Shades of Grey - Greymatter

An AP article on the new trend of protesters showing up to political rallies (in this case, a presidential appearance) visibly armed raises a number of issues, on both sides:

Bad liberals. In a rare deviance from my liberal fortress, I feel the need to criticize the pervasive use of the term "assault weapon" or "military-style assault weapon" in mainstream and left-leaning media. While I'm not a fan of firearms, I was raised in a gun culture (I had a marksmanship qualification at one point as part of an experimental father-son bonding attempt), so I have some understanding of both the actual physical items and the political agendas involved. Certain liberal groups devoted to restricting firearms are guilty in this case of manufacturing a term and assigning it negative connotations (even beyond those some people assign to the term "gun") and then using that term to incite a greater degree of fear among readers. "Assault weapon" just sounds scary; it implies a firearm designed to be more deadly, or more powerful, or more useful in killing people. While these weapons can be more intimidating visually, the descriptors in the previous sentence are, in most cases untrue.

Militaries use assault rifles (note the difference in terminology). Assault rifles are "automatic weapons" (that is, they are capable of firing more than one round for each pull of the trigger). They are also capable, because the military can set its own rules, of firing incendiary and armor-piercing rounds, and of using silencers and the like. Assault weapons, on the other hand, are political constructs. A firearm tends to be classified as an assault weapon if it looks like an assault rifle, even if it doesn't function the same way. They're not assault rifles. They are "semi-automatic weapons" (one bullet for each time you pull the trigger). Because of state and federal laws, it is illegal to buy or possess armor-piercing rounds or silencers.

Here's the fun part. An assault weapon isn't a particularly powerful firearm. It can't fire more than one round per trigger pull, which is the major advantage to assault rifles. They're chambered for very small rounds (militaries do this so soldiers can carry more ammunition, not because the bullets are more dangerous). In many states, the caliber used in most assault weapons is illegal to use in hunting for anything bigger than rabbits because it often won't kill a deer. Its only real advantage is its intimidation factor; it *looks* scary (or *cool*, depending on your point of view). But if you're serious about harming someone, any hunting-grade shotgun or high-power rifle is far more effective (not only are you just as or more likely to hit someone, but if you do hit them you're more likely to kill them, plus you can do it from farther away).

The gun-control groups know this, and in fact actively try to confuse "assault weapon" with "assault rifle," even knowing they aren't the same. They also know that banning these particular firearms would have very little impact on crime rates or murders. But it energizes their base when people read that a particularly scary weapon was used; it's a convenient "bogeyman" that resonates with their constituents. And it's a useful tactic; people are more likely to donate money or support legislation if they read that a person was killed by a "military-style assault weapon" than if the same person was killed with a "shotgun typically used for hunting pheasants." But that tactic is based on fear, not facts, and that annoys me. Equally annoying is that the media has adopted these terms as dictionary definitions instead of recognizing them as politically loaded and fabricated terms. So, media, people carrying "guns" is scary enough. No need to try to scare people further with made-up terms.

Bad conservatives. Protesting is a time-honored tradition deeply ingrained in the concept of democracy. Protesting is a fantastic process. It expresses alternative opinions in a passionate way. It allows people to express their frustration and anger. It encourages public discourse and sparks conversation. When you bring firearms to a protest, you're abandoning those concepts and relying on intimidation instead of the validity of your opinion to make your point. You're shutting down the avenues of communication. The people who already agree with you will cheer you on, but the people you really need to convince, the people who *might* agree with you if you explained your point properly, are now afraid of you. You and I both know that the likelihood of anyone at your rally actually shooting someone is pretty small, but you're not acknowledging that, to anyone outside of your culture, guns are scary, and by physically presenting a gun you're intimidating people into being quiet. Then you're unhappy when the people afraid of you vote to limit your ability to carry your firearm. What you need is a community outreach and education program to explain your point of view, not an event to show that anger and guns do indeed go together.

Labels: politics, social commentary

Posted at 1:17:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Thursday, August 6

Court of Public Opinion

I'm not a fan of the Richard Dawkins-style, in-your-face, militant atheism. I would wager that the majority of people who know me aren't even aware I'm an atheist. Other than on my blog (my own personal soapbox), I never bring it up unless someone else brings it up first. It's just not that important to me.

Having said that, this article is still concerning, in much the same way a similar article about a local church or a minority group advertising to potential members in a non-threatening way having its ad pulled and being subsequently ignored by the agency would be concerning.

I'm curious if the public support of the open disapproval of the nonreligious is based solely on a deep-seated belief about perceived "wrongness" (as some people still feel about racial minorities and homosexuals) or if people are just more comfortable openly criticizing the nonreligous because they're one of the few groups still socially acceptable to ostracize (a case of displaced aggression).

Labels: religion and atheism, social commentary

Posted at 11:47:00 AM. | | Permalink to this post.

Monday, April 27

Enhancements

This is interesting and refreshing. Even when it comes from a site whose search engine returns more than 2,000 articles on how to wear makeup (hypocrisy much?).

Cosmetics have been in use for at least 6,000 years (and likely much longer), and were used in ancient cultures like Egypt for the same reasons they're used today, so it's unlikely we'll see a rapid cultural rejection anytime soon. But some level of temperance would be nice; the revelation that even the models in Dove's "real women" ad campaign may have been modified to fit societal tolerances is more than a little disheartening.

Labels: social commentary

Posted at 4:32:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Wednesday, April 22

I Can' t Drive 55 . . . er, Wait, Yes I Can

For your edification, a brief Yahoo article on the scientific principles behind the observed evidence that my fuel economy goes from 32 mpg to 47 mpg (in a 10-year-old non-hybrid) when I hypermile at 55 mph on the Interstate. So slow down already.

Labels: activism, science, social commentary

Posted at 12:55:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Happy Earth Day

I celebrated it a little early by watching the first episode of Life After People, a History Channel show about what would the world would look like at various lengths of time after every human is gone (the reasons behind said absence are neither explored nor regarded as important to the show; the show only concerns itself with what happens to the works we leave behind). It advances in increments, showing what happens one day, then six months, then a year, then 10 years, then 100 years, etc., up to 100 million years in the future. While watching the Statue of Liberty collapse into the ocean or the Houston Astrodome become a vine-encrusted swamp or the City of Boston vanish entirely over a million years might be somber, it's also somewhat beautiful in its own way.

Sic transit gloria mundi.

Labels: social commentary

Posted at 2:27:00 AM. | | Permalink to this post.

Tuesday, April 21

Pocket Change

I made my first Kiva loan over the weekend. Kiva is a Web-based facilitator of microloans, a system where multiple people loan small amounts of money to loan applicants in impoverished or developing nations as a "startup boost" to economic independence. This allows, as an example, 50 people in the first world to loan $25 each to an African village or a Cambodian fisherman, which allows the recipients to buy a generator or a shop that in turn leads to an increase in financial standing that would otherwise be impossible. The recipients then use the increase in income to pay back the loan on a scheduled term (just like a standard car or mortgage payment), which allows the lenders to then re-loan the money to other recipients.

The concept is similar to other "distributed" systems (such as distributed computing projects like Folding@home or BitTorrent); rather than a single source making one large expenditure (whether a financial loan or a large computer file), distributed networks allow many participants to contribute small pieces of the whole. While I may not be able to loan someone $2,000, I can be one of many people to loan $25, and while $25 is fairly insignificant to me, it can make a world of difference to someone whose yearly income is equal to a few thousand dollars. The concept of microcredit earned its originators the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006.

Labels: activism, social commentary

Posted at 2:05:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Wednesday, April 8

Sliding Scale, Redux

While I'd expected the thesis of this post to be valid in the near future, I was hoping it wouldn't be quite this soon. Two more shootings in two days.

Labels: social commentary

Posted at 2:22:00 AM. | | Permalink to this post.

Tuesday, April 7

Cascade Effect

Well, shucks, Iowa. While your recent accomplishment is most certainly momentous and deserving of pride, I think Vermont actually tops you this month. Not only did they approve gay marriage, but they did it legislatively rather than judicially, and by a support margin strong enough to override an executive veto. Wow.

Labels: politics, social commentary

Posted at 12:37:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Monday, April 6

Go Nebraska

I still think Iowa takes the "best state" award for its latest supreme court ruling, but apparently Nebraska beats it out for "happiest state" in the most recent polls (although a pessimist might cynically propose the nomenclature "least unhappy" state, since it's not like the animals from Sleeping Beauty are fluttering about the prairies in song). One of the prevailing factors in the midwest bliss, according to the article, is the economic buffer created by the culture of fiscal frugality that makes the concept of living outside your means anathema to the residents of the heartland, as compared to the "extravagant" lifestyles of the coasts, leading to lower unemployment rates, fewer house foreclosures and a stabler local economy. I imagine this is even more apparent in non-metropolitan areas (which is the entire state except Omaha and, arguably, Lincoln); I don't know what the unemployment rate is in my hometown, but I'd wager it's lower than Omaha's. Closer-knit communities and "midwest values" likely play into that heavily, but another factor is the lack of "expendable" industries in non-metropolitan areas; it's hard to lay off staff from a chain retail store, a sit-down restaurant or an entertainment venue when those facilities don't exist in the town.

Labels: social commentary

Posted at 1:47:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Saturday, April 4

Sliding Scale

Positive: Taxes finished and filed.

Mostly neutral, but annoying: Jackhammering on my street at 8 a.m. on my day to sleep in. Snow storm tomorrow.

Negative: A national and perhaps global weariness from and pessimism over a host of issues of debatable levels of influence but most definitely including the economic downturn and its effects leading to a rash of mass shootings in the U.S.

- April 4: Three police officers in a Pittsburgh, PA standoff
- April 3: Fourteen people (including the suicide of the shooter) at an immigration center in New York
- March 29: Eight people at a nursing home in Carthage, NC
- March 29: Six people (including the suicide of the shooter) in Santa Clara, CA
- March 21: Four police officers in an Oakland, CA traffic stop
- March 10: Eleven people (including the suicide of the shooter) in a rural Alabama county

For my nervous family members, I'm not even addressing the gun control argument that will erupt between the polarized camps that feel strongly about this issue. A more salient point in my opinion is that at least two of those incidents were catalyzed by shooters who had recently lost their jobs and were emotionally distraught in the same way that millions of Americans are being distraught. While certainly not a one-to-one ratio, it's no secret that more extreme options have always become more prevalent in social groups facing greater amounts of stress and lesser amounts of optimism about the future. Even more disturbing is the inurement and apathy that the weight of woes seems to have deposited; while the December shooting here in Omaha received national, multi-day coverage, I'm aware of three of the shootings in the above list only because I put the word "shooting" into Yahoo News to find the exact dates of the other three. I wouldn't be surprised to see these sorts of incidents continue to occur, especially among those hit hardest by the economy, and to continue to receive less coverage than they would in more affluent years. People, both those at the edge of their coping ability and those keeping up with events outside of their immediate sphere, can only handle so much bad news at a time.

Labels: social commentary

Posted at 11:23:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Friday, April 3

Over the River

Go Iowa. I'm normally not a big "Nebraska vs. Iowa rivalry" sort, but, given that Nebraska chiseled its discrimination directly into its Constitution, I'm going to have to go with "Iowa is a better state" today.

I have no doubt the next step in Iowa will be a voter referendum on a Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage (the standard response to a state supreme court striking down a legislative statute to the same effect). That's the people's right, so I don't begrudge the process. But I'm not looking forward to the emotional appeals like the following:

The Rev. Keith Ratliff Sr., pastor at the Maple Street Baptist Church in Des Moines, went to the Supreme Court building to hear of the decision.

"It's a perversion and it opens the door to more perversions," Ratliff said. "What's next?"

What's next should be allowing people in committed relationships the same basic rights and freedoms promised everyone in the state's constitution. Suggestions that this is unlocking the door to the legalization of licentiousness and depravity are little more than slippery slope fear-mongering.

Labels: politics, social commentary

Posted at 12:40:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Thursday, April 2

Defining "Predation"

"Unfortunately, youth don't have the same judgment as adults," she said, "and often, adults don't have the same technical savvy as the youth."

That seems to be a fairly decent summary of one of the issues in this case and the larger issue of the underage voluntarily producing media that falls under the umbrella of child pornography. I think everyone (except of course the teenagers involved and actual sexual predators) would agree that this is not a good thing, a self-destructive whim much in the same vein as binge drinking or drug use, likely saddled with the concomitant themes of peer pressure and a search for acceptance. As well, I'm sure there are adults on the receiving end of these exchanges who are fully accountable to both ethical standards and legal statutes who *should* be appropriately culpable.

I can't, however, help but find the idea of charging the minors with possession and distribution of child pornography, with its associated penal consequences and its basically forever stigma of "registered sex offender," to be out of line with the intentions of the statutes that make those charges possible: catching "predators" and preventing them from harming other children. Just as we don't charge the suicidal with attempted murder or the self-harming with assault (but rather provide counseling and psychiatric care), it seems unwarranted to impose a harsh punishment on a child for "preying" on herself when counseling and education seem a much more productive course. The acid test is the question of whether she poses a threat to other children, now or in the future. I would hope the legal authorities take the time to ask that question.

Labels: internet, social commentary

Posted at 1:33:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Friday, January 30

Inheritance

News articles like this one tend to engender strong, and polarized, emotions in people. A good portion (perhaps the majority) will react with "Awwwww" and a warm tingle at the heart-warming story that's destined for the Lifetime movie-of-the-week. Others, including me, blanch involuntarily (and not just because the mother claims it was a "miracle," despite voluntarily using science-based fertility treatments).

There are arguments that can be made against having excessively large families on the personal level (the distribution of resources, including attention, among more children, the greater risk to each child from gestating multiples, etc.), but these tend to be visceral and opinion-based. Moving on.

The concept of personal liberty and reproductive freedom is unquestionable on the personal level. The concept of responsibility on the global scale, on the other hand, is not. For 99% of its 200,000-year history, the human species experienced very slow population growth (we didn't crack 5 million people until the Bronze Age). A hunter-gatherer existence surrounded by predators and an inconsistent food supply meant that multiple offspring were offset by high mortality rates, and even into the modern historical periods population growth was still slow (800 million people worldwide in 1750, less than the population of India today). The evolutionary nudge toward large families was maintained as necessity in agrarian societies (where large numbers of children were, in addition to bundles of joy, free labor on farms using hand-powered technology), and extended into tradition today even when no longer necessary (my own family, descended from proud farming stock on both sides, spans four generations and more than 50 people, not counting spouses).

