analysis, but for now, I am focused on the commercials.

Its own website explains the media blitz (although not why they hired some horrifically ignorant ad team): "Last year, corn sweeteners supplied more than 55 percent of the U.S. nutritive sweetener market." "Nutritive sweeteners," I think entirely misleadingly, merely means that the sweetener has calories, so literally speaking, there is some type of nutrition.

But first, for those of you who didn't read the book, what is corn syrup?

Corn syrup is a syrup substance made up of cornstarch and glucose (liquid sugar). Why corn syrup? It's cheap: it is "often used in place of sugar in American-made processed and mass-produced foods, candies, and sodas to help control costs."

High-fructose corn syrup is just corn syrup on crack. Literally, it "comprises any of a group of corn syrups that has undergone enzymatic processing to increase its fructose content, and then been mixed with pure corn syrup (100% glucose )."

Anyways, pretty much all studies show a correlation between obesity and consumption of high fructose corn syrup, fructose potentially simply suppressing the sense of fullness, just to start, along with a tendency towards liver disease and diabetes, just from being exposed to it. I can't even be bothered to get into all the health issues, the massive amount of misleading information by commerical entities, the total disregard for the health of our citizens by our government (of course, that assumes that you mistakenly believe that the FDA is looking out for citizens and not the people who pay their salaries, the corporations, but that's for another time). The issue being that high fructose corn syrup has just saturated our food since it really kicked into high gear in the late seventies/early eighties. There are a lot of potential problems, the most compelling of which is that enzymes required to digest high fructose corn syrup are totally different from those required to digest normal sugar.

One of the main issues is that people don't realize that when they eat, for example, ketchup, they are ingesting a sugar substitute at all, let alone one that is terrible for the body. Also there is talk that there is mercury in it, if everything else wasn't bad enough.

If you feel like being amused, check out the spoof of the most recent commercial.

6 hour power v. 5 hour energy

2009-03-03T04:15:00.004Z

This is a truly remarkable marketing stunt to me.

The standard shot energy beverage on the market was 5 hour energy. It tasted like crap, but all this stuff does.

Then, in the last month or so, "6 hour power" pops up on the market.

Now, I have a ton of 5 hour energy. From personal experience, the crap does not work. So the idea of adding to the market strikes me as totally bizarre. But obviously, the truly hilarious part is BARELY changing the idea (the packaging is quite similar) and adding an hour. It reminds me of this commercial out now about how if you buy one yogurt, you only get 80 calories and the other just fattens you up with the ABSURD figure of 100 calories. Honestly, if you are in a situation where 20 calories is going to make a major difference for you, you're either an infant or insane.

Monkeys pt. 6

2009-03-03T00:07:00.006Z

Monkeys for sale!

So in general, buying animals is sketchy for any number of reasons. To really generalize, it seems to me that people who get involved in selling animals are interested in profit (obviously) and are generally taking advantage not only of the animals but more over of those purchasing the animals. But let's see how that plays out for monkeys.

We'll start with technicalities. Monkeys become sexually mature at approximately 30 months. Typically a female has a monkey a year, with a 160 day gestation period. Occasionally (like with humans) twins are born, and most births are at night. As logic would suggest, generally monkey births are timed to coincide with an abundance of food in their environment. Specifically, "monkeys living in Brazil, Peru and Colombia have sexual union during June to August which is a dry season. So that the birth may occur on wet season in which food availability is abundant and female can spend less time on foraging." The men are not involved in raising in the baby.

Controversy: problems begin when you recognize that much monkey breeding is done for the purpose of using the off-spring for laboratory trials, i.e., shooting them full of things and treating them in ways that the FDA won't currently allow humans to be treated. In this photo, you can see the protests treatment of monkeys in Nepal.
In fact, 120 airlines around the world have prohibited the transportation of monkeys aboard their planes (only 12 airlines still allow for this). The main issue is that monkeys are often kidnapped from the wild and then transported to these "breeding areas" and then sold as though they were bred there, even though they were actually kidnapped. I suppose it doesn't technically matter, except that western countries can't pillage 3rd world countries for their own amusement and potential scientific gain. That just doesn't go over well.

Speaking of the protesters to the right, Nepal banned the export of monkeys late last year. Not that that necessarily means anything. If you want to see a really brutal video of the treatment of the animals, see here. Even fast-forwarding through it, I had major issues watching it.

But ignoring the political etc. issues, let's say you plan on buying a monkey. Some of them are terribly cute, especially when clinging to toys ( :-)). Price for a monkey seems to start somewhere around $2500, although depending on the specific type of monkey, the price can be upwards of $10,000. Here is another site with monkeys for sale.

Here's an intriguing note on a monkey-for-sale site: "Until now, all primates on our "Monkeys for sale"-page were sold within a month (mostly days after our monthly email)."So evidently there is a high-demand for monkeys.

Perhaps my favorite random site is generally speaking about young children wanting animals and then launches, somewhat inexplicably, into a discussion of pet monkeys. Like that's a standard pet purchase for young children.

Particular concerns including finding a vet that will treat the monkey, getting nasty disease that are rather easily transmitted from monkeys to humans, and the circumstances in which the monkey was raised. Problem with the last being that "primates that are isolated or confined in cramped quarters are far more likely to be neurotic and aggressive," i.e., psychological damage inflicted on infant primates can cause permanent damage, as with humans.

I have to be honest here - I can't possibly understand why a person would want a pet monkey or would want to take care of what has obviously been proven, over and over again, to be an uncontrollable animal. Here are some thoughts along those lines. Since you now can't ship a monkey across state lines, it's going to be even harder to buy a monkey. So ideally this will be less of an issue. Honestly, if you think you need a monkey to pass the time, you really, really need a hobby. Seriously.

Crossing a Picket Line

2009-03-02T23:45:00.003Z

So I have no interest, ever, in crossing a picket line. I know it's a little dated, but I am hugely in favour of unions and union rights and pay that is sufficient to support a family and benefits commensurate with living and paying taxes in a first-world country.

So imagine my dismay when a few days ago en route to an appointment I noticed an inflatable rat and several union members standing outside my sister's old apartment building (across the street from mine). That is that, and it wouldn't have surprised me at all as I was always a little suspicious of the management of the building. But the real problem was that the union members surrounded the whole block, including a fish restaurant, a blockbuster, and most tragically, the whole foods. See the thing is, whole foods is the only supermarket within an 8 block radius and moreover, the only one at all that stocks the gluten-free foods I need to survive. But I can't cross a picket line. So I stayed away for days, waiting, hoping, that at 5 today, for some magical reason, the union folk would leave.

They were gone, and I got my necessary supplies, but I felt and feel horrible. I feel like I crossed the line even though I didn't, technically at least. Of course, my whole premise in entering the whole foods is that whole foods is not actually the subject of the protest; rather, the owner of the building is the subject (everything is housed in one like 30-40 story building). If it was actually the whole foods, well, I don't know what I would do. I suppose I would have to find rice flour and start making my own pizzas and pretzels. Probably a good survival exercise, but not sure I am up to that on the handful of hours of awakedness I have per day.

Random plug - glutino products, while wildly-overpriced, rock. I will do a separate posting of the best gluten-free foods so you don't have to spend years trying all kinds of creepy stuff like I did.

Monkeys: pt 5

2009-03-02T04:26:00.005Z

What do Monkeys Eat??

First off, interesting fact. Monkeys are generally herbivores or omnivores. Interestingly, there is a particular type of primate known as the Tarsier that is actually a carnivore. It is also incredibly creepy looking. (see creepy looking thing just below) The Tarsier lives in the islands of Southeast Asia, although fossil records show that it once may have roamed most continents. To be more clear, are mostly "insectivorous," which of course means they eat insects, but also partake of a tasty small bird, snake, lizard or bat, as the fancy hits them.

Most monkey herbivores are in the region of Asia. It's difficult being a herbivore. With more intestines and stomach acid than other monkeys, including "little compartments, called saccules, and in each one there is bacteria and different kinds of enzymes to break down the plant matter," there is quite a bit of work in being a monkey that eats plants.

On the other hand, most monkey omnivores are in the Americas. Some are even aficionados of shellfish. They can be rather aggressive in their tactics, indeed "several species of monkeys, and chimpanzees, but not the other apes, have been known to attack and eat other monkeys. Baboons, the most adept hunters on the ground, often eat meat and sometimes manage to kill small antelope." Yes, they eat each other as well as small antelope.

Monkeys do also eat bananas. Here is a wonderfully bizarre article about why monkeys were originally associated with bananas. As with many things, it is the fault of white people (which may of course be true. I certainly don't know). This particular argument is that the Americans took over the Philippines, they ate bananas there, and so to mock them, cartoonists showed monkeys eating bananas, i.e., equating the locals with bananas.

While it is certainly true that cartoonists were big on racial stereotypes during that time period, it seems remarkable to me that I've never heard this before (especially since I had almost an entire class in middle school on racial stereotypes in cartoons - it was supposed to be American history).

Far more bizarre, the monkey/banana association has led to a classic programming/logic problem known as the "Monkey and banana problem." (here's a breakdown for those who care, taken from here: "The Monkeys and Bananas Problem
Consider the following synchronization problem. A boat delivers bananas to a desert island which is inhabited only by monkeys. The boat delivers one load of bananas at a time, but the load has a variable number of bananas in it; when it arrives, it calls the deliver(int nbananas) function, where nbananas specifies how many are delivered (at least one is always delivered). Bananas are placed in a crate on the beach. When a monkey is hungry, it goes to the crate. If there are enough bananas in the crate, it takes what it needs; otherwise, it joins a queue of monkeys waiting for the boat. The monkeys are greedy and are not always satisfied with just one banana. A monkey wanting to get nbananas bananas calls monkey(int nbananas). Calling monkey should cause it to wait in the queue until it gets nbananas bananas, then leave. A monkey will to stay at the head of the queue until it has all the bananas it wants, rather than, for instance, grabbing 3 out of 4 bananas and then going to the back of the queue to wait for its final banana.
Devise a solution for the monkeys-and-bananas problem which follows the rules given above, and incorporates
correct concurrency control using only semaphores.
We can use a semaphore as a counter to count the number of bananas. The head monkey needs to be treated
specially, since it has to stay at the head of the queue until it gets all the bananas it wants. Therefore we
make the head monkey wait on the bananas semaphore and create a separate semaphore for the rest of the
monkeys, which we call queue. The head monkey signals queue when it has all the bananas it wants, as
long as at least one monkey is waiting in the queue. Since we cannot determine the queue value ourselves,
we need a separate variable to count how many monkeys are waiting by the crate, and we protect this
variable with the semaphore mutex. Here's a solution:
sem bananas = 0; // could initialise to any value
sem queue = 0; // all monkeys except head monkey wait here
int monkeys = 0;
sem mutex; // to protect "monkeys"
// put "nbananas" bananas in the crate
void deliver(int nbananas) {
for (int i=0; isignal(bananas);
}
// monkey wants "nbananas" bananas
void monkey(int nbananas) {
wait (mutex);
monkeys++;
if (monkeys > 1) { // i.e. there was already a head monkey
signal(mutex);
wait(queue);
}
else
signal(mutex);
// now I am the head monkey
for (int i=0; iwait(bananas);
// wake up the next monkey
wait(mutex);
monkeys--;
if (monkeys > 0)
signal(queue);
signal(mutex);
}"

Yeah. I don't know why, but that doesn't seem terribly complicated to me, except for the obvious issue that each monkey can be a bottomless pit and I suppose to go anywhere, you would have to specify in the program that once a crate was empty, the head monkey had to leave or at least move to the back of the line. Sure, there's the uncertainty, but you always have that where free will is concerned. But, clearly, very clearly, I digress here.

Finally, I will share the story of a crazy Canadian fellow who decided to subsist on monkey food pellets. He lasted a week and it didn't go well. He did lose a few pounds, but evidently lost his mind in the process.

Wired is not a legitimate publication

2009-03-01T14:33:00.002Z

I draw this conclusion from two articles I came across during recent research.

Example 1: "Laziness Could be the Basis of Bipedalism, Human Civilization"

Summary argument: "Why do humans walk on two legs? Because it's easier than walking on four"

Great. That would be a great argument, if it weren't the case that it would be easier for EVERYTHING then. So why in the world would humans choose to do this (and the chimp/human I highlighted in a post a few days ago) and pretty much everyone else would go on walking around on all fours? Honestly, I am offended that this is even on the internet. It may as well be some Nigerian scammer's website.

Example 2: "Scientists Find Genetic Root of Opposable Thumb, Upright Gait"

Summary: a gene was found that when spliced into rats etc. activated thumbs and big toes.

AND?!?

They show a "picture" (very fuzzy, hard to tell what's going on but from what I can gather, the rat in question has five appendages sticking out of its hand, none of which look like a thumb) and then conclude of the gene in question, "So perhaps HACNS1 is what allowed human beings to develop tools and civilization -- and car insurance and bombs."

Um, right. Something that kind of maybe causes a rat to develop a "thumb"-type thing that is further away than normal likely led to car insurance and bombs. That makes a lot of sense. In stupid world.

Monkeys: pt 4

2009-03-01T09:18:00.004Z

Opposable Thumbs!

Of course, when most people think of the advantages of primates, they think of opposable thumbs, reason being that this is the major physical distinction between other animals and primates. There is even a reference (perhaps multiple?) to the utility of opposable thumbs in the movie Madagascar 2.

In my study of what makes the opposable thumb so great, I clearly stumbled across some weak sources. For example, one site is telling me that sans opposable thumb, I would not only be unable to touch other fingers to each other (just tried it - untrue) but that moreover, picking up a piece of paper would be entirely impractical (don't even need to try it because I know from personal experience that is totally untrue - it makes very little difference whether you use your thumb after about 15 minutes of practice).
Phrased differently, this doesn't seem as unreasonable, although it still seems inaccurate: "The thumb, unlike other fingers, is opposable, in that it is the only digit on the human hand which is able to oppose or turn back against the other four fingers, and thus enables the hand to refine its grip to hold objects which it would be unable to do otherwise. The opposable thumb has helped the human species develop more accurate fine motor skills. It is also thought to have directly led to the development of tools, not just in humans or their evolutionary ancestors, but other primates as well. The opposable thumb ensured that important human functions such as writing were possible. The thumb, in conjunction with the other fingers make humans and other species with similar hands some of the most dexterous in the world.^"

For example, the only reason writing is easier is that we rest the instrument on the thumb. It doesn't have to be opposable for that. It could be a stick of wood.

Um, okay. Ignoring that this simply has not been my experience with my thumbs in the past (or is it as I sit here and play with them trying to figure out what all this could possibly be referring to) let's assume it's true. Thumbs are better tools than normal fingers. Great. But what's the HUGE advantage that allows man to rule the planet? The development of tools? Seriously? I mean, koalas essentially have opposable thumbs and they spend most of their time sleeping, the rest getting high on eucalyptus and being extremely aggressive towards anything that comes near them. What happened there with the god-like intervention of the opposable thumb? Ditto for pandas.

Onto some interesting randomness: monkeys have opposable thumbs that are higher up on their palms than their other fingers, which at the very least, could make some difference.

Finally, on my point that this all sounds like a lot of nonsense, please read the Onion's news-breaking article about dolphins developing opposable thumbs and how this clearly means that we will no longer be a superior species. Seriously folks, it's a thumb. It doesn't do much. People get by just fine without them. Weirdly, I have to make an argument I'm uncomfortable with here, which is that the whole focus on opposable thumbs and their greatness is a reactionary stance by educators attempting to justify an evolutionary curriculum as important to science. I am totally for teaching evolution, but not at the expense of spouting nonsense or overinflating borderline irrelevant issues. Yes, the opposable thumb is useful. No, it is not some panacea that separates us from other animals and no, it should not be used as a political ploy that poisions and confuses childrens minds. Just tell them about the findings on the Galapagos, explain how certain people drew other conclusions from that and move on. Enough with the ridiculous opposable thumb nonsense.

Tennis Balls for reasons that have nothing to do with tennis...

2009-03-01T00:29:00.004Z

So in checking out to clean a patagonia jacket, I came across the following instruction re: cleaning: "For best results dry with 2 clean tennis balls."

Of course, that was way too weird not to read over twice. Which I did, and still had no idea what they could possibly be talking about. I spent a childhood drowning in tennis balls and never once did anyone pop a few in the dryer. What is this about?