This is where harsh mathematics comes in. The current population of the world is about 6.75 billion. This is a fourfold increase in a hundred years and nearly a doubling since I was born. Numbers are projected to level out around 9 billion once the majority of the third world "catches up" with the first world. In stark contrast, the scientific consensus on the maximum long-term sustainable population of the planet, based on its resources and "recharge rate," is a paltry 2 billion, a number we've long ago passed. That number is based on an assortment of limiting factors, such as the rate aquifers recharge, top soil regenerates and ocean fish levels replenish, plus the rate of depletion of non-renewable resources such as fossil fuels that are a one-shot supply the planet won't produce again. Our current population is sustaining itself only through depleting a stockpile of resources (much like spending the capital in your retirement fund instead of living off the interest). This is a bad plan (both in the world of finance and in population dynamics).

The human species, then, has three options:

1. Ignore the situation and allow the population to build to 10+ billion, at which point natural population control measures will kick in (in a decidedly non-pretty way, likely through escalating mass famines and regional/global wars over limited resources).

2. Institute mandatory population control measures as China and India have done (with varying degrees of success). These are severe violations of personal liberty and lead to civil unrest.

3. Encourage global responsibility on a personal level. Which means not having 14 children. (It actually means not having more children than necessary to maintain the sustainable population, which in a balanced ecology would be enough to replace the previous generation.)

Unpleasant facts, I know. Our planet just isn't as forgiving as we tend to think it is.

Labels: annoyance, environment, politics, social commentary

Posted at 12:35:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Monday, December 8

Math Is Hard, Pt. II

From the great source of timeless wisdom that is the John Tesh radio show (heard on the radio last night):

A recent study found that one third of people have admitted to sending an e-mail or text message to the wrong person. That means that on any given day, 1 out of 3 e-mail or text messages go to the wrong recipient.

Yes, in much the same way that if 75% of people admit to having had chicken pox at some point in their lives, on any given day 3 out of 4 people have chicken pox . . .

A corollary to the above is another math question that has been popping up on OkCupid for me lately (mostly because my answer differs from most others, and the site for some reason wants me to be aware of that fact):

If "some men are doctors" and "some doctors are tall", does it follow that "some men are tall"?

I'm going to skip the Venn diagrams and just say that the question is a theoretical problem with no relation to reality (you could swap out "companion cubes" for "men," "nerf herder" for "doctor" and "vorpal" for "tall" if abstract words help to divorce the question from the idea that "of course some men are tall"), and the question only asks if we can prove some men are tall from the information given, not to prove that all men are short. Logic puzzles are funny that way.

Labels: amusement, social commentary

Posted at 5:03:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Friday, December 5

Just Let Me Grab My Credit Card

Behold! The wonders of cheaper airtime! Step right up with money in hand to purchase these products that are so special, so unique, that only people with non-standard sleeping schedules are blessed enough to even be aware of them!

I have to imagine the language is perfectly crafted to avoid the legal pitfalls of product liability or misrepresentation, but I still have to marvel at the audacity of selling a product that "hydrates" water. The overeager salesman began with run-of-the-mill junk science about the unnamed fluid in the $40 plastic tube sending out "waves" that align the water or some such, allowing it to be more easily absorbed by the body. Standard non-specific claims of "hundreds of studies." A single quote from a peer-reviewed paper on a completely different topic. Blah blah blah. But then to my amazement the man actually claimed that this piece of plastic will help you lose weight because, and I quote, "in my opinion obesity has nothing to do with body fat; it has to do with your body retaining water because it's not getting the right *kind* of water it needs to flush out toxins." Really, diet, exercise and genes have nothing to do with it. It's all bloating. I feel a curious blend of sadness for and disappointment in the people actually taken in by such transparent nonsense as this. I mean, if they're going to propose some "magic" material that changes the physical properties of water, they could at least go all out and use Ice Nine.

But as though sensing my ire at humanity's failings, the television eagerly cheered me up by showing another infomercial, this time for a product that I can only describe as an easy way for your family to all buy the same color cult robes . . .

Labels: humanity, social commentary, television

Posted at 11:22:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Wednesday, December 3

Money To Be Made

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

Labels: amusement, social commentary

Posted at 9:22:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Wednesday, November 26

Beep Beep

I found this article amusing today, given that I use my car horn so infrequently that I went over a year without realizing it doesn't work. That was at my sister's wedding, so I've been without a horn for at least two years (I'll probably get a fix-it ticket for it eventually, but in the meantime I've not missed it, at all). I found the salient points in the article to be the conclusions that most honks are administered as chastisement after the fact and very few actually contribute to avoiding accidents in real time, given that reaction time limits our ability to take evasive action *and* honk at the same time. I think I'm in favor of abolishing horns.

Labels: amusement, social commentary

Posted at 12:11:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Wednesday, September 10

Warm-up Laps

The Large Hadron Collider went online today. We're all still here. This is a big step for science and I'm looking forward to seeing the results of the first battery of experiments.

I was, however, somewhat dismayed in parts of the article that described the achievement. "The organization began firing the protons - a type of subatomic particle - around the tunnel in stages less than an hour earlier." It concerns me that the media thinks (and could possibly be correct) that the average reader doesn't know what a proton is (although to be honest if you don't know what a proton is, describing it as a "type of subatomic particle" probably isn't going to help much). Bleh to poor science education.

Labels: cool, science, social commentary

Posted at 12:40:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Monday, July 14

I'm Not Dead Yet

The only solace I take from my posting sluggishness (which is a symptom, really, of my GenX heritage and not my fault; honest) is that most of my other GenX compatriots post even less frequently than I do (like May, *cough* Jamie and Tim *cough*). There is some small degree of pride in being at the top of the "slacker dog pile."

The family of my former next-door neighbors held an estate sale this weekend, and in the process offered a fish-tank-like view of an interesting subculture of humanity. In they filtered, in groups of two and three (and six, in the case of some entire families), parking illegally for a city-block radius, marching like zombies across adjacent lawns and congregating in pensive-looking pods as they carefully weighed the true value of a 20-year-old television and collections of crocheted couch covers before offering a low bid. The subculture was further broken down into sub-subcultures, a trifecta of scavengers, if you will. The vast majority of the audience consisted of older (read, "retired" for those of you waiting to pounce on generation gaps) people, a clique that tended to peruse and not buy (possibly because of the difficulty they'd have transporting anything over ten pounds the distance to their cars), although they did wander, and wandering in this case included "peeking into my backyard" and other acts of nosiness. Following (or, more likely, leading, as they tended to walk faster) came the garage-sale families. Piling out of minivans, tots and bored teenagers in tow, they carted off anything not bolted down, valuable or not. Finally came the creepy single guys in paint-splattered jeans and bad facial hair; these made a beeline for the garage, where the well-worn tools accumulated over a lifetime vanished one-by-one into someone else's shop.

While a fairly unique disturbance in my quiet neighborhood, the actual impact (other than parking) was relatively minor. I politely put off my mowing on the first day (under the mistaken assumption that the three-day event was a Saturday-only sale), but the unfortunate fact that I only have two days off per week meant I had to do the mowing on Sunday; this, I've come to understand, is something of a faux pas, as having to cross the street to avoid a man pushing a lawnmower is apparently too much work, and walking right next to the running machine and giving the man dirty looks is the preferred stigma. Also, I've learned, from the trash along my sidewalk, that Wendy's is apparently the official sponsor of estate sale scavenging.

My sarcasm aside, there was a weird creepiness to the whole event. My green ways would protest in earnest at the idea of just throwing everything away (and the notion that descendants, especially in a family with few children, as in this case, should "absorb" the contents, is clearly unfeasible given that my house is almost full already), but still, this was the aggregation of two peoples' lives, the things they bought for themselves and each other or received as gifts from friends and loved ones, put on display to be bartered for by perfect strangers on routine circuits. How weird must it be to spend your weekends shuffling through the detritus of the dead, looking for cheap used potholders and 70s-era clocks? It's a hobby I do not judge or begrudge, but one I find a bit eerie.

Labels: house, social commentary

Posted at 2:52:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Monday, June 23

Please Commence the Procedure

Sometimes I think scammers would do well to hire a good (albeit ethically loose) proofreader to polish the nonsense they distribute. There seems to be no shortage of people on the Internet offering to clean up resumes, Web sites and other published material, although I do admit that the quality of these services is somewhat suspect until the results are displayed. Hopefully, they would know not to put exclamation points into a missive supposedly originating with a major corporate entity (and could polish out the missing articles, because nothing says "this wasn't penned by a literate English writer" like "If you are not customer").

Perhaps of more importance than appropriate business-style grammar and format, though, is the give-away involved in announcing that, even though the e-mail is going out to all Chase customers, if the recipient isn't a member of Chase Bank he or she can ignore (again with the exclamation point!) the e-mail in its entirety (bolding mine in the picture). Very polite. Not particularly bright.

Seriously, where is the doctoral-candidate-in-English mastermind writing these things on the side for pizza money who actually understands how to write to the audience and make it look realistic?

Labels: amusement, internet, social commentary

Posted at 3:03:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Sunday, June 22

Taste My Rainbow

The Rainbow Flag
Originally uploaded by -Greyson-

I arose early on Saturday to attend the 2008 Omaha Pride parade (and by "early" I mean "9:15," which doesn't seem very early to most people but is quite strenuous for the darkness-dwellers like me). The parade itself was disappointingly short (lasting a total of about 20 minutes), but the fact that Omaha even *has* a parade (and that it has grown each year) is an accomplishment.

The crowd seemed to enjoy the parade, with no discernible protesting or heckling. I did have one awkward encounter before the parade started as I was standing at 10th and Farnam messing with my camera gear. A gentleman who may or may not (based on his sports-themed attire) have been in town for the College World Series approached me to ask why people were lining up along the sidewalk. I told him it was for a parade, to which he responded "Oh, cool! A parade for what?" Internally bracing, I replied "The Omaha Gay Pride parade." "Oh," was his monotone reply, accompanied by the expected quick retreat.

Labels: omaha, photography, social commentary

Posted at 2:58:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Friday, June 20

Math Is Hard

The following is a frequently encountered question in the wide pantheon of OkCupid questions:

If the price of an apple was raised 50% and then decreased 50%, making it cost $0.75, how much was the original price?

(a) $1.00
(b) $0.75
(c) $1.25
(d) $0.50

What particularly amuses me about this question is that it's not a "how do you feel?" or "what's your opinion on this?" question as every other OkCupid question is; this is a math problem with only one correct answer. For those of you without OkCupid memberships, the problem with this is that the answer is never given and instead your answer (along with "how you want your friends/matches to respond," which works well for questions like politics and music tastes) is just posted for other people to see. And the vast majority of people who have compared their profiles to mine have gotten it wrong. So essentially it's a trick question that makes mathematically inclined people look dumb to the non-inclined, and the non-inclined look dumb to the inclined, because there's no opportunity to explain *why* you answered the way you did. So if you answer the question incorrectly and specify that you only want to match to other people who answered as you did . . .

Labels: amusement, social commentary

Posted at 2:22:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Thursday, June 12

Liquid Nitrogen and Nudity

Not at the same time, of course. Some things should not be cooled to -320 degrees F, and nipples are probably one of them.

The Top Chef finale was last night. Unfortunately, I can't talk about it yet because Cris's cable was out due to the second round of tornadoes and flash flooding we've had in a week and I don't know if he's seen it yet. I *will*, however, say that my favorite contestant, Richard, once again tickled my molecular gastronomy bone by incorporating liquid nitrogen into his cooking (yay for cool gadgets and high-tech ingredients), in this case to make a flash-frozen ice cream. The idea is pretty simple; assemble your non-frozen ice cream ingredients (in his case bacon-flavored ice cream, which did not particularly impress me; his original idea for tabasco pepper ice cream sounded better), put them in a high-grade mixer (like my KitchenAid), turn the mixer on low and slowly add liquid nitrogen until the concoction is ice cream (observing all due safety precautions, of course). Nitrogen is inert and boils out, leaving only the original, now-frozen ingredients. Lane has encouraged me to try it (with her present, of course), and liquid nitrogen can be had without permits or the like (it's not a regulated gas). The limiting factor is finding a place that will sell it to you in small quantities (most gas supply stores sell in bulk and I don't really need 30 liters of the stuff, since it doesn't store). I haven't found one in Omaha yet. Maybe someday.

On the nudity end of the spectrum (Do spectrums really have nudity ends? Is there a chocolate end?), the Transportation Security Administration rolled out its first full-use backscatter airport security machines this week. I first heard about these years ago in a Discover Magazine article (because they use a unique form of X-ray that measures object density by how much the object "scatters" the radiation rather than how it absorbs and re-releases it), where the focus was on the science rather than the politics. Now that they're in use, expect to hear about them in the news, because they produce near-photo-quality black-and-white images of the subject's nude body, regardless of clothing (clothing scatters almost none of the radiation so it doesn't show up). In an attempt to address privacy concerns, early versions of the machines had software that blurred out private areas, but apparently the TSA has decided that blurring those areas will encourage terrorists to hide items there, because the machines delivered to 10 airports this week "allow the security screeners . . . to clearly see the passenger's sexual organs." The TSA's press release assures people that there is no way for the screener to make a copy of the image, and the software still blurs the subject's face, but they're still getting a "show."

The defense offered to make the machines easier to swallow is phrased in the form of options. You can still request a physical pat-down in place of the machine, and the idea is that the machine is less physically invasive. I can see from my own personal standpoint that I would prefer the machine to having a stranger's hands on me, but then I'm not particularly uptight about images of the nude body (even my own), given my photography portfolio. It remains to be seen how most people, especially women and parents of pre-teen children, react, and how the actual security setup is handled (the procedure would likely be more palatable if the person viewing the images is in a different room and cannot see the subject, making it more impersonal, and the screener and subject are matched up by gender the way physical pat-downs are). I imagine it's only a matter of time before there's a scandal of some sort involving an overzealous screener; stay tuned.