Insanely enough, there are actually people who have chosen to use tennis balls in lieu of traditional dryer balls, and in fact, some weird enough to drop tennis SHOES in the dryer to create some sort of anti-cling effect. More specifically, some have chosen a detailed method involving using white vinegar instead of fabric softener and then putting 3 tennis balls in the dryer. Another individual claims that tennis balls actually speed up the drying process and moreover make the items being dried fluffier (critics note the danger that when using new tennis balls, the dye can come off and stain the products one is intending to clean).

There are however, sharper critics, indicating all sorts of calamities that can occur if you place tennis balls in the dryer. However, these appear to be industry people whose products would be replaced by the tennis ball method. (again, kudos to the Chicago Tribune for consistently publishing industry propaganda. it is truly remarkable the lack of journalistic integrity).

Moreover, there is an entire list of 50 things to do with tennis balls that have absolutely nothing to do with tennis. Among the more interesting items:
1) Tennis balls with holes drilled in them have been used in the UK as protective homes for field mice. Pet mice or hamsters may enjoy them, too!
2) Protect your surfboard when it goes on an airplane journey.
3) If you or your partner (or, if you’re really unlucky, the guy in the next apartment) snore, attach a pocket to the back of the snorer’s pajamas and secure a tennis ball inside. This will ensure that the snorer sleeps on his/her side - most people snore only when sleeping on their backs.
4) If you want to leave your car door open but don’t want the interior lights to run down the battery, just wedge a tennis ball into the door frame to keep the light switch depressed.

I am now inspired to find other, obscure, uses for totally random things that almost no one uses anymore. I hope you are too.

Monkeys: pt 3

2009-02-28T05:12:00.004Z

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

2009-02-27T08:28:00.004Z

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

2009-02-27T07:17:00.005Z

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

2009-02-26T22:18:00.002Z

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

2009-02-26T05:37:00.005Z

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?

2009-02-24T21:30:00.004Z

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

2009-02-23T20:05:00.002Z

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

2009-02-20T01:20:00.003Z

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"

2009-02-19T20:38:00.002Z

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!

2009-02-19T06:23:00.003Z

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...

2009-02-19T04:56:00.006Z

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

2009-02-19T03:27:00.002Z

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)

Zimbabwe

2009-01-11T00:44:00.004Z

Okay, so this is a situation that, as with most situations in Africa, has been ignored/overlooked. At least it hasn't received the attention it should. Zimbabwe's currency has been spiraling out of control for a while, news agencies are largely unable to report and yet we know that diseases controlled by modern medicine are out of control, like cholera (wouldn't normally put up an al jazeera article, but you take what you can get) and HIV/AIDS-related deaths all of which obviously began with Mugabe's ill-fated decision to throw the white colonial-left-over farmers off their land and out of the country. Obviously, one can follow his logic and motives. Here are the remnants of the oppressors, who effectively still control the land and thus the economics of the country so it makes sense to want to get that land back. It's been done in other places. Here was the rub with Zimbabwe.

Let's go back a couple months and look at the bizarre take of an IHT article. (disclaimer: I am a huge fan the IHT but, very rarely, it belies the troubling European ethos that states that all Europeans must feel guilt for the sins of their ancestors and anything that even looks like that - of course, OF COURSE, ignoring anything that happened to the jewish people, but hey, that's europe) Clearly, that level of inflation has nothing to do with aid from foreign countries. The use of foreign currency in lieu of using the country's own currency has been relatively common throughout the world and is no cause for concern, and really, quite prudent given a level of inflation that is literally, impossible for Westerners to comprehend.

But back to my point, the current country of Zimbabwe has a recent past. And the past of the land before it is quite tumultuous. As a result, whites managed to hold onto more land here than in other countries that had been emancipated from British rule. And that was basically Zimbabwe's story: Agriculture. So here's the scenario - you take the people who are driving the economy, throw them out of the country unceremoniously, redistribute their land in a way that is questionable even to the people it is meant to help, fail to engage in a comprehensive program to teach the new owners of the land about how to produce agriculture (and perhaps give the land to people who have no particular interest in or need for engaging in this activity), agriculture production and thus exports drop dramatically. And the economy plunges into disaster. See wikipedia for a broader overview.

Here's what sums it up, from above cite: "Life expectancy at birth for males in Zimbabwe has dramatically declined since 1990 from 60 to 37, among the lowest in the world. Life expectancy for females is even lower at 34 years."

My point is that we can't really ignore this stuff as it ultimately becomes a problem for the whole world but at the same time, nobody can really blame the West for this. This was Mugabe and the failure of an organized group of rational people to take over the government. Every country has to take over its government at some point to set it straight.

What fascinates me most about this is that circa 1998 I planned to engage in a semester-long homestay in what appeared to be a hut in Zimbabwe. I snapped myself out of that plan, but I wish I'd done it, even though my department wasn't really going to let me do and I don't know what would have happened on that end, but it would be nice to know someone on the inside and ask where the rebels are and why they don't have enough power. This again is another situation that may beg for international intervention, but not in the lame UN/European form. Perhaps we need to help Zimbabwe by sending in/aiding rebels. I KNOW this hasn't worked in the past, but it also has worked. I think it's the only bone we can really throw this difficult situation.

Latest scam e-mail and response

2008-12-30T21:48:00.002Z

Apart from being bored and annoyed by these e-mails, I find them a bit of an affront to mankind in their idiocy and the fact that people (based on my internet research) actually respond to them and end up giving over their account numbers, and then end up in massive debt. I just feel that if people are going to be caught up in scams, they shouldn't be so obviously ridiculous. It reflects poorly on us. Below is my e-mailed response to the fellow who sent me my most recent scam e-mail, with the e-mail below that. I mean, if you're going to engage in the business of international fraud, your sell should at least be credible.
_______________________________________________________________
Rather an interesting scam e-mail. A few flaws.

Microsoft's European headquarters is in Paris, not Liverpool. If you seriously think anyone in the UK would believe that Microsoft's European headquarters is in Liverpool, you're a fool.

The name of the "from" address is actually a rather respected figure in Brazil. It's unlikely he would be coordinating random lottery winnings, and all the more unlikely that he had suddenly moved to Liverpool to take on Microsoft's non-existent headquarters. Microsoft doesn't even have an office in Liverpool.

The e-mail address in the "from" section has absolutely no correspondence to the name of the individual sending the e-mail. This is unusual and actually, again, absurd. Moreover, it is from a Mechanical Engineering company in Rio, which takes about 3 seconds to find out. Again, begging the question of why someone at this company would be sending you to someone in Liverpool.

Point being, an e-mail with a Brazilian ending, supposedly sent from the Microsoft headquarters in Liverpool (which obviously should then be a Microsoft e-mail with a UK ending) that is then supposed to be sent back to an e-mail address in Hong Kong is a dead give-away for a scam. You may as well have set up a Nigerian e-mail address.

Another question is why Microsoft and AOL would be engaged in some bizarre joint venture, not to mention the fact that AOL doesn't exist (and hasn't for while existed) as an independent company. Time Warner is the name of the company and would have to authorize any such bizarreness and would be the name you would use.

Am fascinated to know what a "commemorative draw" is and why I should care. Looks like someone (who by the way, is unfamiliar with basic English grammar and sentence structure, again, a dead give away) has been watching too much late night tv and thinks people will confuse the all valuable "commemorative coins" with a "commemorative draw" and just send all their personal and financial information away to strangers half-way across the world.

And finally, why exactly would the mailing address for this bizarre agent be in Norfolk while he has a Hong Kong e-mail address? I mean, it's really easy to set up a UK e-mail address, if you seriously think you're going to get people to give you their account numbers when your only e-mail address is a yahoo address.

Oh, and BTW, what does an "e-mail beta test" have to do with this random lottery you've concocted? Might want to have someone review your scams going forward.

Hope you get tracked down and jailed.

--- On Tue, 30/12/08, Helcio Rangel Orlande wrote:

From: Helcio Rangel Orlande
Subject: SERIAL NUMBER MIC-AOL/8302/08...
To:
Date: Tuesday, 30 December, 2008, 8:03 AM

Dear Sir/ Madam,

The prestigious Microsoft and AOL has set out and successfully organized a
Sweepstakes marking the year 2008 anniversary we rolled out over US$
400,419,864 for our end of year/ Christmas Anniversary Draws. Participants
for the draws were randomly selected and drawn from a wide range of web
hosts which we enjoy their patronage.The selection was made through a
computer draw system attaching personalized email addresses to ticket
numbers. If you ignore this massage, you will defiantly regret it later.
Microsoft and AOL are now the largest Internet companies & in effort to
make
sure that Internet Explorer remain the most widely used program, Microsoft
and AOL are running an e-mail beta test.

Your email address as indicated was drawn and attached to reference and
ticket number 008795727498  with serial numbers MIC-AOL/8302/08 and drew the
lucky numbers  14-18-25-39-53-47 (10) which subsequently won you £ 1,000,000
( One Million  Great Britain Pounds)  as one of the  jackpot winners in this
draw. You have therefore won the entire winning sum of £ 1,000,000 (One
Million Great Britain Pounds) the draws registered as Draw number one was
conducted in Liverpool, UK. 29th December, 2008. These draws are
commemorative and as such special.               

Please be informed by this winning notification to file your claims
immediately. You are advised to make contact to your referred agent who will
by duty guide you through the process to facilitate the release of your
winning prize. To file for this claims, Please Contact your referred agent
with your verification information as required on the form below, beginning
the claims of your winnings funds as conducted by the lottery company.

We dedicate our special thanks & gratitude to Bill Gates {Now Retired from
Microsoft Corporations} .We wish you the best of luck as you spend your good
fortune in this season.

Note: You have Three (3) weeks from the date of this publication to claim
your prize or you may forfeit your winnings. Thank you for being part of our
commemorative end of year/ Christmas Anniversary Draws.

Find below your referred agent and the verification form:

Address: 18 South Drive, Hepwo rth,Diss,Norfolk, IP22 2HF, UK
Contact Agent: Mr. David Oliver
Email: mic_aol.oliverdesk@yahoo.com.hk

Name: ..................................
Country of Origin.......................
Place of Residence......................
Occupation..............................
Sex/Age.................................
Telephone/Fax...........................
Winning Email ID........................

NOTE: DUE TO FRAUDSTERS, WE HAVE DECIDED TO EFFECT TRANSFER TO YOUR BANK
ACCOUNT ONLY AND WHEN CONTACTING YOUR REFERRED AGENT, DO QUOTE YOUR TICKET
NUMBER AND SERIAL NUMBER FOR SECURITY REASONS.

Helcio Rangel Orlande
Public Relations Officer
Microsoft Corporation
Liverpool, United Kingdom,
Europe Headquaters.

Doctors

2008-12-20T06:50:00.002Z

I'm in the initial stages on this, but I am thinking something dramatic has to be done about the power of doctors to control the care that patients receive. See, I wouldn't feel so strongly about it, but for the fact that medicine, while it pretends to be cutting edge, is in many ways in its infancy. So it begs the question, if doctors don't really know what they're doing, why should what they say/decide trump what the patient knows? I'm reminded of a story I told this afternoon about a former otolaryngologist who told me my ears, medically-speaking, were not stuffed up when in fact, they had felt severely stuffed-up (to the point of pain) for weeks and I needed to take a flight so I finally went in to see whether I could go. He didn't propose an alternate theory, an explanation, suggestions for care etc. Clearly, something was wrong. But because he couldn't identify it, he sent me on my way, essentially telling me I was mistaken about the very real medical problem I was having. I have an infinite number of these stories, as I imagine many people do. I believe it's a combination of pride, lack of knowledge about other specialities where symptoms may mimic issues mistaken for that specialty, denial about lack of information in the medical sciences, and a fear that should patients know how little doctors know, chaos would reign.

Joke? + "kipling only goes so far in federal court"

2008-12-20T06:39:00.005Z

So I'm unclear as to whether this is a joke or some sort of tourist promotion. Having spent some time in Tunisia, I can't imagine what in the world this woman is talking about in suggesting that a single mother move there with her child. I am also curious as to why there are basically no other relevant suggestions. But I have made my complaint about yahoo answers in an earlier post so I'll let that go for now.

Anderson Cooper is sometimes extremely witty and dry. I appreciate that in a news anchor. That is my explanation of the title quote.

I also was highly amused that a friend called me out on the terms and conditions violation of gmail talk this week due to foreign language profanity. Again, witty and dry in its complex statement about america. Oh, on so many levels.

"and the bleeps are not really bleeps"

2008-12-10T03:21:00.001Z

Ah Fitzgerald - you amuse me to no end, despite the oddness of your voice.

How could I possibly confuse Chistoper Buckley and Martin Scorsese?

2008-10-22T14:29:00.005Z

Answer: I have picked up a bug again. I don't know what is up with my immune system but it is really being a brat this year. I even got the flu shot a couple weeks ago at some airport kiosk. Particularly at the critical election time. I'm rather excited, suddenly (as I previously didn't care at all b.c. it just means my taxes are going to go up, my services will go down, and we will do something idiotic in the Middle East that cannot be undone - please, Barack, I beg you, leave Iran alone. They are mostly good people and a concerted and slightly more subversive CIA effort can solve all our problems - and will cause WWIII and as a result of all these, I will likely have to leave the country and I kind of don't feel like it given recent personal circumstances) due to my forced involvement in the political process, which most of you know about. Well, like the umpteenth forced involvement, but the biggie. I'm not upset, I actually am having a fabulous time. I didn't even mind stuffing envelopes, which last election I was like, I've been forced to do this since I was eight, I refuse. Find people more enthusiastic about democracy. For those of you who don't know about political campaigns, they basically run on a few over-zealous young young people who are stressed to their limits and have to take significant vacations when the election is over along with an army of housewives and retirees who do the bulk of the dirty (albeit simple) work (and any child labor they can round up :)). The key is to keep the latter group entertained so it is good to chat and encourage chatting amongst the volunteers. If the main people can stand it, some background music or a television with news helps quite a bit. Although it might appear to slow down the process, it engenders a more positive mood, keeping the volunteers there longer and causing them to come back more frequently and bring friends and as a result, there is more work done and greater efficiency, as seemingly ironic as that is. Sadly, a lot of the stressed-out young-ins, as much as they think they're tuned into the subleties of people's preferences, aren't as maniacally good at manipulating/reading people as myself and so these end up being missed opportunities for them and they have to stuff envelopes themselves to finish off that last batch that lovely Mrs. Smith, who has been sitting in her house two blocks away watching Jeopardy most of the afternoon, would have been happy to do if she were offered a pleasant environment.