Labels: cooking, politics, science, social commentary, television

Posted at 1:05:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Friday, May 30

Smooth Criminal

Smoothies have a prominent place in the great pantheon of foodstuffs that constitutes my diet. I buy bulk bags of frozen mangoes from Sam's Club that make my car's suspension protest in agony and I'm rarely without at least four (and often six or more) kinds of fruit on death row in my kitchen. My appreciation of the smoothie as a concoction of ambrosial value, therefore, is not in question, and in fact I've become something of a snob when it comes to restaurant-produced versions. I'm well aware that most of these lesser amalgams contain sugar (in one form or another) as a unique ingredient (as opposed to the fructose occurring naturally in the fruit), although I still expect them to be primarily fruit-based.

Enter, then, Taco Bell's Frutista Freeze, the newest (and most pushed in recent weeks by uninspired-yet-interested-in-staying-employed drive-through employees) product on the summer menu. In a bit of devious slight-of-hand, the chain incorporated "fruit" into the name of the drink (phonetically, if not in exact spelling) and serves it with strawberries on top (not to mention the advertisements are festooned with whole strawberries rolling around the cup), implying some sort of fruit-based blend. While waiting in the drive-through line the other night, however, I noticed the colorful cardboard placard near my car admitted in small letters in the corner that the Frutista Freeze "contains no fruit juice." Out of curiosity, then, I checked up on the product on Taco Bell's Web site. Sure enough, the freeze is essentially a fruit-flavored Icee with a strawberry "mixture" (likely containing as much sugar as strawberries) on top. Its nutritional content is disappointing, with a 16-oz. Freeze containing almost 100 calories and 20 grams of sugar (about one-and-a-half tablespoons) more than a can of soda. Normally I'd write this off as a "treat" (the way my occasional Coke Icee is) and forget about it, but I'm concerned (and annoyed) that the marketing angle will trick people into thinking they're actually consuming something semi-healthy (and more importantly that parents will buy them for their kids thinking they're better than soda). Grrr.

For the record, my smoothie recipe is very easy (and healthy). One cup low-fat or non-fat yogurt. One handful of frozen mango cubes as a base (rather than ice). Another handful of the fruit of your choice (I usually have fresh strawberries or bananas or frozen blueberries or blackberries on hand, and last week I used the kiwi that wasn't ripe enough to eat by itself). Enough orange juice to make it blend. Maybe a dash of vanilla if I'm feeling adventurous. No extra sugar or ice. Blend until smooth. The end.

Labels: annoyance, food, social commentary

Posted at 1:16:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Wednesday, May 21

Hold Your Nose and Declare Victory

Racial attitudes were also striking. About one in five whites in Kentucky said race played a role in choosing their candidate - on par with results in other Southern states. Nearly nine in 10 of that group backed Clinton - the highest proportion yet among the 29 states where that question has been asked.

I'm slightly uncomfortable with the concept of a candidate claiming viability through a strong victory when that victory is provided in substantial part by an electorate that openly admits to discounting human value based on race. The question arises, then, did Hillary win in Kentucky because she's a stronger candidate who is more capable of taking on McCain in a national election, or did Hillary win because her opponent was black? If it's the latter, Hillary's qualifications in this particular race were irrelevant.

Labels: politics, social commentary

Posted at 12:23:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Tuesday, May 20

Redrum si taem

Given its ranking in the holiday hierarchy somewhere between "Walk Barefoot to Work Day" and "Sell Your Children on eBay To Afford a New Set of Golf Clubs Week," I won't be surprised if no one is even aware that it's National Vegetarian Week. The human transition to omnivore status (an event possibly occasioned when some pre-human ancestor realized that grass and berries are more palatable when eaten with five pounds of mammoth meat) has left as its indelible mark a genetic heritage that makes the dead flesh of other animals taste good, and thus I expect few converts during this highly underpublicized "event." For my own part, I already botched it by preparing a chicken dish to bring to work for the first few suppers of the week, a situation I find vaguely ironic given I've purchased and cooked meat, including this dish, a total of twice in the last several years. In my defense, I find it likely, given the price of the antibiotic-free poultry I insist on using for my cooking, that I'll slide back into vegetarian cooking with little effort.

I'm asked now and then, in hesitant voices as though I may be offended, if I'm a vegetarian, usually at restaurants with new acquaintances or at family gatherings where my dearly dedicated mother, over my protests, cooks a separate meal to accommodate my decidedly non-western Nebraskan palate. Amusingly, I've been assumed to be a vegetarian twice in the last 10 years by coworkers because I passed on the red meat option and instead chose the chicken dish (in one case being the only attendee out of 40 not to opt for prime rib), which highlights a common public misconception that vegetarians eat fish and poultry (and consequently assuming that it's vegans who eat no meat at all, which is technically true but incomplete). For the record, I'm not a vegetarian, although my total poultry intake for a year is so low that I might as well be (I'm just annoyed enough by the people who triumphantly pounce on my decision to order one chicken dish every few months when dining out to avoid making the claim; yes, siblings, I'm looking at you). My last experience with red meat was a good eight years ago and frankly I've moved past the "do you miss it?" point to hover somewhere around "walking past the red meat counter at the grocery store makes me briefly nauseous."

My original decision to abandon red meat was based almost entirely on health reasons (there is just no way to justify red meat as a healthy diet base, at least in the context of the non-grass fed meat supplied by American feedlots). At the time I started, vegetarian diets were far more difficult, but greater access to varied foods and a renewed interest in non-meat dishes (both for health reasons and for flavor) on cooking shows and books have largely erased any stigma (at least for me) of not eating meat. I still take flak from my family for my soy- and vegetable-based reimaginings of the dishes we had when I was growing up (in particular, the two soy-based pies I made last Christmas that I conveniently "forgot" to mention were soy until after the fact), but hopefully in the long run it will help them see that dishes don't have to be unhealthy to be edible.

Personal taste and health reasons aside, a far bigger concern is environmental impact. Livestock production consumes a tremendous amount of resources (something like half of water use in the U.S. when you consider the water used to grow the grain that feeds the cattle). Figures vary from study to study, but estimates by the University of Michigan are 25 gallons of water to produce a pound of wheat and 2,500 gallons of water to produce a pound of beef, before adding in petroleum costs and the very serious problem of excessive antibiotics being transmitted into water supplies (not only ending up in the body when the water is consumed but also providing excellent breeding environments for antibiotic-resistant infectious bacterial strains). I'm not quite on board with all of the points in this article, but it's a comprehensive (if slightly more strident then mine) summary.

In any case, if you're at all curious about whether a vegetarian diet is workable for you, now is the week to try it. Or you could switch to insects.

Labels: humanism, social commentary

Posted at 12:31:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Tuesday, May 13

No Dice

I finished Discover's Einstein-dedicated March issue a few months ago. It included numerous articles about his life, his learning years, his teaching environment, his family and his children. It did not, however, contain anything like this:

The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this . . . For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions.

Labels: humanism, religion and atheism, science, social commentary

Posted at 4:24:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Wednesday, April 30

Scientists Are Hard at Work on a Vaccine

From a science article on obesity's effect on carbon footprints:

It's no secret that obesity has plenty of personal health consequences; the list of diseases that have been associated with being overweight include higher risk of high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease, stroke and less sex, to name only a few.

Wait, "less sex" is a disease? Is it contagious? That sounds like the death knell for the planet, as dangerous as small pox or zombie viruses. "The CDC now reports that 98% of the population is infected with the "less sex" disease. Birth rates have plummeted."

Labels: amusement, social commentary

Posted at 7:19:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Tuesday, April 29

Print Lag

The infusion of amateur (read: unpaid) Web comic artists in the last five or so years has helped reinvigorate daily comics, at least for the Internet-savvy (who can now indulge in theme-specific and esoteric comics that would never make it in a newspaper world of "target demographics").

It also increases the competition. How much does it suck for a nationally syndicated 20-year veteran when his comic is done three days earlier by a Web comic artist?

Labels: comics, funny, social commentary

Posted at 12:35:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Monday, April 14

Robert Armes, This One Is For You

For the past few weeks I've been watching various sites for Canon lens deals so I can upgrade from my current walk-around lens. On Friday the following ad popped up on the local Craig's List board:

"Canon EOS 5D 12.8 Megapixel w/ EF 24-105 Kit- $1100"

Right of the bat this seemed odd to me. The poster was advertising it as "like new," having only used it for "50 shots" before deciding he didn't need a full-frame camera. The language in the ad actually showed some degree of knowledge of cameras, but at the same time he's asking $1,100 for a nearly $3,000 camera. The lens alone is worth what he was asking for the package.

So I passed. I did forward it to Lisa with a joke about how I'd give her my XTi for free if she'd buy me this one, but other than that I forgot about it.

On Saturday afternoon it was still there, and I finally broke down and sent a query about the condition and original purchase point (no harm there). As usual, I used one of my "throw away" e-mail addresses so in case it *was* a scam I could just junk the e-mail address when I started receiving spam from it. No response came on Saturday, and within about three hours the ad was removed from Craig's List. I figured the seller had found a buyer and removed the ad to keep from receiving further inquiries.

Fast forward to this morning (Monday), when I receive the following:

> -------Original Message-------
> From: Robert Armes
> To: [my throw-away craigslist.org address]
> Subject: Canon EOS 5D 12.8 Megapixel w/ EF 24-105 Kit- $1100
> Sent: 14 Apr '08 13:14
>
> Hi there,
>
> I still have the Kit. But the thing is that i'm in the U.K. for my
> school ( i have the gear with me), if you're still interested in the sale
> please let me know and maybe we can work something out . So drop me a line
> if you're up for grabs!
> Thank you!
>
>
> Robert Armes
> 420, Prescot Rd, Old Swan, Liverpool, Merseyside L13 3DA
> United Kingdom
> Ph: 44 20 3014 7453

Alarm bells. First off, he didn't answer any of my questions. Second, he's suddenly in England, two days after advertising on an Omaha posting board? For school (a long-term obligation)? Why even bother to advertise it here? Third, now we're talking shipping charges, which defeats the purpose of Craig's List (local buying and selling) and introduces the potential for scams and fraud.

So I Googled his name and a few other pieces of information from the e-mail. It took less than 15 seconds to come up with a Flickr discussion board with posts from people who have received the exact same offer (using the same name and address) on the Craig's List boards of Seattle and Chicago. Some of the contributors to the board pursued it further than I did and had received instructions for sending payment through a faked-but-authentic-sounding shipping company.

Just a reminder that things that sound too good to be true probably are.

Labels: amusement, computers, internet, photography, social commentary

Posted at 1:14:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Saturday, March 29

The Night the Lights Went Out in [Insert State Here]

Tonight from 8-9 p.m. is Earth Hour. Feel free to join in.

Labels: environment, social commentary

Posted at 2:02:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Tuesday, March 11

Geek Chic

Reality television shows have never demonstrated the addictive qualities to me that they seem to exhibit to a sizable portion of the population, and thus I make no claims of ever having seen "Beauty and the Geek" or knowing anything about it. Still, I shook my head in puzzlement at Yahoo's front-page photo slide show of the latest episode, wherein the "Beauties" (as I assume they're called) were "transformed" into "Geeks" and sent to collect phone numbers from unsuspecting guys at a bar. Hair/clothes/makeup I can see, but prosthetic noses? As though being a "geek" involves bone structure deviations from the general population? 'Cause, you know, there are no cute geek girls . . .

Labels: social commentary

Posted at 12:18:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Wednesday, March 5

Pretty Packaging

But a February 2006 investigation by ABC's "Good Morning America" found Airborne might not work as advertised. The investigation revealed that Airborne's clinical trial was conducted by just two people in the absence of a clinic or scientists.

Yay for preying on the gullibility of the average American!

Labels: science, social commentary

Posted at 12:31:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Friday, February 22

Idiocracy

It's a good thing the liberal portion of the country tends to eschew violence, because Ralph Nader is the sort of misguided-yet-destructive personality that engenders very strong negative emotions among the people he thinks he's trying to help. Don't get me wrong; I strongly dislike the established two-party system and I've toyed with various third parties in the past, but one of the facets of third parties is that they draw votes *only* from the main party they most resemble. In the case of the 2000 election, it's arguably likely that Nader handed W. the presidency by refusing to drop out of the race and earning enough votes from people who otherwise would have voted for Gore to send the election spiraling into the recount mess that followed.

Labels: politics, social commentary

Posted at 11:23:00 AM. | | Permalink to this post.

Monday, February 18

Psychics and Psychoses

Fifth Amendment rules apply.

Labels: funny, introspection, social commentary

Posted at 6:01:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Tuesday, February 12

"Math Is Hard"

My daily drive to and from work (save on snow days, when an alternate, less inclined path is employed) traverses Saddle Creek, a street that borders several less-than-upscale neighborhoods. It saddens me, then, but failed to surprise me when I noticed three new businesses (two side-by-side in a strip mall and the other directly across the street) providing services in check cashing and tax refund loans.

For those unfamiliar with the practice, for a fee a check cashing business will provide a customer with cash in exchange for a post-dated check to be cashed at a specific time in the future (usually the next payday). If the customer does not have the money available to cash the check at the appointed time, he or she can conveniently "extend" the loan by paying an additional fee. In this way, these businesses bypass the traditional interest rates (and their state law caps). The net effect, however, is the same; within a short amount of time, a person paying $40 a month in "fees" on a $200 loan has paid far more than the original loan was worth. The equivalent interest rate is hard to calculate because it depends on how long it takes the customer to finally pay off the loan, but the number can easily go into the triple digits ($1,200 in fees on a $200 loan, for example).

On a comparable basis, tax anticipation loans involve the tax preparer giving the expected amount of the refund to the customer on the spot, with an expectation of paying it back when the refund arrives. The average interest rate on a $2,000 tax refund is just over 220%.

If all of this was upfront and aboveboard, I'd have no (or less, anyway) problem with it. Adults can do with their money as they please, after all. But as the location of the new stores shows, these loans are targeted at low-income families living paycheck to paycheck, often those with poor English, the very people who can't afford 200% interest rates and the people least likely to understand the language or math involved (who would say yes to a person offering them $200 now in exchange for $1,200 a year later?). Obfuscated language and unspoken drawbacks lead to families struggling to pay off an additional, extremely high-interest-rate loan in addition to whatever struggles led them to need the money in the first place (usually bills, which never go away), and the businesses capitalizing on this know that's what their services are doing. It's essentially exploitation of the poor and ignorant, and that's a loathsome thing to do.

Labels: social commentary

Posted at 12:22:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Wednesday, January 23

Age of Majority

An opinion piece on NPR a few days ago discussed the military service of the children of political candidates (specifically in this case those candidates running for president, although the points made were broad enough to apply to any political candidate with input on U.S. military policy, including members of Congress). The piece actually confused me, as the commentator (a father of a serviceman) openly admits that the U.S.'s volunteer military does not require service and no parent should push his or her children into service in the interests of furthering political ambitions, and yet he's "resentful" that his son (who it is assumed volunteered for service) was deployed to Afghanistan while President Bush's daughters were not. The majority of the statement is a detailed listing of the children of each of the top-tier candidates in the current primaries, noting their military experience (or lack thereof), but the reason for this analysis is never given. The author fails to clarify his position, other than to suggest a "higher standard" for political candidates (without giving his opinion on what the candidates should actually do).

The are significant problems with the author's point of view, not the least of which is the minimum age for military service is, in most cases, also the age of majority, the point at which parents no longer have any authority over their children. The author seems to suggest that candidates should be judged by the decisions of their adult children, and even more the candidates should try to talk their children into military service in order to satisfy the author's point of view that a president should not send troops into a conflict unless he or she was comfortable sending his or her own children there. This completely ignores the autonomy of the adult children, who may have opted not to consider military service for reasons entirely separate from the "privileged and protected" lifestyle that the author heavily suggests is the reason some of the candidates' children are hedge fund managers or real estate developers; it could just be that military service doesn't appeal to a great many people. In addition, it's highly unlikely that any presidential child would see direct combat (and thus satisfy the "I'm willing to send my children in with yours" requirement that the author likes); the recent decision to withhold Prince Harry (a commissioned lieutenant) from combat for security reasons underscores the logistics, not to mention U.S. military policies that exclude women (even the daughters of presidents) from combat operations.

The author's closing statement is equally confusing. He suggests we "take a page" from Eleanor Roosevelt, who wrote of how happy FDR was that his children volunteered for military service without his input, leaving open the question of how today's candidates are supposed to replicate such a situation.

Labels: politics, social commentary

Posted at 1:00:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Tuesday, January 22

An under-the-radar (to everyone but a handful of Georgia evangelical conservatives) news item I stumbled across today:

Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee is lending his support to a proposed amendment to the Georgia Constitution (HR 536) that would, no joke, reclassify all forms of birth control as abortion by defining "personhood" as beginning at fertilization. A legal analysis by one anti-abortion attorney suggests that practical results of the amendment could be "enforcement of homicide laws against pregnant women [and] restricting the activities of pregnant women," and raises the scary specter that the ambiguity in the amendment will mean contraception choices and enforcement will be left up to local laws ('cause, you know, *that* would never be used unscrupulously by district attorneys and local law enforcement). What a bad idea.

Labels: social commentary, what the hell

Posted at 2:15:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Wednesday, January 16

Purpose-Driven

I found an interesting article yesterday on the transformation from paper- to electronic-based information channels and how traditional information establishments (libraries, newspapers, encyclopedias, etc.) are failing to adapt. The author presents the idea (one with which I agree) that the traditional establishments are confusing what they do with what they're for (the difference between selling physical newspapers and providing a summary of information in a convenient method that consumers find both appealing and trustworthy). I think a good example of this is Omaha's local paper, which is substantially behind in its adoption of technology. For several years the World-Herald's Web version consisted of a password-protected, poorly navigable electronic copy of its print version (accounts were free, but still a hassle), which meant no one I know used it (it was impossible to forward it on by hyperlink or e-mail and you had to know enough about an article to search for it if it didn't appear on the front page). The real killer, though, was that the site had no "personality"; it was a straight dump of the paper version, with an implied feeling of "we'd prefer you buy the physical copy, but since you aren't going to do that and this seems to be expected, fine, here you go." In an information sphere where a specific newspaper doesn't have an exclusive lock on material, readers have no incentive to return to that site (it doesn't help that they use pop-up advertisements; horribly unprofessional).

The same concepts hold for all other content providers. Music companies are clinging to CD sales as though their actual purpose is to sell CDs, as opposed to distributing the material an artist produces to people who are interested in hearing it, even if that doesn't involve a CD. The purpose of libraries isn't to loan books; it is to provide access to the "printed" works (in whatever format is most convenient) of an author to people interested in seeing that author's work. The fact that the book has been the most convenient method of doing that for a few centuries doesn't mean libraries should define themselves as "book lenders"; that's a fast lane to obsolescence in an information sphere. You can also see this in the switch from film to digital photography; I have a box of photos I took before my first digital camera, collecting dust in my basement, where no one sees them, and 1,500 digital photos with descriptions and searchable tags online, most of which have never been printed but have been seen by dozens of family members, friends and strangers around the world. I still have a camera, and I still show the results of my photography to people, but the information channel in between the two is radically different from what it was 15 years ago (because my purpose isn't to make photographic prints; it's to share my art with people).

Labels: internet, social commentary

Posted at 2:08:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Monday, January 14

The Constitution Should Be Required Reading

Republicans in the state criticized the bill as undermining federal elections. "This legislation is a constitutional travesty," Assemblyman Richard Merkt said. "It's a backdoor end-run of the federal Constitution."

Please. How can one make a travesty of the Constitution when the Constitution itself says nothing about how electors are chosen on the state level other than to note the number each state sends? There is no "end-run" here. States are well within their legislative rights to base their electoral slate on the state's popular vote, the nation's popular vote, the state legislature's direct vote (used by more than half of the states until the 1816 elections) or a random coin toss. This is only a "travesty" to some people because the popular vote isn't friendly to their candidates.

Labels: politics, social commentary

Posted at 1:29:00 AM. | | Permalink to this post.

Sunday, January 13

The Perils of Open Content

Although a fervent fan of Wikipedia, I'm certainly aware of the project's limitations. Such as its vulnerability to (usually temporary) vandalism.

Labels: internet, social commentary

Posted at 11:26:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Friday, January 11

Awkwardness

Wow, what are the odds?

Labels: social commentary

Posted at 1:41:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Friday, January 4

Weight of the World

Lisa and I discussed last night a conversation that appeared on one of the posting boards she frequents regarding the question of whether or not women should be required or encouraged (or volunteer) to comply with social standards that frown on uncovered breast feeding in public places, focusing primarily on the discomfort it produces in other people. I came down on the side of the vocal minority on the board, believing, as I do, that the entire concept of "men can be shirtless but women can't" is an oddly irrational social construct that has embedded itself in American culture (certainly not a cultural universal, as seen by relaxed attitudes in Europe, Africa and most indigenous South American and Oceanic societies), reflecting a linking of the concepts of "nudity" and "sex" when the two are not in actuality synonymous. The obvious (if juvenile) retort is "you just want to see boobies in public," but I think anyone in my inner circle will agree that my opinions are unsullied by such a factor (callipygian factors are an entirely different story). The main argument from the opposition is that such displays make people "uncomfortable," but then so do vocal political protests, t-shirts with obnoxious slogans, legally existing hate groups and the Teletubbies; we have a long and distinguished history of putting personal freedom above societal discomfort.

The discussion reminded me of a television documentary I watched while on furlough (during the early morning hours when the rest of my parents' household was asleep, with the volume suitably low). BBC America (a channel I didn't even know existed until seeing it in my parents' Direct TV lineup) showed "My Big Breasts and Me," a chronicle of the methods three British women considered and implemented to deal with what is a growing (literally) problem not only in the UK but in most other first-world nations as well, the expanding bust size. While the typical male will say "Bigger breasts, yay!" (possibly substituting some colorful euphemism for "breasts"), a more enlightened look acknowledges the negative medical effects of having large amounts of weight on the front of your chest at all time, along with the self-esteem and social effects. According to the show, the average bust size in the UK has jumped from a 34B to a 36D in ten years and that chronic back pain has helped fuel a 19% growth in reduction surgeries.

The women in the subject are at the far ends (for now) of the curve, with bust sizes ranging from 40G to 32E (which on a tall, thin girl is noticeable). The show followed their explorations of options, starting with diet and exercise (since bust size can be affected, both ways, by body composition) and proceeding to better support and then to surgery. Exercise in particular is a problem; the show pointed out the paradox of weight gain leading to breast size gain, leading to inactivity as exercise becomes painful, leading to further weight gain. One of the women in the show in particular had to custom-order a sports bra before she could even go to the gym, and then was quite embarrassed to be seen in public in something with "far less material" than she was used to wearing. The embarrassment angle was touched on several times, highlighting the attention (both positive and negative) that women can receive; I've had several well-endowed friends who have commented (sometimes positively, sometimes bitterly) on how difficult it is to make their bust size *not* the first thing people notice, and how awkward it can be when men take notice specifically for that reason (immortalized on the "My Eyes Are Up Here" t-shirts).

Possibly the most important and interesting thing I learned from the show is that 80% of women are apparently wearing the wrong bra size, and that a simple fitting can help relieve a good deal of shoulder tension and improve appearance. So my new crusade, along with "Have you had your HPV vaccine yet?", is "Have you had your bra fitting yet?"

Labels: breasts, social commentary

Posted at 2:01:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Tuesday, December 18

Unintended Praise

I had some photos developed last week. When I arrived at the store to retrieve them, I noticed immediately that, below my name on the large white envelope (I had 8x10s made), was one hand-written word: "Professional?" I thought it odd, but put it out of my mind until seeing the college-aged girl glance at the envelope and stiffen. What followed was a strange conversation:

Her: *pulling out the 8x10s* Um, are these your photos?
Me: *thinking she just wants to verify she pulled the right set* Yup, those are mine.
*pause*
Her: You're sure they're yours?
Me: Um, yeah.
*longer pause*
Her: Um, did you take them? Like, physically take them?
Me: *with a raised eyebrow and not as friendly* Yes. I took them.
*pause*
Her: Okay, um, I'm going to have to have you sign a form.

She then produced a waiver of some sort from beneath the counter that said something to the effect of "I state that I own the copyright to these photos and I waive the developer of any liability in the event of copyright infringement" and indicated I sign and date it. Before signing it I quizzed her about it. As she explained it, some photo developers now "eyeball" photos coming out of the automatic machine and flag those that look "too good" (her words) to be taken on amateur equipment. The person retrieving the photos is then quizzed to verify the photos weren't downloaded and printed from an unaware professional photographer (because, as she explained, if the real photographer shows up with the unauthorized print the developer is on the hook for monetary damages).

While the event was both frustrating and flattering at the same time, I'm a little concerned and perhaps a bit amused by the subjectivity involved in minimum-wage employees judging artistic merit by merely glancing at photos, a factor that mitigates any glow one might receive from being confused with a professional photographer. If the point is to avoid copyright infringement (and I have no doubt that her explanation was accurate), eyeballing for subjective quality is going to catch only a fraction of actual violations. Digital photos, like digital music, is almost impossible to maintain exclusively. The mere fact that you can see my Flickr photos on your computer means your computer now has a copy of the photo in its cache. Still, I can see the developer's desire to avoid legal repercussions, and weeding out obvious magazine scans and famous prints is better than nothing.

Labels: photography, social commentary

Posted at 3:22:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Holiday Spirit

The jagged talons of overcommercialization are evident nowhere as clearly as the holiday season, when the frenzy of possession passing eclipses the more primal emotions that are supposed to be in ascendancy. This is perhaps most evident on the frustrated, overheated faces of shoppers in long lines, faces driven by social expectation rather than joy or desire. As an illustrative point, yesterday I placed my petty purchases on the conveyor, purchases which included a new pillow (for some reason I'm particularly hard on pillows; I have no idea why). These purchases took up the entirety of the available space, a state of affairs acceptable as the customer in front of me was still in the process of paying. I was rather astounded, then, when the man behind me, pushing a brimming cart, directed what can only be described as a scowl at me and then had the nerve to restack my purchases, roughly shoving them forward with the little rubber separator thingy and literally tossing the pillow on top of them. This cleared about two square feet of space, space he immediately filled with a very small percentage of his total cart before he, like everyone else in line, was forced to wait for the customer in front of me to finish paying, all the while giving me a look as if to say "How rude of you to hog the conveyor."

If it's not fun anymore, what's the point?

Labels: social commentary

Posted at 3:06:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Wednesday, December 12

The New Smoking

Certain acquaintances, primarily family, like to tease me now and then about my dietary habits, specifically my avoidance of red meat, seeing it, as they do, as a facet of my liberal tendencies or my general "oddness" rather than a health choice. I direct them now to this study, which correlates their teasing, to a lesser and less obvious degree, to teasing nonsmokers about not smoking.

Labels: science, social commentary

Posted at 11:25:00 AM. | | Permalink to this post.

Monday, December 3

Living in Your Skin

The "big news" in the gossip world today was Jennifer Love Hewitt's recent vacation bikini photos and her response to them. Because apparently we think the glass house of America (with its truly scary obesity rates) is made of Plexiglass or something. I actually think she looks better than she does in her waif-like form. Good for her for being content with herself.

Labels: social commentary

Posted at 9:23:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

The Chump Engine

It's a feature of the human psyche to give temporary credence, or at least a wary benefit of the doubt, to ideas and products that benefit us personally, a facet of the thought process exploited since the dawn of trading by the smart-yet-unscrupulous among us. Whereas we immediately see the pitfalls and unlikely promises from our disinterested, third-party perspective, we dare to hope, sometimes greedily, sometimes desperately, sometimes in tired disgust, that the ungodly expensive "solution" presented to us will, in this *one* case, turn out to be the exception, that the honey-tongued salesman really cares about solving our problems and not lifting our wallets. It is a seductive slope, made slippery with exploitation and misdirection, and, when cleansed by rain or government intervention, reveals a pyramid made of despicable predators willing to kick people who are already down.