Moveon Obama Pin

2008-10-18T15:42:00.004Z

Okay, so I have slammed Moveon repeatedly due to their overly aggressive ads and rather insane emails which are supposed to make me believe that a 10-year old's future depends on whether people vote Obama or McCain. I find that to be a naive belief in the good that government will do versus the reality of what every government does, which is basically the same thing, sometimes with a twist of lemon. Like Johnson signed the Civil Rights bill. That was clearly a twist of lemon, although he was essentially forced to politically after Kennedy's assassination, so it's a twist, but out of political necessity, so really it was politics as usual. Admittedly, there is really crazy stuff that goes on, like Bush subversively funding religious organizations and the abstinence only stuff and even allowing schools to not teach evolution (kids, if someone didn't teach you about evolution I'm willing to bet that your lifetime earnings potential has been significantly reduced and you will likely spend hours confused trying to understand what's going on on tv as evolution is the scientific and social underpinning of our society. whether you believe in it or not is a whole different matter, but to not teach it at all? sounds an awful lot like going to a partisan school that leaves you unprepared for the real world....). So I will admit that Bush has done/allowed a lot of crazy right-wing stuff to go down - f/x we basically have a court ready to overturn roe v. wade, at which point I'm seriously leaving the country because I refuse to return to the dark ages. I mean what's next? Am I going to be relegated to housework and popping out 15 children? Not that any woman who does that would read this, but you should really wake up. This is it. This is your life and every minute that ticks by is one more that you are losing to the patriarchy and its preferences and values. You must have dreams, passions, even passing thoughts, about incredible things you could do for yourself or others - they're never going to happen unless you walk away from all this and go and do them. The world deserves to have you take these actions, become that complete person who has children but also is helping the world to be a better place. Don't forget about that second part.
You may notice that my tangent deviates significantly from the subject line. Point being, I finally got my moveon.org Obama pin in the mail. I figured why not, even though, as I was alluding to before, I find their tactics at best annoying (but of course, I'm not the target group, although I should be as I am an undecided voter, although the indecision has more to do with which family member I plan to write in) BUT (focus) the pin is AWESOME. This is the coolest Obama pin I have seen yet. It is totally old school and hearkens back to Kennedy. Props to moveon for this. They gave out 2.2 million so they're out (checked because once I saw it, I wanted all my friends to have it) and I'm a poll watcher on election day so I can't wear it, but it's awesome. Funny how all the political brats, even at this age, have the buttons from their parents' campaigns lying around their apartments, however small (the apartment). Yes, that was totally unrelated, but not and again, if you can't keep up with the flow of my logic, you need to do some of those brain exercises, maybe more crossword puzzles (although I can't stand those, but my younger sister greatly enjoyed them through college, law school and I believe barbri).
Hmmm, maybe I should move to LA and become an actress? That's way beyond even a pipe dream since my parents smashed my dreams of becoming an actress when they refused to allow me to attend the top arts academy high school in the country to pursue my acting career and instead sent me to the ivy league to map out my genes (that was actually really cool, albeit not productive in terms of becoming an actress). Of course, when I start going too far with these plans I have to stop myself and say, wait, are you really just thinking this is a good idea because you're manic, and I ponder that for a while. There are many signs that that is the cause, usually a disconnect between the proposed action and my staid lifetime goals (which have been on a sheet of paper for years now and have not changed, except for the specification of winning a great prize specified to winning the nobel). And for the haters out there, yes I am serious about the nobel. Haters including my brother. I mean, you win too. You'll get to say your sister won the nobel prize. Think it through. Maybe you had too many oysters.

That election thing...

2008-10-17T06:04:00.002Z

As my public service message of the year, here is an organization, non-partisan, that is dedicated to making sure that voters are not disenfranchised, basically focusing on mistakes made at the polling places. And of course, anything that's not a mistake and is intimidation or other nutty stuff (heard a great one today where evidently they were telling people that if they voted and had an outstanding parking ticket they would be arrested - brilliant scam, totally untrue). You can go to the website and sign up to volunteer in all sorts of capacities. Come on, do something for our democracy.

From Sarah Silverman...

2008-10-17T04:59:00.003Z

"Sarah, I was in serious medical danger and you didn't even care."
"Steve, I cared. I texted you."

OMG is she funny. Esp. b.c. that was sufficient.

Lawsuit Against God

2008-10-15T20:27:00.002Z

Wow. So a number of people have commented to me lately about the relatively low bar set for politicians. However, just straight out insanity is a whole different game. Who is voting for this character? How did he become a senator? And why is our legal system so goofy that the way this got kicked out of court was on the basis of the failure to serve papers on God?

Goal Orientation

2008-10-14T22:15:00.003Z

So my new thing that randomly popped into my head (such things I trust quite a bit more than those that come about after significant thought and reflection) is that I need to engage exclusively in goal-oriented behavior. The problem isn't so much with me as I'm relatively goal oriented but with the world, which is overwhelmingly, in all ways shapes and forms, not goal oriented. Except to the extent that the "goal" is dealing with one's self and being self-involved. Which just doesn't count as far as I'm concerned. Being an idiot doesn't qualify one as goal oriented. Although to be fair, often people are in a technical sense being goal oriented but their goals are so inane and useless to society that they fall squarely in the category of idiots, just to be clear. Often people are confused and think that when I refer to idiots I'm only referring to people with IQs of 85 and below while I am actually referring to the mass of humanity. But point being that I need to rid myself of all these people and their nonsense and their distractions and focus on what I want to do and instead of spending all my time dealing with things they should have professionals address I can actually work on my business projects. And sleep.

p.s. the illustration addresses the bell curve for intelligence as measured by IQ, obviously not an accurate measure, but at the extremes, it makes its point. and mine.

Propriety Pt 2

2008-10-14T17:04:00.003Z

So what do we think of the following situation:

1) One of your closest friends asks you for advice about investing in a 401(k) given that you have a strong financial background.
2) You respond, think about it, you won't live past 60, so there's no tax benefit so no. (you're totally serious and both parties are aware of this)

Assuming this is basically factually correct on all accounts, are you supposed to tell people that they've got about 20 years less to live than the average bloke? Or should you do it more subtly? It's rather complex and depends on the situation.

Social Propriety and Crossing the Line in the Name of Humor

2008-10-14T16:03:00.004Z

So as per usual, I have Arrested Development on in the background (am in a recovery state- I really hope that the stuff that bees use to sterilize their hives is a super powerful antioxidant - magically, my supply of "Super Antioxidant," I would argue the Vitamin Shoppe's finest product, is gone from my vitamin supply) but anyways, the point is it's the episode where Michael sleeps with the blind girl as an attempt at his first one night stand and then can't walk away because he feels that it's a non-option given that she's blind. So a few questions. One - special treatment with regards to sexual interaction for those with disabilities? Really? Or should they be treated equally? Or is that somehow equal because you're balancing out for the problems related to the disability? I mean, I think you could go either way, but I just find it odd that the intuitive response is not more balanced. Two, I love this show, but this really pushes credibility to the limit that he didn't catch on to the fact that she was blind until the following morning when she spilled coffee on the floor. Of course, she's not really blind, so it's possible that his intuition told him that she wasn't so he ignored what she was setting up as signs of blindness or equal alternative, that she failed to put forth those signs. Third, and this is just a complaint, but there's a line where she makes a reference to pirates roaming the high seas in response to the fact that he's a maritime lawyer. I think it is impossible that she would have said that were it not for the set-up for the whole maritime joke of Michael playing the lawyer for Captain Hook in his like middle school play. And that one, I won't let them get away with as an intradiagetic reference. No way.

Half-birthday

2008-10-10T07:55:00.001Z

FYI, I celebrate my half and not my real birthday because the Gods have decided to consistently make my real birthday a disaster. So anyone reading this who actually knows me is invited. Contact me for further details - it will be next month in ny.

Doctors

2008-10-09T17:14:00.004Z

This is pretty weird, because I've seen more doctors in my short life than most people see in their entire lifetimes, including that nasty bit at the end when you're in the hospital for weeks or months and everyone is just kind of waiting for the inevitable - but I didn't get until literally today that it REALLY matters what doctor you see. Obviously not true if you have an ear infection or strep throat or other things that I mean, I could diagnose and the closest I've come to formal training is a college course in molecular biology. But when you start getting into the stuff that really matters, that actually impacts (please, no notes about the use of "impact" - I use words as I wish regardless of what other people believe to be the correct usage) your day-to-day life and makes or breaks or reasons for living, the doctor you end up with is critical to whether you will succeed or fail in your quest for health. Take one (of many) current examples. A friend, experiencing narcoleptic-type symptoms and having taken the requisite sleep studies finally sees a neurology sleep specialist at a top university hospital. He prescribes a medication that does not work, and doesn't work with an extremely large proportion of patients (I would guess about 70% based on the research I've done). She had previously taken a relatively strong medication developed by the military to keep fighter pilots awake for 24 hours that wore off after initially working, so this was a stupid choice on the doctor's part - clearly she needed a strong medication. On the next visit, he not only refused to try a different medication (there are several that could address the issue) he continued on to diagnose her with fibromyalgia, a quite serious disease - however, she has none of the symptoms other than hypersomnia, which is completely insufficient for a diagnosis of fibromyalgia, a disease that often prevents people from climbing stairs and leaves them in incredible pain. She fights back and forth, trying to explain that she doesn't have this disease and that she desperately needs medication as she is unable to function at work. The doctor - couldn't care less.
So she explains all this to me and it strikes me as yet another case of obnoxious, self-contained, heartless doctors doing whatever they can to get hundreds of dollars from insurance companies while providing nothing for their patients. So far, we haven't found a solution but have determined that this doctor is a more junior doctor and I am anticipating that the scheduled visit with the more senior doctor I brokered will be more fruitful, in that at least she should be reasonable about the situation.
It occurred to me as well as I had an appointment with a doctor this morning and I called him yesterday, having misplaced the appointment card, to ask when the appointment was for. He said 10. I wrote down 10. I put it on both my calendars. I am there circa 9:47. He comes in, says, you're here early, I say yes, because I'm thinking, well yes technically 9:47 is not 10:00 so fair enough if we want to split hairs. But then the other bloke in the waiting room goes back with him. And I'm like, seriously? I called YESTERDAY. Afternoon. I couldn't have been more clear. He couldn't have been more clear. And I thought again, wow, I really should get a better doctor. Because if he can't even tell me my appointment time, how well is his brain really functioning? And how well is he understanding my symptoms and able to address them? My guess is not that well. Like now I'm all freaked out that he has early alzheimers and I'm in this disasterous situation where I am getting prescriptions and tests from someone with diminished capabilities.
This could go on forever but I need to address a headache.