Late-night television is never a window into needed happiness (unless your happiness comes from "Girls Gone Wild" videos), although infomercials for foreclosed houses for $317, B-list-celebrity-endorsed exercise gyms and the ever popular (despite engendering grimaces in any non-paid woman) all-natural-herbal-male-enhancement pills would say otherwise. The newest commercial, one that sparked spontaneous laughter at its brazenness, is for a product called "ZeroSmoke," which promises to cure you of your nicotine addiction with two tiny ear-worn magnets. Not just any magnets, but "bio-magnets" (whatever those are). And not just any bio-magnets, but $40 bio-magnets (an arbitrarily assigned price not disclosed on the infomercial, for what should be fairly evident reasons). The presentation was filled with the standard compliment of "vaguely scientific-sounding but nonsense" language ("auricular therapy"? Right.) that should (but sadly doesn't) trip alarms with any one with a decent amount of common sense. Out of curiosity, I Googled the product with fairly predictable results:

- Multiple complaints from ~~silly victims~~ customers regarding the company's much-promoted 14-day money-back guaranty, which runs from the date of purchase, not the date you receive the magnets in the mail (despite the fact that the two are likely to be some distance apart), compounded by the program's 7-day treatment period (leaving many unhappy customers past the return date by the time they give up in frustration) and the possibility that the customer service phone number won't work.

- One egregious example of someone purporting to be from the company responding to a complaint in a review forum by providing personal information about the transaction (purchase and delivery dates, material from the customer's e-mails to the company, commentary on the customer's tone in the e-mails, etc.). That should be so unprofessional as to preclude consideration altogether.

- Complaints that the magnets (which are supposed to be worn for 4 hours a day for 7 days) are so weak that they fall off and are lost on a regular basis (and refunds are contingent on returning the product).

- Such classic language as "all-natural" (they're magnets, not hormones . . .) and "FDA listed and registered" (which means they filed paperwork that the device won't hurt you, not that the FDA actually agrees that the product works). And of course the inevitable "Results may vary," modern jargon for "this product doesn't work."

- And, unsurprisingly, not a single positive review from any non-"testimonial" source.

Labels: social commentary

Posted at 3:52:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Friday, November 30

What Is the Opposite of 'Reaching Out'?

Blame it on planetary alignment, or perhaps karma (or, more realistically, random chance), but my last half hour has been a veritable foray into the dark jungles of insularity and wall-building. The normally lyrical offerings of my radio on the way to work were temporarily replaced, due to a misclick, by the perennial favorite of my family proper, Rush Limbaugh, who was in the midst of a rather frenzied diatribe on the idiocy of liberal democrats. I have no idea what the particular issue was, but the actual phrasing was something in line with "Liberal democrats are the root cause of all the problems we're having; I'm not talking about their intentions, but the blundering way they mismanage things. Conservatives can't win a confidence election? My god, democrats couldn't even *spell* "confidence" if their lives depended on it." It's a sad commentary that I understand why this sort of "us vs. them, we're smart and they're stupid" rhetoric resonates with so many people, but it provides *no* avenues to compromise or communication.

(Amusingly, he segued directly into selling Brazilian hardwood flooring, something he never did when I was in high school and subjected to my father's listening preferences; I wonder if the smaller market share has led to some compromises.)

(And for the record, I'm perfectly capable of spelling "confidence." Please.)

My arrival at work was greeted with a Yahoo article on the Pope's condemnation of atheism as the source of some of the "greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice" in history that has left behind "a trail of appalling destruction." The encyclical (the second-highest "public statement" in the Catholic canon, just behind the rare-and-uber-important apostolic constitution) is rife with oversimplifications and logical fallacies. The most notable equates atheism with Marxism (an association fallacy) and then blames atheism for the injustices done by Marxists, completely ignoring the fact that atheism is a very large umbrella that encompasses any ideology that does not believe in the existence of supernatural deities (regardless of its stance on any other issues). That definition includes Marxism and Communism. It *also* includes the diametric opposites (Ayn Rand's Objectivism is about as far from Marxism/Communism as you can get, and incorporates atheism as one of its tenets).

The deeper point again, though, is the lack of consensus building, or any route to cooperation with non-militant atheists. It seems human nature to attack other groups, regardless of how "enlightened" we feel we are. That, above all else, will eventually be our downfall.

Labels: religion and atheism, social commentary

Posted at 12:14:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Thursday, November 15

"You Know That I'm No Good"

"To all those booing, just wait till my husband gets out of incarceration. And I mean that."

When all else fails, threaten your fans. Good plan.

Labels: amusement, social commentary

Posted at 12:32:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Tuesday, November 6

Photocopy of a Photocopy

A Time article today considers the question of the traditional interpretation of the rules of divorce in Christianity, which included the following line:

Instone-Brewer radically reinterprets the first passage using, of all things, quotation marks. The Greek of the New Testament didn't always contain them, and scholars agree that sometimes they must be added in to make sense of it.

That the Bible is a collection of assorted works written by various (and often anonymous) authors over a series of several centuries is uncontested (and in fact the exact number and arrangement of the books were the subject of lengthy proceedings that didn't end until the 16th century, and which resulted in at least four different "official" Bibles, depending on faction; the Council of Trent, for example, finalized the Catholic version, which differs from the Protestant version by about 14 books). Quotes like the above, however, remind me of one of the first theological problems I had with my (at the time) religion, namely, how can I depend unquestioningly on "divine instructions" that have been filtered through dozens or hundreds of humans (introducing errors, mistranslations or outright fabrications)? Taken from that angle, there is nothing unique, in comparison to the other ancient religious texts of the world, in the Word of God. A divine instruction that requires multiple successive interpretations and a large bureaucracy (of people who were once also unfamiliar with it) to explain to me what it means is far from the most efficient way of distributing something as vital as the rules that are supposed to govern this and all other states of existence. At the time this occurred to me (sometime in middle high school), I'd envisioned an alternative method of divine revelation involving a Bible that automatically translated itself into the language of the reader and was impervious to alteration. Of course, that solution has its own problems that I didn't see at the time (it makes believing on faith alone, one of the tenets of Christianity, rather difficult, and as Arthur C. Clarke would point out that feat wouldn't be beyond the capabilities of a sufficiently advanced alien species). Still, if a correct reading is absolutely vital to the eternal consequences of your soul, I would think at the very least an enlightened deity would provide clear, concrete instructions.

Labels: religion and atheism, social commentary

Posted at 10:57:00 AM. | | Permalink to this post.

Friday, September 28

Violence in Triptych

Violence in Triptych, originally uploaded by -Greyson-.

The Domestic Violence Awareness rally was something of a letdown this evening, with a scarce crowd (fewer than a hundred by rough count), a less-than-reliable sound system and wince-inducing off-key singing. It was redeemed, however, by the very powerful poetry written and performed by a violence survivor and accompanied by the sign language interpreter pictured in the photo. Seeing someone act out a traumatic scene in what was practically mime is more impressive than listening to statistics.

It would have been nice to see more public interest, especially given the gravity of the subject.

Labels: charity, social commentary

Posted at 2:24:00 AM. | | Permalink to this post.

Thursday, September 27

Ewww

Things not to do on Flickr if you don't know me:

Don't leave a comment on one of my pictures asking me to "hook you up" with the model in the photo. I don't know you, and if this is your method of meeting people I probably don't want to know you (and I can guaranty my model doesn't want to know you). I'm not an escort service.

Don't include personal questions about the model in the comment. Feel free to ask me all the questions you want about the photo, but asking what the model does for a living and whether I have any more pictures of her to send you is out of bounds.

If you ignore these points and leave a link to your own Flickr photos, make sure they don't consist in their entirety of pictures of your penis.

If you ignore all of the above, don't be surprised when I delete your comment and block you from my account.

Labels: annoyance, social commentary

Posted at 2:13:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Wednesday, September 26

Collectanea

Unrelated, even through Kevin Bacon:

- NPR had a piece on a standoff between an invading/occupying force and the native population on one specific chain of Pacific Islands yesterday. The newly arrived trespassers are Puerto Rican coqui frogs, and the invasion point is the Hawaiian islands. The frogs (or perhaps even *a* frog) arrived sometime in the 90s (probably in a plant) and, due to a lack of natural predators, have multiplied to astronomical numbers. The problem, as presented, isn't with crop destruction or species crowding as are the usual hallmarks of an invasive species; the problem is noise. The male frogs' mating call can reach 100db (louder than an alarm clock or an electric shaver), and in concert a sample group of frogs in any area are comparable to a noisy freeway or an airport (leaving sleep difficult and conversation in outdoor restaurants almost impossible). Unfortunately, it seems to be an open-ended problem. The frogs are resistant enough to chemical treatments that attempts to control them end up destroying native species as well, and no other viable suggestions have been made. I rather enjoyed their trilling on the radio for the 15 minutes they played in the background, although I can see where a 24/7 alarm clock would be frustrating (and be highly adverse to property values). Still, I was dismayed at the interviews with Hawaiians who found the local extermination methods not just commonplace but almost humorous (one man chuckled as he described how much pressure you have to use when stepping on them in order to pop their lungs; what the hell, NPR?).

- For those of you (not my readers; I'm speaking to humanity in general) who "borrow" the handicapped tags in order to use the reserved spaces: knock it off. I'm not certain of the legality in all 50 states (although I know it's illegal in at least a few), but ethically you're being a jerk. The tag isn't issued to the car; it's issued to a specific recipient. If said recipient isn't in the car, park in a normal space. This isn't one of those "no harm, no foul" loopholes; because there is a finite number of reserved spaces, your gain equates to someone else's loss. The real measure of character is whether you do the right thing when you know no one is looking.

- Although I'm not in any way even remotely qualified to be giving dating advice, I still feel compelled to comment on an online profile I encountered today. Along with the standard text ("this is me, this is what I'm looking for, etc.") was an appended pre-made graphic stating "All I want is for ONE GUY to prove to me that they're not all the same" (bolding in original). For future reference for those making profiles, this is a flag of a very bright crimson hue. To get the obvious out of the way first, it's highly unlikely that every single male she knows is a jerk (I can see every single person she has dated, but that's hardly grounds for such a wide brush). I'm not defending the gender as a whole, knowing, as I do, stellar examples of brutishness and manipulation; that said, no one wants to go into a relationship that requires overcoming preconceived notions in addition to the awkwardness of connecting with a stranger. I've had (brief) experience serving the dual roles of "potential significant other" and "ambassador for the entire male gender," and frankly it sucks. No one should expect a new and unknown person to cover the tab for the character flaws of previous acquaintances (and it should not be a surprise when people of any measure of character, men or women, balk when asked to do so). At the risk of skirting the edges of the repugnant concept of "blaming the victim," if (regardless of your gender or orientation) your relationships consistently involve people lacking character or exhibiting any of the variety of negative attributes, it's probably time to ask a third party to honestly evaluate your methods of choosing your dating pool.

Labels: social commentary

Posted at 2:31:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Thursday, September 20

Solidarity

There's a rally supporting the prevention of violence against women at the Heartland of American Park next Thursday from 7-8 that I want to attend. If anyone else wants to go let me know and we'll set a meeting point (and catch dinner afterward for those interested).

Labels: charity, social commentary

Posted at 1:31:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Monday, September 17

Humanity's Long Twilight

Two unrelated items, both deserving of social commentary:

-Craig's List continues to supply items of amusement, although the emphasis on form over content here saddens me.

-I'm tempted to buy a Map of Humanity, although I'm not sure where I would put it. (Larger view here.) It's an interesting two-dimensional counterpoint to my previous post, providing compass points to my "journey."

Labels: amusement, social commentary

Posted at 11:25:00 AM. | | Permalink to this post.

Saturday, September 15

Saturnalia

The tangled webs of historical wordplay entwined within the last day of the week are complex, and possibly trivial to the unconcerned masses, but suffice it to say that it is a day named, uniquely among the largely Norse-inspired week, for a Roman deity adopted from an earlier Greek deity who, among his other charming attributes, swallowed all of his children. To honor this great paragon of parenthood, we named a planet after him.

There was some sort of sporting event of note in the state today. Its existence was presaged by mumblings at work on Friday and a cacophony of red "N" sweatshirts and flags today (along with one odd woman wearing an orange shirt with similar "Husker" markings; even a heretic such as I knows the proper color for the state's quasi-religious following). I was vaguely aware of it (more so than my usual indifference) due to friends attending and the "flexible" television scheduling that "slides" shows I might otherwise watch to later time slots. Of the actual event itself I have no knowledge.

Some gas stations, in furthering efforts to attract customers to the insides of their establishments (for, despite outrage to the contrary, gas stations make very little money off gasoline itself and instead make most of their profit from marked-up consumables), have expanded their beverage fountains. One particular place on my drive home includes not only six flavors of slushies, eight flavors of coffee and a do-it-yourself-from-pre-frozen-fruit-cups smoothie bar but also a panoply of soda flavors bordering on silly. My personal favorite addition, however, has been the "old fashioned" soda fountain flavors, dispensed at the push of a button, which allow anyone to become a connoisseur of fine carbonated masterpieces; in my case, this means a cherry vanilla Dr Pepper roughly twice as "cherry vanilla"-y as the cans in my refrigerator, a concoction with clearly visible stratified layers of red and yellow filling a full third of the cup before the final mixing. This is a luxury I find wholly unnecessary and overly indulgent in the context of global poverty and conflict, and yet I continue to plunk my dollar down on the counter.

I stood in line at Wal-Mart today for most of half an hour waiting for a photo kiosk to become available. Until this point, it had not dawned on me that anyone would actually use the primitive cropping and adjusting tools built in to such machines; compared to even the simplest photo manipulation programs (let alone Photoshop) they seem clumsy. Nevertheless, two different women patiently resized, cropped and removed red eye from, between them, over 200 photos. The Zen aspect of my mind understood for the first time that the digital revolution has not distributed itself equally, and there is likely a substantial minority, perhaps even a majority, of the population forced into digital photography without a corresponding interest in (or access to) computers, and to them the kiosk fills a void that those of us on the bleeding (or even near-bleeding) edge of digital technology take for granted. It occurs to me that my mother would likely still be using a film camera, or at best using a digital camera and taking the card directly to Wal-Mart, but for my patient prodding and explaining, and I'm probably in the small minority of people who spend time adjusting the histogram channels and other quasi-arcane-sounding hoopla. On the other hand, the petulant aspect of my mind was annoyed that their imperturbable manipulations tied up the only gateways to the actual developing process, which seems something of an efficiency issue on Wal-Mart's part. I think it's possible to send photos directly to a Wal-Mart store over the Internet. I may have to explore.

In a further degradation to one of the strong influences on my formative high school years, the SciFi Channel premiered the direct-to-tv presentation of "Highlander: The Source" tonight. In keeping with a franchise of such strong potential and fan passion, the show was of course promoted so well that I wouldn't have even known it had premiered if I hadn't looked at the television schedule tonight to see if there were any CSI reruns. For those of you unaware of the schizophrenic thrashings of the Highlander mythos, suffice it to say it has produced one classic movie, one six-season television series with some very good (and some rough) moments, two movies that were officially written out of canon, a fourth passable if not great movie and now this monstrosity, which went through multiple scripts, staff and edits over two years before being released to DVD in Europe to dismal reviews, then more edits before what was at first promised to be a theater release, then a DVD release and finally a direct-to-tv movie. It sounds like a train wreck from what I've read (Mad Max-esque future anarchy and superhuman blue-skinned villains; for crying out loud), so I'm tempted just not to watch it. Ever. The show was one of the defining influences on me in high school and college (I was wearing trench coats before they became "scary" and one of my high school yearbooks had a quote from me about being immortal, not to mention the swords and the fencing . . .), so there's a degree of sadness at the franchise's failure to live up to the fan expectations.

To those of you concerned about my online scarcity and my last few "away" messages: thanks for the concern and inquiries. No worries. I'm trudging, sometimes mechanically rather than energetically, through rugged landscapes of eddying and chaotic emotions, beautiful, in their own way, as the black clouds of a particularly impressive thunderstorm evoke primal wonder and awe despite their dark hues. The signposts have long ago rusted away to useless mockeries in the shifting sand, and it may be that the path I once believed to be linear is in fact spiraling across previous forays, a frustrating experience for which I have no immediate solution. Such are the foibles of human existence. For those who have no idea what I'm talking about, take comfort in the cryptic and nod along.

And finally, as a direct address to my MarioKart partner: Hey, Lane, I have this fantastic idea. Why don't we, and I'm just going out on a limb here, *not* punch other karts while we're crossing rickety bridges. You know, to keep us from falling in the water. Just a suggestion. (It's an inside joke; Lane is already laughing.)

Labels: introspection, lane, miscellany, social commentary, stress

Posted at 11:47:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Monday, September 3

Atheism 101

I had some time this weekend to catch up on some reading, which prompted a rather lengthy diatribe on atheists (not atheism, but those who fall under its umbrella). I decided it deserved its own entry in the Essays section.

Labels: religion and atheism, social commentary

Posted at 11:35:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Sunday, September 2

One-Stop Shopping

I let a woman cut in line in front of me at the grocery store last night, due to her paltry list of purchases (one bottle of Gatorade). She then proceeded to have the following conversation with the checkout woman in broken English:

First she asked for a box of condoms. As in, she assumed the checkout woman had condoms behind the counter. When the checkout woman said they were in the pharmacy section the woman asked her to go get her a box. When the checkout woman pointed out she had a line of customers, but the woman could go get them herself, the woman said "Oh, nevermind, then." (No no! Bad! The word "nevermind" and "condoms" should never be used in the same sentence!)

Then the woman asked for a specific brand of alcohol (she had to repeat it twice and I'm still not sure what she said, but she clarified it was a type bourbon). Again, as if the cashier had alcohol behind the counter. The checker directed her to the liquor section. Again the woman said "nevermind." (Which is probably just as well, 'cause if you're going to skip the condoms you certainly don't want to be drinking . . .)

She finally asked for a box of cigarettes (which the checker could actually provide), paid for her Gatorade (although I'm not sure she really needed the hydration assistance if she skipped the alcohol and condoms) and left.

Labels: social commentary

Posted at 1:36:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Friday, August 17

Undesirables

Spotted on my way to work today:

In the midst of a protest rally in front of the Mexican embassy along Dodge Street, a man holding a sign that read "Deport all illegal immigrants and their sympathizers" (emphasis mine). I was amused at the irony involved in utilizing one's First Amendment rights to suggest removing another group's First Amendment rights.

Labels: amusement, irony, social commentary

Posted at 5:02:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Monday, August 6

Scary World

Although not a "normal viewer" by any standard definition of American television viewers, I've caught several episodes of Dateline NBC's "To Catch a Predator" (for some odd reason the leading competitor to infomercials at 1 a.m. last week). For those unfamiliar with the show, it centers on NBC-sponsored sting operations, involving a camera-rigged house where suspected paedophiles are interviewed by the host after arriving to meet an Internet decoy.

The show itself is straightforward, while the social commentary is complex. I can't help but feel that, while the show leads directly to the arrest of sexual predators (which is, of course, a good thing), the hoped for secondary effects (the enlightenment of the general populace and a mobilization of resources to weed out the main problem) haven't and likely won't materialize. Perhaps it's the opinion of the cynic in me, but, although feelings of outrage, shock and horror are there, the primary emotion of the viewing audience is mostly likely to be simple satisfaction. We do love seeing people who have done wrong get called on it (and the host certainly plays to that angle), and the more they squirm and the more elaborate their excuses, the more we feel justified in judging them. It's a collective exercise in feeling superior. When the show ends, we feel good that the bad guy was caught, ignoring the thousands of other bad guys and the real work it would take on our part to help fix the problem (even writing a check to a charity for exploited children would be a good start).

There's also the social commentary inherent in the fact that paedophilia is classified by the American Psychiatric Association as a mental disorder. While this in no way excuses the behaviors (the fact that there are victims involved warrants strong action), it does raise topics of conversation regarding society's handling of mental disorders. How effective is punishment versus treatment? Does public embarrassment help predators deal with their urges? Does our revulsion relate to the person's actions or the person himself? If there was surgery to remove the part of the brain causing the disorder, would we consider the person "cured" and ready to integrate into society with no stigma? Is it the focus of the disorder (children) that concerns us, or simply the fact that a disorder is there? In the long run, how effective is the method we're using to deal with the problem?

The above aside, the program does showcase a variety of disturbed individuals, and in that way functions as a warning to viewers (whether they grasp that message or not). Some of the men who fall into the sting engender as much incredulity as they do disapproval, including a seemingly random sampling of "respectable" people (teachers, firefighters, policemen, religious leaders, doctors). One man stripped naked in the garage before entering the house unannounced (and had his interview in a towel . . .) and then was caught the very next day after using the same online alias in the same chatroom to meet what turned out to be another decoy. Another had his sister drive him to the house and then wait (unaware of his intent) in the car with her two toddlers. Another admitted to meeting 15 other girls in the same fashion. But the most shocking had to be the man who showed up with his five-year-old in tow and then expressed impassioned concern for his son's welfare during his arrest, a sharp contrast with his intentions.

One would hope parents come away from the show with an awakening and a desire to monitor their children's online activities, although I'm afraid that message wars with the "it can't happen to us" mindset. We're creatures of habit, after all.

Labels: social commentary

Posted at 3:40:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Tuesday, July 31

Growing Up

"The three hardest tasks in the world are neither physical feats nor intellectual achievements, but moral acts: to return love for hate, to include the excluded and to say 'I was wrong.'"

-Sydney J. Harris

Labels: social commentary

Posted at 11:28:00 AM. | | Permalink to this post.

Monday, July 16

Potpourri

I'm not understanding jazz. I've given it an honest listening, really. I just don't get it. Maybe it's a sign of my deep-seated need for structure.

My office began its inexorable advance back to its old digs over the weekend (the first of three). I volunteered for shifts on all three, although I was put on "special assignment" this weekend rather than supervising the move with the other volunteers (I spent a few hours photographing all of the offices in our current building and printing them to hang in the empty offices in the destination building in hopes of avoiding the confusion the moving crew faced in reassembling the furniture this weekend). Two more weekends to go.

I was amused by the audacity of some of the movers; apparently a minimum-wage job and boxers above baggy pants are not impediments to hitting on, well, anything cute and female. I'm unfamiliar with that level of machismo; is the shotgun approach of flirting with everyone really the reason most people find more relationships than I do? Women, do you really find that flattering? I've always found such behavior irrational and uncomfortable, but then again the things *I* think potential dates would like have obviously not panned out.

Lane and I saw the latest "Harry Potter" yesterday. I thought it was okay, if not as memorable as the others (it lacked some of the visual impact, or perhaps I'm oversaturated with well-done CGI). Lane was disappointed in some of the shortcuts they took to fit it into the allotted time, a common malady among hardcore fans of books-turned-movies. She also dismisses my theory that Harry goes back in time and becomes Voldemort in the last book . . .

Labels: lane, miscellany, social commentary

Posted at 3:25:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Friday, July 13

Single-mindedness

Wow, this guy so deserves to lose his job. And probably face criminal charges for child pornography.

Labels: social commentary, what the hell

Posted at 3:48:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Thursday, July 12

The Power of Storytelling

I listened to a very sad but poignant NPR interview with an 84-year-old survivor of Japan's WWII "comfort women" program, along with an article on Japan's continued refusal to acknowledge it happened. I recommend listening to it, but keep in mind it's not uplifting.

Labels: NPR, social commentary

Posted at 3:57:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Sunday, June 3

Ire Knee

Americans (and, thanks to Alanis, Canadians as well) have demonstrated a cultural talent for misapplying the word "ironic" in everyday usage. I'm usually fairly cognizant in print, but even I catch myself applying it in speech to situations that are just unfortunate or amusing, a habit I've been attempting to weed along with the last vestiges of my rural Nebraskan dialect (to Lisa's disappointment, I've utterly failed to mention what time "I got left" in recent months). Irony is at times a difficult concept, but a good example would be the letter I received from my mortgage company today. Thanks to the property valuation jump I mentioned in the last post, I fully expected a letter from said company advising me of an increase in my monthly payment, although I found it odd that it had arrived so soon. The irony in the situation is that, in contrast to my expectations, the letter actually advised me that my monthly payments were going down because the company had overcharged me based on an inaccurate estimation of my taxes over the last two years. They even included a little refund check. I laughed. Of course, I'll only enjoy the lower rate for a month or two before they discover the jump in my taxes and raise my payment above what it was before, but the chuckle was worth it.

I also experienced rain today, not on my wedding day but on my mowing day. This was not ironic.

In other news, I was flashed by a 10-year-old today. There was still a properly worn bathing suit present, so no legal issues were involved, but her intent (the sudden opening of a towel and exaggerated thrusting of the chest to the passing cars as she and her friends stood in the rain, followed by laughter) was somewhat less than innocent. Stellar parenting, really.

Labels: amusement, irony, social commentary

Posted at 4:45:00 AM. | | Permalink to this post.

Tuesday, May 29

Pieces of You

Although attached to the current compliment of organs in my possession, I am, according to various donor cards and conversations, as fervent an advocate of organ donation as any. Despite this, the organ that handles my ethical dilemma situations can't help but cringe at this attempt to illuminate the problems of organ shortages.

Labels: social commentary

Posted at 11:32:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Thursday, May 10

Base Code

Two hypothetical questions from a recent Discover article:

1. Suppose a train is traveling down a track toward a junction. If the train continues on its course, it will run over and kill five people. You happen to be standing by the switch. If you throw it, the train will follow a different track, where it will run over and kill one person. Do you throw the switch?

2. You are a doctor at a hospital. A nurse comes to you and says "We have five patients with severe organ failure who will die before we can receive transplant organs. A patient is sitting in the waiting room with a broken arm but no other injuries. If we kill him and take his organs, we can save the other five patients. Can we do that?" Do you say "Yes"?

According to the article, despite the fact that the practical results are the same (saving five lives at the expense of one life), most people who answer these questions in surveys will say "yes" to the first one and "no" to the second with little hesitation, and most of them are unable to explain why.

The article interviews Harvard psychologist Marc Hauser about the ideas he puts forth in his book Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong, which suggests that, just as Noam Chomsky suggested we have an innate, evolution-supplied intuition for language, we also have an innate, evolution-supplied intuition for morality. To support his idea, Hauser points out that in survey questions like those above, people tend to choose the same answers, instinctively, without regard to education or religious background (as he puts it, people from religious and nonreligious backgrounds answer "one hundred percent . . . so far, exactly the same . . . certain aspects of our moral intuitions seem to be immune to such experience [as religion and education level]"), and he talks about studies that show that children younger than 3 can distinguish between a social convention and a moral rule ("raise your hand before you speak" vs. "punch the child next to you").

I found the comparison to language a good analogy. As anyone who has asked my opinion on grammar rules and English classes knows, I've long held that language is intuitive rather than conscious (when we speak, we don't think "okay, I need a verb after this noun"; we just talk). I amuse people now and then when I mention I have an English degree and I get paid to be a proofreader, but I can't name all the parts of speech or cite the various grammar rules, primarily because I learned them after I'd already learned the language and I had no reason to remember them any longer than it took to pass the English tests. Hauser suggests that, similarly, we have an intuitive morality that operates on an unconscious level that influences our decision-making. Like the capacity for language, this capacity can be expressed through a cultural lens (he compares the alienness of gender-specific nouns in French to native English speakers with the alienness of honor killings to western society), but the basic codes are hardwired, the result of millions of years of natural selection that forced our ancestors to make instant decisions about complex social interactions with others.

He goes on to note that our intuitive moral decision-making does not always control our actual actions; it's quite common for people to make a moral judgment about something and then ignore it. But the initial reaction seems to be unconsciously directed.

Labels: science, social commentary

Posted at 3:11:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Saturday, April 28

Gnats in the Honey of Life

Into every life a little rain must fall. Stripped of outrage and seething, commentary on annoyances may even be therapeutic, or perhaps yet petty but with a pretty pink ribbon.

- I like to believe I have at least as much patience as the average person, and averages being what they are I hope it's somewhat more; still, there's something in the audacity of a person who makes the entire line in the drive-through as well as the teenager on the other end of the speaker wait for 20 seconds while she finishes her cell phone call before placing her order that strikes me as worthy of condescension. A collective eye-rolling, perhaps, or a suitably prepared oubliette.

- I'm continually amazed at the lack of understanding of probability in the lay public. A dearth of interesting programming at 2 a.m. led me to a brief observation of "Deal or No Deal," wherein a mathematics teacher (who should have known better) let his family pressure him into passing up the chance to walk away with first $180,000 and then $261,000, despite the fact that the odds of winning more were less than 50%. He finally bailed after losing almost $200,000 off his top offer and spent the post-game interview moping. I suppose the emotional centers of the brain overrode common sense in the past for evolutionary reasons, so perhaps its not entirely incomprehensible, but it still saddens me to see people who can't afford it throwing away money on lotteries and casinos when common sense dictates that for those entities to make money the vast majority of the people have to lose money a vast majority of the time.