Gatorade - Elixir of the Gods?

2008-10-09T01:54:00.003Z

So over the years, my mother, my doctors, nurses providing emergency care after I passed out from dehydration at baseball games (yes, multiple), all have pushed Gatorade on me like it was a vitamin. And for some reason, I hated it, I suppose because it makes me slightly nauseous. However, recently a friend was visiting and woke up with a ridiculous hangover after something like 7 hours of beer pong, and requested a bottle of Gatorade, which he drank and promptly felt better. A couple weeks later I became violently ill with a pernicious flu that lasted 2-3 weeks, the first couple weeks of which the only "food" I could digest was Gatorade. And I realized that it was actually kind of making me feel better. And this made me curious, both about Gatorade in general and specifically, why it seemed to rebalance me.
As it turns out, Gatorade has a fascinating history for a quotidian beverage. It starts with the University of Florida footballers who couldn't handle the physical demands of football given the weather/environment of Florida. The coach went to the University's science department for a solution and the mixture of substances that was to be Gatorade was born - indeed the name "Gatorade" is derived from the football team's name, the Gators. (this slightly bizarre article on the state department website seemingly selling Gatorade to the nation of Guyana provides further information) (NB further that Gatorade is not certified kosher)
Anyways, the answer is either that I am carb or electrolyte deficient and that is why I feel so much better (albeit nauseous - I just don't take sugar that well). Considering that I don't eat gluten, the carb answer is more likely.
As always, leave it to yahoo answers to come up with a completely false and stupid answer. Obviously off-topic, but I am fascinated by yahoo answers for its ability to consistently incorrectly answer questions, have them permanently posted, and somehow yahoo is okay with attaching its name to this. I mean, if I were running a major company based on the utility of the internet and I had a product designed to allow users to provide other users with answers to their questions, I would have a monitor that checked this stuff over. It's only logical. But yahoo has been disappointing me since they started doing those absurd commercials going "Yahoooooo-oooo." I mean, it's just painful to watch and makes you feel like if you've ever used a yahoo account you're an idiot.

Television

2008-10-09T01:34:00.003Z

So I've run into a problem here. I need television in the background to work effectively (or some other combination of visual and aural stimulation but the easiest way to do this is via television) and the thing is, that while I don't actually watch it or consciously listen to it, I both watch and listen to it unconsciously. And I only like about 10 programs on television. And stations repeat these programs. And as a result, I become distracted because I know what the words and images are going to be and so instead of focusing on my work, I'm focusing on recreating the show before/as it happens in my head.
Example being the South Park episode that is on Comedy Central right now. This one, unfortunately, I know extremely well because I downloaded it from itunes and thus have seen it at least 30 times because pretty much every South Park episode is insanely funny and actually becomes funnier the more you see it.
That of course is the other problem: the shows I like are all ones appreciation of which increases with repeated viewings. As a result, having something in the background that I've seen 30 times gets me very excited and I laugh hysterically while I am trying to do something very serious. If only I didn't bloody have undiagnosable ADD and didn't have to watch tv to do work. But you know what, I have this impediment for a reason. Somehow, in some way, it is going to allow me to improve the world. Not quite sure how as I listen to Cartman swear over a video game, but I maintain my optimism.

Am I subtly becoming a socialist?

2008-10-07T22:26:00.002Z

As I sat here, perusing educational opportunities that would eat my entire year's salary with one gulp, I thought out loud, why is education so expensive? And the feeling underlying that was, education is the sort of thing that you shouldn't have to pay for, that society should sponsor, that we should all be grateful for the degree to which we benefit from the education of others.
Admittedly, this is not a one-off for me. It relates quite closely to an international education plan I have that is designed to both improve conditions for Africans while simultaneously improving conditions for Americans. (I always say, best to do a win-win situation). Perhaps the two don't really differ if you can legitimately argue that educating the top candidates in the U.S. benefits the country as a whole, but when you're talking about comparative literature, that's a stretch. And I say that even though I was brainwashed for a long period of time into believing that comparative literature could save the world. (see remnants of said belief in description of Africa project)

Extremes

2008-10-05T05:09:00.002Z

It's a little late so I'm not thinking entirely clearly (I also continue to suffer from the bitterness alluded to in my earlier post, which muddles my thinking) but reading this article reminds me of something, something very very bad. As a friend was noting the other day, all extremes are bad, but this just strikes me as insane and unacceptable. Now part of that is that I am sort of wildly open-minded and any restrictions on anyone strike me as unacceptable. But part of it is that this just isn't what it's about. And I don't care what the rabbis say or condone, it's just not. And I'm going off on a limb here, but religion is about good, positive things, and if someone needs to change how he/she lives, there is a positive way to address that. And anyone with any background in helping people improve their lives can tell you that except in unusual situations, the sort of treatment alluded to in the article will not result in an improved life, for anyone involved. And it depresses me because I was planning a trip to Israel and now I'm second-guessing myself.

Foul Drink

2008-10-05T02:59:00.001Z

"An offering unique to the Olive Festival was the "beertini."

"Every glass of beer gets one or two large olives with a pimento in it, and we call it a beertini," Tavares said. "The object is to work down to the olive."

The line for the popular drink often more than 15 people deep.

"People love the beertini," event co-chairwoman Sherri McGinnis said."

http://www.insidebayarea.com/argus/localnews/ci_10639214

Seriously???? I mean possibly a grosser thing would be if the olive were replaced by rat poison but short of that, it's hard to imagine a grosser drink.

Whole Foods

2008-10-05T02:54:00.001Z

I really have to stop paying $15 for mediocre sushi. But it's so damn convenient. I should have given it to the homeless man along with the rest of my stuff. And why am I suddenly giving away my purchases to homeless people and contemplating selling all of my worldly possessions on ebay? WTF is going on?

Nancy Gray

2008-10-04T20:48:00.003Z

So I have very mixed emotions about her. Clearly, she is borderline insane. But there is something to her ability to communicate with/attack average people that is clearly a skill. I am currently referring to her coverage of the latest OJ Simpson trial. I mean, everyone knows he was guilty in the first trial, even though I thought he should have been found innocent (as he was) so maybe it's only a fair outcome? I feel like stuff like that always happens to me, meaning I get prosecuted for things that I did in the past, so it's probably part of the way the universe works and he should just accept it and move on. Oy, do I need to sleep...

Humanity

2008-10-03T20:18:00.002Z

This is going to be a really nasty post so I'm saving it for later when I calm down. However, to sum up, people are assholes. Self-centered, deprecating, and stupid. The last doesn't really have anything to do with it, but there's a reason it's there.

Stress

2008-10-03T06:19:00.002Z

I must say that I am extremely happy that I am not one of those people who is unable to control stress. Reading stories about teenagers throwing up due to anxiety in anticipation of tests reminded me that I knew a bunch of people like that in high school and it must have been awful not only for them, but for their parents. As a parent, I just wouldn't have any idea what to do with that - I mean, how could you allow yourself to get so upset that you would be physically ill over something like a test? I guess as a parent you would try to calm them down, rationalize with them, but if they're teenagers, you've lost them already, you screwed something up in terms of teaching them priorities. I could probably do with more stress in my life, or at least a greater sense of urgency, or at least some respect for the system. Because there is a reason for stress and it can be extremely helpful, under the right circumstances. But I only get stressed out about irrational things and generally quite randomly so it's not at all productive. Like a couple months ago I became extremely stressed that I couldn't immediately find a collection of DVDs that had been missing for about a year. It was completely absurd, as I wasn't suddenly going to find them and in all likelihood they are not even in my apartment and I couldn't even play the majority of them as they're zone 2 and I had to set my computer to zone 1. But that's the weirdness of stress.