- Also while flipping channels I came across a movie that caught my attention because one of the characters was describing temporal lobe epilepsy (which uses some specific terms that you don't often hear in other settings). I was then dismayed and irritated to hear the character state the following: "An epileptic is one of the most dangerous creatures on earth. Treat him as you would treat a strange dog in an alley, don't talk to him, don't look him in the eye, and whatever you do, don't touch him." It turns out that, in the fanciful world of this movie, the villain's extremely violent and murderous tendencies were blamed on his epilepsy, with the ludicrous Jekyll-like suggestion that during his complex-partial seizures his personality became that of a "Jack the Ripper"-esque serial killer who would wake up with no memory of his crimes. Thank you, Hollywood, for suggesting that all epileptics are time bombs just waiting for the chance to cut prostitutes in half and murder policemen. Apparently no one bothered to tell them that even complex-partial seizures (the ones that don't result in convulsing on the ground) only last for a couple of minutes; hardly long enough for a secondary personality to carry out elaborate murder schemes.

Labels: annoyance, social commentary

Posted at 11:08:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Monday, April 23

Weekend Update

Although I spent the majority of the Earth Day event at work, I did catch the last couple of hours. It seemed not as energetic as last year, perhaps due to the wind that attempted to collapse the booths every 20 minutes or so, or perhaps I just went later in the day and missed the "main attractions." I sat under a tree and listened to one of the speakers for about half an hour; it reminded me of a lamentation I had years ago that the persuasiveness of an idea is usually related more to the charisma of its presenter and less to its validity, as this poor gentleman read from a prepared speech with very little crowd interaction or tonal inflection. I agreed with him for the most part (although some of his solutions were clearly infeasible), and I still wouldn't want to sit through that speech again without a book to read.

The live music after that was good, and I ran into Tiffany quite by accident. I'm also submitting my second nomination for parent of the year (and I'm being puzzled by the fact that in the 24 hours since I posted the set, the other photos have garnered between 8 and 10 views and that one has 130).

Sunday was rainy. Cris and I discussed a hodgepodge of topics over dinner and then Jamiela and I saw "The Reaping," which I found rather unconvincing (the only saving grace was the presence of Idris Elba, one of my favorite British actors).

Labels: miscellany, social commentary

Posted at 11:06:00 AM. | | Permalink to this post.

Saturday, April 21

Happy Earth Day!

Everyone go plant a tree (or head to the Omaha event).

And if you die before then, plant yourself under the tree first.

Labels: environment, social commentary

Posted at 2:54:00 AM. | | Permalink to this post.

Wednesday, April 18

Closer to Home

Nebraska mother of the year nominations are beginning early.

Labels: social commentary

Posted at 8:49:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Wednesday, April 11

Paved With Good Intentions

Lisa pointed out this article in the Saturday World-Herald, which corresponds with a billboard I saw two weekends ago advertising the same event. There is much to criticize here, and the science on the subject is only the most accessible; the idea that one can change orientation through desire ignores the commonly accepted biological stance that orientation is, at least partially, genetic (evidenced by numerous twin studies and the observation of homosexuality in hundreds of animal species). One might as well desire to be taller. What this program (and others like it) calls a "cure" is in reality nothing more than suppression, as evidenced by the program proponent's own words: "Over time [30+ years], Opp said, his same-sex attractions faded, although they have not gone completely." There is a willful ignorance of biology, genetics and psychology present that colors their program for anyone with any knowledge of the topic.

Once their core beliefs are exposed as little more than wishful thinking, the major topic becomes the method to their madness, the (perhaps even unintentional) insult they level at an entire group of people who take umbrage at being called "inherently flawed." An understanding of how faith works (even if I lack it myself) makes it easy to see how the progenitors of the program believe they are doing the right thing and helping lost souls avoid the pits of hellfire, and thus they are spared the ire reserved for the intentionally antagonistic, but in the end if "doing God's work" requires you to identify a group of people as inferior you should expect to be considered intolerant and summarily dismissed as unreasonable. "Good intentions," the pavement stones of the familiar phrase, are not a sufficient justification for telling a person they are "broken" without solicitation. A similar conference about how Christians are inherently flawed and will burn in hell unless they abandon their faith would be met with equal disdain and perhaps even outrage.

The nitpicks come fast and furious with even a casual reading of the article. "'If you read the Bible literally, it doesn't allow any immorality, homosexual or heterosexual,' he said." True. And if you read the Bible literally, eating shellfish is a sin, handicapped people are not allowed in church and unmarried rape victims must marry their rapists. It's pretty clear that even literal readers are picking and choosing their verses.

"For the next four years, he said, he had a lot of one-night stands. He met men in bars and in parks. He had a lot of short-term relationships . . . He said he came to realize that he was unhappy with the same-sex relationships he had been having because they were inherently flawed." 'Cause, you know, straight people never have one-night stands and short-term relationships and gay people never have steady, monogamous, happy relationships. I think this would qualify as an association fallacy.

"Opp met the woman who would become his wife. He said they became friends, and he was honest with her. 'When I started my journey, I was 100 percent attracted only to men, not to women at all,' he said. The two decided to wed." This isn't really a criticism of his position, but wow what a bad decision. I'm glad it worked out for them, but really, people, don't decide to marry someone who says he/she isn't attracted to your entire gender . . .

And finally, "The typical audience for the conference is families and friends of gay people . . ." I find this horribly sad. Being gay and coming out is extremely difficult and the last thing people in this situation need is family members and friends saying "I went to this seminar; let's go fix you 'cause you're broken." At best you end up with people like the quoted speaker who manage to suppress their orientation, but in most cases you end up with alienation between the family members and a great deal of resentment. At worst, you have homosexuals who really *want* to change due to their faith but are unable to do so and end up miserable with low self-esteem and depression, rather than accepting and embracing their difference.

Although I think the program is wrong on so many levels, one positive influence it has had is to remind me to renew my PFLAG membership. Probably not its intention, but it works for me.

Labels: annoyance, religion and atheism, social commentary

Posted at 12:25:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Wednesday, March 21

Restraining Order

I noticed last week that this billboard is now gone (replaced with an ad for a jewelry store). I assumed the run for the series of boards was done. But last night I saw another one (with a different message) that was still up. I don't know if they have an offset schedule or if this one was taken down because it's really creepy, but I have a suspicion it's the latter.

Labels: religion and atheism, social commentary

Posted at 2:13:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Wednesday, February 28

Conformity Is Overrated

Shame. I say again, shame.

Labels: social commentary

Posted at 1:07:00 AM. | | Permalink to this post.

Tuesday, February 27

Triggered

Gun-related topics are a touchy subject in my family, where much of the male populace has NRA-themed checks, credit cards and license plate brackets. Due to an upbringing of that sort, I occasionally disconcert people with my encyclopedic ability to identify the model number, manufacturer and caliber of most firearms I see on television. And although I've always found hunting reprehensible I did make the rounds of target shooting competitions as an experimental bonding experience with my father when I was in high school, eventually resulting in a Marksman qualification (and me, my father and two of his friends outscoring a National Guard rifle team at one event when I was 15). So despite a general lack of enthusiasm for firearms these days, I'm not unfamiliar with the culture or the items it encompasses.

This leaves me in an interesting position when firearm topics are raised, as they were recently in Nebraska with the passage of concealed-carry legislation. As is common with highly polarizing issues, there were very passionate voices on each side. I'll admit I did not support the legislation, but I also rolled my eyes at the babble from both sides, mostly due to the rhetoric and poor arguments that we see recycled every time this issue arises. My issues with the "pro" side would fill another post, but I'm taking issue this time with the "anti" side, which, as predicted, wrote letter after letter prophesying running gun battles in the streets, increases in crime and people solving problems with people cutting in line at the grocery store with a smoking .45.

Nonsense. This is an intellectually dishonest argument that isn't reflected in any statistics, and anyone familiar with the topic knows it. It's an appeal to fear (one of the logical fallacies), and a fairly weak one at that. The statistics themselves are vague and strongly contested (the most-cited statistics were compiled by a guy who has admitted unethical behavior in promoting his work, and much of his work hasn't held up to scrutiny). Despite this, there is no evidence, even according to the National Academy of Sciences, that concealed carry increases crime or engenders a vigilante mindset in the vast majority of those who apply for permits. In all likelihood, concealed carry has very little effect on anything, good or bad. There are other arguments opposing concealed carry, but this particular one needs to be dropped entirely.

So we have vocal members of one side claiming the streets will be the Wild West with innocent civilians hiding from gun battles. And vocal members of the other side claiming all those who apply for the permits are law-abiding, responsible citizens who would never do any such thing. The truth is probably closer to the second opinion. But neither is completely true, as the trigger (pun intended) for this post demonstrates.

Labels: social commentary

Posted at 11:29:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Wednesday, February 21

Close to Home

Wow, UNL ranks a shocking third in the list of schools with the most illegal file sharing complaints. Color me surprised. I bet the administration won't be advertising that.

Labels: social commentary

Posted at 12:27:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Saturday, February 10

Family Values

This is charming. It annoys me, in the same somewhat abstract way that snow forecasts annoy me before the crystals actually precipitate. The article caught my eye because of the wrestling angle, but it really transcends such specifics and boils down to an issue of personal responsibility (and the corresponding lack thereof).

Darrell Jennings said the court fight is another reminder of what he has told his son since he started wrestling at age 3: Winning isn't the most important thing. Never giving up is.

First off, age 3? Give me a break. The youngest age bracket is 6 (when I started). But more importantly, I'm disturbed that the most important lesson he wants his son to remember from this is to never give up. Even if you got into the mess yourself in the first place. And "never giving up" involves consuming tax payers' money to try to blame other people with hastily conceived "it's not fair!" cries. What about lessons of taking responsibility or dealing with consequences? What this is really about isn't winning or losing or not giving up or fairness to students who flunk in the fall instead of the spring; what it's about is family members (parents and son) who have placed a great deal of importance on what is, frankly, an accomplishment that will fade far sooner than they like (does anyone take the 40-year-olds who brag about their high school football careers seriously?) to the detriment of academic learning, the foundation on which he should be building the rest of his life. If the students who flunk in the spring had been treated the same as those in the fall, this family would have looked for some other excuse to justify a lawsuit; it's just a smokescreen for an unwillingness to accept responsibility.

Labels: social commentary

Posted at 2:38:00 AM. | | Permalink to this post.

Friday, February 2

Charming

Overheard in the next aisle at the grocery store, where a group of employees were stocking shelves.

"Did you see wrestling last night?"
"Man, wrestling is fake."
"Hey, Tom, do you think wrestling is fake?"
"Why are you asking him? He thought that girl was 18, too."
*peals of laughter*

Labels: overheard, social commentary

Posted at 11:56:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Monday, January 29

From the Playbook

At cocktail parties, it may be easy to open with the weather conditions or appetizer quality, but anytime men--strangers or friends--are grouped together, men turn to sports. It's the universal language that men can use until they find other common ground. Besides the fact that we spend so much time watching them, sports also acts as our way to bond with other guys--without having to worry about differences in culture, education, or careers. Sports is a way for naturally aggressive, instinctively protective men to soften each other up--using LeBron, Duke, and the point spread on the Bears/Colts game.

That probably helps explain why I have few straight male friends. I tend to find sports meaningless and largely uninteresting, compounded by the irrationality involved in picking a team at random and then passionately arguing about its merits. Of course, the fact that the majority of the population does it likely means it activates my nonconformist gene, which means if the majority of the population switches to reading Shakespeare I might have an interesting dilemma.

Labels: social commentary

Posted at 11:24:00 AM. | | Permalink to this post.

Tuesday, January 2

Would You Like Fries With That?

I caught the last half of "Supersize Me" on MSNBC the other night in some sort of half-sleep fog, but apparently that was enough on a conscious or subconscious level; my grocery cart last night contained apples, bananas, 100% juice, V8, dried mangoes, frozen berries and frozen broccoli. Now if only I could maintain that level of diet all the time . . .

On a related note, I was eating dinner with Kyle on my lap last night and she was reaching for the fries (she's not allowed to have fries or soda, only bites of the chicken sandwich); when I leaned forward to slide them away she lunged like a cobra, grabbed a fry and had it in her mouth before I realized she'd done it (in fact I still wasn't sure she'd done it until I saw her chewing). That's the fastest I've seen her move. But she chased it down with yogurt, so I don't think one fry is going to hurt her.

Labels: social commentary

Posted at 2:37:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Friday, December 22

Solemnly Swear

Rep.-elect Keith Ellison of Minnesota (the U.S.'s first Muslim congressman) took the ethical high ground by not calling Rep. Virgil Goode of Virginia names for his recent comments about Muslims being elected to public office. Others haven't been so kind. If you want to write a letter expressing the belief that "if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration, there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office" and then co-sponsor legislation to end a visa program for people "not from European countries," expect suggestions of bigotry and racism to follow.

Labels: politics, religion and atheism, social commentary

Posted at 11:25:00 AM. | | Permalink to this post.

Wednesday, December 20

How the Grinch Ignored Christmas

Although hardly a revelation to certain people, I've been out of sorts lately. I don't think "combative" is the right term, but perhaps the shoe labelled "less understanding" would fit; I've been told what I call an "argument" is to most people a "squabble," but the fact remains that I've been in three of them lately, a bellwether of my recent petulance. To put it in better context, one of them was with Lisa. Lisa, the person with whom I have not seriously argued in 8 years. Over, of all things, a newspaper article of no importance to either of us. Said arguments have not been an active pursuit on my part, but rather an uncharacteristic unwillingness to be sympathetic when challenged (and all other abandoned traits aside, I certainly inherited the stubbornness that characterizes so many of my family). In any case, I've apologized in person and offered recognition of my childishness, and submit this as a public apology to anyone else with whom I've been short.

My mood didn't go unpredicted. I can't go so far as to lay claim to phrases like "I hate Christmas" or "holidays suck," but those of the inner circle are well-aware that this is not my favorite time of the year. Lisa expects the malaise like clockwork, although it has seemed in recent years to be cumulative rather than episodic, something I admit concerns me. Christmas lost any religious significance to me a decade ago, and quite honestly that aspect doesn't even register with me except when chastised for using "holidays" instead of "Christmas" (as has been done once this week), so I'll admit up front I don't have any serious attachment to these holidays. But on top of that, I think there is a handful of ingredients that bake up into the Fruitcake of Despondency(tm).