VP Debate

2008-10-03T02:17:00.002Z

This is madness. It's making it unclear that Biden is about a million times more qualified for this position and would be infinitely more useful to a president than Palin because she is dragging down the level of the debate to some ridiculous laugh-fest. Sorry, but there's something about her personality that just hits my buttons - she's precisely the type of person I absolutely hate, who is condescending and stupid. Obviously, the worst combination to put in the white house. As in an earlier election, a wise individual told me that my vote for myself (I generally vote for myself) was a vote for the person I really didn't want to win may force me to not vote for myself this time. A dear friend also pointed out that since I do not meet the constitutional qualifications, it really is a vote wasted and that I should vote for my sister, who does meet the qualifications. I may be more comfortable with that.
Oh, and if I hear "maverick" again about an old white guy with like 8 homes and an idiot white woman who couldn't be more average american I am going to throw up. Sorry this sounds so partisan, but wow, Palin is really annoying.

Self-control

2008-09-29T14:50:00.003Z

I logged on here because I suddenly became convinced that I had published about something I shouldn't have, given my readership. And had to thoroughly search to confirm that no, I had not been idiotic enough to put up here those particular thoughts and that they either went in an e-mail or were part of some conversation. The fact that I can't distinguish in my memory between different forms of communication is rather interesting in and of itself - it means my memory is treating me posting something here as the equivalent of having a face-to-face discussion with someone, which probably says something very profound about how much I actually get out of face-to-face interactions (in general, some, obviously, would not be confused with a blog post). But the more important lesson is self-control and that I need to re-establish the filter between my brain and my mouth/fingers. Not a strength of mine. Not something I would list on my resume. But, perhaps of course, I would argue that there is great value in lacking a certain amount of self-control because it allows you to explore things that others would be fearful of. The predictability of those with strong self-control limits their ability to add to the world and to improve their own lives. Plus they're boring and tend to be condescending (ABSOLUTELY with no right whatsoever). Now that I'm done attacking half of America I'll go back to resting up...

"Dr. House is not a firm believer in strict adherence to hard work"

2008-09-28T00:45:00.003Z

I had forgotten how much I love House until last night. My obsession with all things medical obviously is a bonus but it's really his remarkable attitude problem and total disrespect for authority that draws me to the show. The only reason I'd forgotten is that I realized that, unlike other things I like, I only need to watch House episodes once, i.e., nothing is gained from watching them multiple times whereas other shows can be better understood and appreciated with multiple viewings. Ergo, I haven't watched House in probably a year, because I also only like to watch multiple shows at once. So last night was a rather delightful dip back into his crazy-competent waters. I appreciate his drug addiction, his bizarre obsessions with certain women and inability to deal with others, his total self-obsession, to the point where the life of others is in danger, really just everything that is appalling about his personal character. The rejection of traditional rules is really the key.

Multiple Arrests

2008-09-25T02:58:00.003Z

I am pretty impressed with this fellow who has been arrested 1,000 times. They don't quite cover it in the video, but the question then really is, what percentage of the time are you in jail versus out of jail. I mean, this guy must know the system inside and out.
For example, I assume he is up on this evidently common prison trick of getting seroquel for kicks. It seems like a stretch but I have no idea what seroquel does so maybe it's the best drug ever invented or something. Who knows.

People in public places who stand or move slowly where other people could move should be shot and killed

2008-09-21T01:31:00.003Z

It is totally and completely unacceptable for people to walk slowly. I don't know how much that has to be expanded upon because it's painfully obvious but I will try later on.

More...

2008-09-19T16:37:00.011Z

To continue my saga, I go over to the neighbor, simply to ask, how long will this be going on? I do this wearing the B'nai Mitzvah flannel pants from some twins in my brother's class and a worn out Stanford sweatshirt and mismatched socks. She begins violently gesturing and babbling quickly in something that simply is not a language. I repeat my question more slowly and clearly, hoping I will at least get something resembling some language I'm familiar with, and considering that's everything except African languages, I have a pretty good shot. But she continues on in her nonsense "language" and points at the door across the hall. At which point I notice that I am actually still hearing the noise, but much more softly. So I can't figure out, is she paid by the person in that apartment to do construction or is that person actually doing the construction. But the latter is an impossibility given how loud it was in my apartment. So there must be construction going on in both apartments. But I don't care about the other apartment so her pointing there is what is throwing me off. I'm thinking the head person must be working there. I think she just went on her lunch break so I'll hassle the head fellow when she comes back and the sound of a drill boring into my head starts again.

Communal Living

2008-09-19T16:37:00.008Z

When I lived in London, I worked with this total asshole who in response to my complaints about the unbelievable amount of noise the people who lived above me made commented, well, that's what you get for living in communal housing. As though I'd chosen to live in an apartment in east london with hypodermic needles outside the front door over a house in the suburbs just for kicks. I thought of this today because the asshole who lives next door to me is evidently building one of those wooden play homes from scratch, as far as I can tell from the amount and type of noise coming from next door. I mean, what the fuck? This has been going on for two days and seriously, you would think they were building an apartment from scratch over there. Then in the afternoon, the jerk plays music. I need to do two things: 1) chill out a little bit about this temporarily and 2) move into the other room and sleep on the couch and forgo my extravagant mattress. But seriously, I am going to ask him how long this is going to last because I am very ill and this is unacceptable.

Sadness

2008-09-19T16:37:00.005Z

So I am ill. It is one of those really bad illnesses that just goes on forever and you wonder if you'll ever feel better and you start to cancel plans that are like 4 days in the future, even though you've already been sick for 5 days and a 9 day illness seems very unlikely and clearly grounds for a hospital stay. This one is particularly pernicious for two reasons: 1) it is a recurring illness that causes one's brain to be totally fried and 2) the other symptoms are constantly changing and suddenly getting worse and then better. It's this crazy roller coaster ride. For example, I was doing fine being delirious and unable to sit up and then suddenly, my stomach feels like I dropped a tub of acid into it. Or I become convinced I live in a different country. Or I alternate between being incredibly hot and incredibly cold. Right now I am concentrating on keeping down a 1/16th of a bottle of gatorade. It is very very difficult. Which of course will mean that I won't eat anything today because there is no way I'll keep down any food, which will make me weaker, which will make things worse. Not that I really have any food. Well I guess I have about 50 frozen chicken breasts but that would be such a sad meal because I wouldn't be able to put anything on it b.c. my stomach couldn't handle it. Not just eating 50 frozen chicken breasts. That would, well, I'm not even sure what the outcome of that would be. I doubt I could eat 50 chicken breasts in one sitting, even if vomiting were allowed. I think I would collapse long before the end. Okay getting too dizzy.

Down Comforters

2008-09-19T16:37:00.002Z

It has always been a great fascination of mine that for some inexplicable reason, Scandinavians are able to make top quality, warm but never too warm, absolutely perfect down comforters while Americans can only seem to make crap that I'm allergic to and out of which feathers come immediately and which are never warm enough. I mean, can it really be that hard to make a decent comforter? And why in the world are we not just importing their products when they are far superior? You seriously can't find that quality in the states. I honestly think there must be some kind of conspiracy behind it.

Egg

2008-09-16T20:41:00.001Z

Egg has to be one of the grossest things that exists. So why, oh why, do asian restaurants insist that you want egg on your food, even when you very clearly say you don't? Or in, the latest and by far grossest incarnation, provide you with a separate small plastic container of egg to add to your food after you have said that you don't want any egg three times in a short conversation. It is the sickest thing I have ever seen and I am certain that it will haunt my dreams tonight.

Best TV show ever

2008-09-13T15:42:00.003Z

Arrested Development. It is funny, b.c. a friend recently mentioned it to me in the context of, oh, have you ever seen this and it's kind of akin to asking someone if he/she has ever seen his/her big toe. I've watched this show nearly every day for the past few years and know absolutely everything about it. And it is brilliant. I don't claim it's for everyone. If, for example, you like that Everybody likes Raymond or whatever it's called show, don't bother looking this one up. Although you should bother checking to see whether you have a pulse and you might need a neurological workup. Sorry, I'm feisty today. A headache that won't go away...

Nudist Beach

2008-09-13T03:39:00.002Z

I am going to steal the text of this from a friend as I personally have never been to a nudist beach: "on the nudist beach, it's actually really cool because it's like going to a place where you KNOW that everyone there is going to be openminded. i mean, 90+% of the time, the people who are naked are not the people you wanna see naked, and mostly older. but still, you know that the nude people and, more importantly, those who purposely went there, are going to be cooler than the "family" section. I wish there was more demarkation of that sort in general. i mean, i don't want to be around closeminded people....the less i have to see them the better, right? "

The really interesting part about the analysis is that what it touches is the essence of the people, which is somehow "ironic" because in our society the nudity should take precedence in terms of what one would pay attention to. But clothes are just this odd construction of society (apart from cold places where such things were needed) that forces us to feel as though our bodies should look a certain way and we shouldn't allow people to see certain parts of ourselves. But it's terribly odd because it's not based on anything. I mean, I can think of a million reasons why the clothing industry would develop and thrive, but none of them could justify the legal consequences for going about without clothing. All of it is commercial, it's all about money, and I know I'm being naive even for the super-naive version of myself, but politics are meant to do good, not to help industry.
The main reason I feel odd about this conclusion that I'm drawing is that the Germans are particularly fond of nudity in general (beaches, camps etc.) and despite all my work to overcome my bias against the Germans, I still harbor a slight bias. Although to my credit, it has to do with their current weirdness and not their actions in WWII, as was previously the case.
But there is something deeper about assuring that we not allow people to be nude in society. It gives away too much. It allows you to be too much yourself. It doesn't hide enough. It doesn't make you similar enough to other people. To go back to the 80s or 90s, it doesn't provide you with full Gap outfits with matching tops, bottoms and even socks. It says, we really aren't conformists, but individuals. And government, society, is scared to death of individuals. And that's the real basis, the fear of reality, the fear of rebellion. Because once people realize they are individuals and not cogs, there is inevitably rebellion.

The inevitable end of the world

2008-09-07T19:05:00.001Z

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/07/business/fannie.php

Also thanks to all who have written to me with concern over the past few days. I am still alive and still working. And still watching Wes Anderson movies in the background.

Job Assessment

2008-08-17T16:58:00.000Z

I must recommend this as the most inane tool EVER in the history of man for determining what your career choice should be. The truly remarkable part is that not only did it accurately correctly list my current job as the one I should be doing it also listed the other jobs I had considered in its top list. Almost creepy: http://www.careerpath.com/careerassessmentquiz/colorcareercounselor.aspx

Ah, late night debauchery...

2008-08-17T08:26:00.001Z

It is always a problem when something is so offensive that you can't think of a single person that you can send it to and yet you are laughing your ass off.

Buying drugs online

2008-08-17T02:19:00.001Z

So evidently, it is not possible to buy cocaine online: http://www.kirkbytimes.co.uk/alaughitems/crack/crack.html

Cab drivers

2008-08-05T19:21:00.001Z

When did cab drivers start getting so friendly in terms of saying profuse thank yous when you give them a tip? I remember a gruff noise that indicated that you were supposed to get out quickly so someone else could get in, not multiple, thank you ma'ams, over and over. Very weird.

Also very weird is that my credit card has completely miscalculated my bill, claims I overpaid last month by over a thousand dollars and that my current month's bill is three times what it actually is. I am slightly annoyed.

More thoughts from friends

2008-08-05T17:07:00.001Z

"The best restaurant I know of is in a food court in Alexandria."

Rain

2008-08-04T17:17:00.003Z

I love rain. Absolutely love it. Love to run and jump and play and stand in it and it just makes me happy to watch it. However, there are certain times and places where the presence of rain is inappropriate. One such place is the business district. All these poor people dressed up in their nice work clothes getting wet and messy and jumping puddles and avoiding the umbrella overflow because somehow no matter what you do with the umbrella you still manage to get wet somewhere. And I've really had enough. It's like we live in the middle ages. It is time to build giant weather domes over cities to protect people from inclement weather. How can politicians sit passively by when their citizens are needlessly exposed to the elements? We wouldn't have to deal with rain or snow or wind or anything else that is rather annoying. Isn't it time, America? Or at least those places with populations large enough for me to give a damn about whether or not they get wet on the way to work. I may have to take time off from my general plan to take over the world to get this done because if I have to wait 10 minutes for a cab one more time, someone in City Hall is getting it.

Layered Feelings of the day

2008-08-01T15:07:00.003Z

I don't have the time to explain what I feel by layered feelings but suffice it to say I experience many different feelings and reactions and thoughts and experiences at the same time. Today, the predominant layered feeling is of being on my way to go see a movie in Paris. I lived there for a while and saw movies all the time (sometimes 3-4 times a week) but somehow my mind has managed to amalgamate all those experiences into some common elements, things that flash in the back of my head and immediately transport me, and I'm rushing along the Seine trying to make a film I should have left for 5 minutes earlier but as usual, couldn't get out of bed. And all of the city is rushing by as I'm walking at my break-neck pace, it almost feels like I'm flying.
And I never reach the theatre, of course. It's only about the experience, the part that is living, the part that reaches into your soul.

Pet peeve number 2

2008-08-01T00:32:00.003Z

People who say they are going to call at a specific time and do not call at that specific time. Now yes, this is me being me (autistic, anal, bitchy, what have you) since for most people a casual, let's do the call at 8 means 8-ish. But if someone says 8 to me, it means 8, period. I am fully prepared at 8. No earlier, no later. And I have trouble handling the time that is being wasted while I am sitting, waiting for the call at 8, and nothing is happening. And these other people, totally calmly, eventually get around to getting on the line, on their own sweet time. And in the interim, I am completely stressed because now I have no idea when the call is going to happen and it could happen at any moment and I HATE hearing the phone ring unexpectedly because it reminds me of the alarm going off in the morning, which is the worst feeling in the world (short of being forcibly passed out via nitroglycerin, see earlier post and as a side-bar, I was wondering today if death feels like that and if so, I think I want to research a more pleasant means of departure because even waking up with a tube fully enveloping my throat - so you feel like you're choking to death - while I was supposed to be unconscious was a far superior feeling). Which brings up another point which is that I actually hate it when the phone rings. Or my blackberry goes off. Or there is any unexpected noise whatsoever. Oh and the worst, the WORST (because I live almost adjacent to a church) are church bells. Okay, play your bells to remind people to go to mass, alright. But playing entire songs for 15 minutes or a half hour? If I had the strength to get out of bed on a Sunday morning I would rush into their house of worship in a rage and do something inappropriate, I don't know, steal holy water or something. But you're allowed to take it, so that wouldn't really cut it. What I should really do is put a silencer on the bells like we did on the fire alarm freshman year of college (as an explanation, the building was too moist which caused the fire alarm to go off an average of 3-8 times daily, at times like 4 am, so we were really forced to eventually take action - not that the fire dept agreed with our decision but we talked them down from some massive fine after explaining the drama of the situation. The fire department does NOT like it when you make it so the alarm cannot actually go off. FYI.).

Pet peeve of the day

2008-08-01T00:25:00.003Z

Doctors who don't call you back when you call regarding a potentially life-threatening condition. If I call and say, I was going in and out of consciousness for an hour today and I'm wondering what I should do, I think that deserves a call back. I'm not a bloody telemarketer.

Amazon

2008-07-29T14:02:00.003Z

Why does amazon insist on recommending books and DVDs that I've already purchased from Amazon? I mean, there are just about a million reasons why that is inefficient, a waste of time, money and a turnoff in terms of future customer base.
p.s. I just discovered today is only Tuesday. That may explain part of my wrath.

cabs (redux)

2008-07-28T13:54:00.002Z

so assuming you are in a cab and the cab driver is speaking in a foreign language. 9 times out of 10 this means he isn't talking to you, but about about that 1 in 10 time when you're not sure? when clearly his comment has something to do with the common situation you are experiencing (traffic etc) and thus a response would be apprropriate. And yet, how are you supposed to know what to respond given the language gap? And would he think it would be weird for you to respond, to enter his space, as it were? Should you laugh politely, say "can you believe this," "tut-tut" in a sort of british manner and shake your head as you absently play with your blackberry. What is the solution? More later, must go to meeting.