The first ingredient requires a mild disclaimer. If you feel the holiday spirit, I'm happy for you. :) This isn't meant to bring you down and don't take it as criticism. I hope to be there someday. For the time being, though, I find myself increasingly annoyed at the commercialization that seems to paradoxically bring out the worst in people in what is supposed to be the brightest season. Irritability and short tempers draped on shoppers looking for $600 gaming systems for 10-year-olds who equate Christmas with "I want it and if I don't get it I'm going to pout." For that matter, the whole idea that a 10-year-old needs a $600 gaming system more than he needs a $200 gaming system and $400 to give to a coat drive for underprivileged children. The perception that asking someone exactly what they want, going out and buying it and giving it to them somehow shows thoughtfulness, when in reality it's merely the fastest way to comply with a social expectation. The universal condemnation of anyone who points out that a great many people treat Christmas shopping as an unpleasant chore rather than a free act of love. (Cris and I had it out over this topic last week; I concede I may tilt toward "grinch" due to my mood, but really, I can't help but see the web of obligation and commercial pressure that underlies what should be a celebration of sharing and togetherness. In all seriousness, I'd be thrilled if my Christmas consisted of a peaceful dinner and an exchange of cards showing which charities we donated to in each other's names.)

The second major stressor for me is the fact that, though I dearly love my family, I am woefully unprepared to spend time with them en masse, a consequence of being out of sync with them (case in point, I'm used as the "it could be worse" example when someone is disapproving of someone else in the family; e.g., "Well, it could be worse. At least he's not an atheist/liberal/pavement head* like Jay."). There is a, shall we say, tendency toward displaying affection through criticism, amplified by the pack mentality, that is incompatible with me. I make an effort not to be overtly displeased about it, and in fact usually graciously decline to participate rather than take the bait, out of deference to family peace, but it's emotionally taxing nonetheless.

The final stressor, familiar to anyone single through the holidays, has its own shelf in the "self-help" section of the bookstore. I suppose (and in fact hope) that a few more attachments around this time of the year will eventually change my mood about it. Although I'm still not buying my kids a $600 gaming system.

------------------
*"Pavement head," for those curious, is my brother's term of faux affection, a not-so-subtle reference to the fact that I have defected from my agrarian heritage to the great land of street lights and parking lots. It's usually accompanied with something of a chortle.

Labels: family, friends, holiday, humanity, introspection, me, social commentary

Posted at 12:55:00 AM. | | Permalink to this post.

Monday, October 16

Artificial Aesthetics

This is an interesting commentary on social preferences and the inundation of society by a form of advertising that represents a different, one could even say skewed, perspective. It leads naturally, like an orange cone-marked pedestrian path through a construction zone, to the discussion on mixed messages to adolescent girls and the quest for (and pitfalls of) unobtainable beauty.

Of slightly more interest to me is the sub-discussion on why artificial images are more attractive to us than the genuine article, a topic that centers largely in the realm of evolutionary biology and the tendency of species to evolve exaggerations of signs that attract members of the opposite sex (think peacock feathers or human breasts, or on a more intentional level the application of cosmetics, a practice that is at least 6,000 years old). We are hard-wired for aesthetic preferences, the result of generations of our ancestors choosing mates based on visual cues, and, as the advertising media has shown us, if we have a preference for good skin or narrow cheekbones or long necks in our mates, someone (even if "he/she" is a Photoshopped composite, or the recipient of plastic surgery) with an exaggeration of those traits "catches our eye." In this regard it's not entirely the ad companies' fault; they've just discovered a way to sell their products using our evolutionary traits (much the same way that our genetic taste for sugar, a trait that encouraged our ancestors to eat fruits, was beneficial for most of human history but now is used to sell products that are unhealthy for us). But at some point the social contract, through which we as thinking beings overcome our biological instincts, has to come into play.

P.S. - Personally I prefer the model before the makeover and Photoshopping, but I would suspect that's at least partially a result of an inherent nonconformist streak, or perhaps a feeling that the final look is "plastic" and artifical to the point of being unattractive.

Labels: social commentary

Posted at 11:04:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Sunday, October 15

Walking on Sunshine . . . Almost

Cris and I attended the Nebraska Aids Project 2006 Charity Walk today, a worthwhile event that had somewhat lackluster attendance (due mostly to the unplanned cold drizzle, I imagine). Sign-in took only a few minutes, then we sat on the curb of the parking lot for almost an hour, shivering like pirates, as people slowly filtered in. There was an impromptu dog fight, two "mock walks" for a local tv station that wanted to stage us walking thirty yards to splice into their news story rather than wait until the walk actually started, a mariachi band, a pair of talented salsa dancers and a couple of famous names (famous in Omaha, anyway). There was a fair degree of scoffing from half the assembled walkers when a trio from Gold's Gym tried to lead a cardio-boxing warmup (those expressing disdain included Cris and yours truly). The walk itself was quite short (I joked that the cardio warmup took longer), which was just as well since it was drizzling off and on and we were both cold and wet.

I was disappointed that the turnout wasn't bigger; I have no idea how it compares to a normal turn out, but I'm sure it was impacted by the less-than-pleasant weather. I'm sure Cris will have a write-up later. After he stops trying to steal my papaya bodyscrub (one of the goodies in the bag that came with the t-shirt).

Labels: charity, friends, social commentary

Posted at 11:43:00 AM. | | Permalink to this post.

Friday, October 13

Those Crazy Animals, Pt. II

Following up on a post from a year ago, I present a museum display (finally) and the expected controversy surrounding it. It seems appropriate following National Coming Out Day (the display, not the controversy).

Labels: science, social commentary

Posted at 9:32:00 AM. | | Permalink to this post.

Thursday, October 5

Differences

A below-the-radar entry from the ongoing Foley scandal, involving conservative political commentator Paul Weyrich speaking with host Michele Norris on NPR yesterday:

Weyrich: It has been known for many years that Congressman Foley was a homosexual. Homosexuals tend to be preoccupied with sex - the idea that he should be continued, or should have been continued as chairman on the Committee for Missing and Exploited Children, given their knowledge of that is just outrageous.

Norris: Now, before we go on, I think I can say, Mr. Weyrich, that there quite a few people who would take exception to the statement that homosexuals are preoccupied with sex.

Weyrich: Well, I don't care whether they take exception to it - it happens to be true.

Norris: That is your opinion.

Weyrich: Well, it's not my opinion, it's the opinion of many psychologists and psychiatrists who have to deal with them.

The thinly veiled linking of homosexuality and pedophilia in Mr. Weyrich's statements is as repugnant as it is ridiculous; the idea that a homosexual should not head an agency that deals with children because of his or her orientation is stunningly prejudiced. What I found more telling, however, was Mr. Weyrich's use of the phrase "who have to deal with them," as though interacting with homosexuals is unpleasant or they're some contagious danger to avoid. Similar language has been used throughout human history to differentiate the speaker from those unlike him, whether the difference is based on religion, physical appearance or nationality; the dehumanizing of the Jews in Nazi Germany or the African-Americans in late-19th and early-20th century America should serve as ample examples. It's easier to dislike someone if you believe he or she is different and lesser.

On a related note, I'd challenge Mr. Weyrich to validate his claims and come up with any accredited psychiatry or psychology association that agrees with his views. I'd be surprised if he could produce a single one.

Labels: politics, social commentary

Posted at 6:38:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Thursday, September 21

Two-Hour Leases

I heard an interview today on NPR with the originators of PARK(ing) Day, a hybrid interactive art/environmental statement project. A year ago, the people involved, working under the theory that a parking space is a temporary lease used for the storage of a personal vehicle and that lease can be used for other purposes, put money in a parking meter in San Francisco and then rolled out Astroturf and added a potted tree and a park bench over the space. Then they stood back to see what happened. This year, with better backing and an official campaign, they've expanded it into a contest (similar to Omaha's J. Doe project), with a walking tour of the various "park versions." All of this is done to bring attention to urban sprawl and the shortage of "green space" in modern cities. Visitors are encouraged to feed the meter if they want to keep the "park" open longer, which allows for commentary on the public's opinion of the importance of green space compared to its cost.

Labels: social commentary

Posted at 7:23:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Wednesday, September 20

Thought Bubbles

Reach into my head, pull out a handful of thoughts, stir fry lightly with olive oil and sun-dried tomatoes and serve and this is what you get:

My family has expressed a certain degree of envy over a $.25 discrepancy in gas prices in our separate locales. I suggested they drive here to refuel, but for some reason they interpreted that as jest.

I had my first videoconference on Tuesday, a spectacle that involved a great many people discussing matters that did not concern me as I waited patiently to give a 4-minute summary of the work I've been doing on a special project. The expected heart palpitations and other symptoms of glossophobia were mitigated, to some degree, with my examination of the technological aspects; I found myself greatly amused by the participants in another office who sat just far enough apart and close enough to the camera that only roughly one third of each of them could be seen, on opposite sides of the screen, a gaffe politely ignored by all other participants.

I listened to NPR's Monday discussion on the "plight of singlehood" with a degree of personal interest. While much of it revolves around personal opinion and thus is unlikely to be resolved within any reasonable amount of time, there were some interesting facts, perhaps the most interesting being that unmarried adults now head a majority of America's households. Most of the discussion involved the advantages written into state and federal law for married couples (tax breaks, healthcare decisions, participation in joint plans and the like) and whether those now constitute an unfair advantage singling out a minority. Time was given to the discussion of the modern state of marriage compared to marriage in the past, with proponents of the "singles are getting screwed" philosophy making the point that many of the traditional expectations of marriage (the things that benefited society and thus justified special legal encouragement and treatment) are no longer "standard" parts of marriage (between prenuptial agreements, no-fault divorces, the trend toward second, third and even fourth marriages and the so-called "marriages of convenience") and thus advantages are being conferred to people who have not "earned" them, so to speak, while being denied to people who raise the same families, pay the same taxes and buy the same houses but did not go through the legal ceremony. Whether one accepts this as a valid topic of conversation or dismisses it as whining is something I leave to the audience.

I'm having daydreams of taking a week off next summer and refinishing the floors of my house by myself (and thus saving what would probably amount to about $3,000). We'll see if it materializes, and if so how much of a disaster it is. On a positive note, I'm pretty sure the original wood floor exists under my kitchen linoleum and is in pretty good shape; it would be nice to have polished wood floors in my kitchen. On a negative note, the project would involve moving *all* of my furniture into my basement and putting the fridge and range on the back porch for at least four days; what a logistical nightmare. We'll see how many of my friends suddenly "vanish" in the weeks leading up to such an operation . . . ;)

I'm beginning to get the impression that sitting in a bookstore for two hours reading Maureen Dowd is not the best way to pick up women.

Who is in charge of hiring and firing on SNL? What the hell? Is it even going to be worth watching now?

Another study suggests green tea is good for you. The subjects of the study, however, drank *5* cups a day over seven years. I drink between two and four cups a day and I'm far above the average for Americans, so I'm pretty sure the whole "five cups a day" benchmark isn't going to happen. Most people will wait for the pill form.

Labels: random, social commentary

Posted at 10:30:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Friday, September 15

Sign on the Dotted Line

I have a confession. As an experiment, I intentionally didn't sign the back of my debit card when I got my latest one. I've had it for almost a year now. I use my debit card, on average, three times a week, and granted the majority of those never involve the card leaving my hand (since most places allow you to swipe the card yourself and enter your PIN number), but I always hand it over anytime I eat at a restaurant or buy something where there isn't a card reader. Despite this, I have never had my card rejected (even with the notice on the back in big bold letters to the effect that it's not valid if it's not signed). No place but The Afternoon at Westroads has ever asked for my ID when they see it's not signed (I exhibit a sort of peculiar euphoria when I'm asked for my ID and I make a point of thanking the clerk). Normally they don't even look at the card, content as they are in some sort of numb routine. At this point I'm used to it.

Until . . .

On my trip to my parents last week, I turned over my card at a gas station and clearly saw the woman turn the card over and look at the back. She even paused for a moment, so it wasn't some quick glance. Great! I thought. She saw it's not signed. I was preparing my "thank you" speech for when she asked for my ID or a different card. Then I watched in dumbfounded shock as she turned it back over, handed it to me and went back to chatting with her friend. This wasn't even carelessness, but rather direct apathy. She knew the card wasn't valid but couldn't be bothered to do anything about it. Bah!

I should start keeping a tally of the number of times my invalid card should be caught. Or maybe I don't want to know.

Labels: social commentary

Posted at 3:34:00 AM. | | Permalink to this post.

Thursday, September 7

Simple Solutions

I've noted before, to the accompanying chorus of others with the same experience, that the buffet of radio stations in much of the midwest is somewhat unbalanced (heavy on country and religious programming and devoid of much else). I can usually manage to listen to about an hour of religious programming just to see if there's anything interesting in the content (and often there is), but almost inevitably I have to plug in the iPod when the program wanders from peace and goodwill (things I admire about Christianity) into judgment (something I find slightly less palatable).

Yesterday I listened to about 45 minutes of a show on "how to debate with a Muslim," which was at least politically timely, and some of the show was interesting (a comparison of some of the differences between the religions, etc.). Then they lost me. Upon returning from a break the topic abruptly shifted to how to convince a Muslim that Islam is wrong; the show's recommended method is to note that even though Islam recognizes Jesus as a religious and divine figure, it does not believe that Jesus was crucified, and therefore all one must do is show the scriptural evidence that Jesus was in fact crucified and voila, one converted Muslim.

Wait, what?

The two hosts also repeatedly mentioned the "archeological evidence" for the Crucifixion but didn't say what it was (I'd be interested in hearing it). In any case, I'm pretty sure their method is going to have somewhere around a 0% success rate. It's one of the hazards of trying to change a faith using a different faith, evidenced by the fact that I can't think of a single one of my Christian family or friends who would suddenly convert to Islam based on one conversation about the Koran; these beliefs go much deeper than that, leaving us with no "magic solutions" to the problems of global religious conflict.

The other thing that caught my attention was the hosts' joking attitude about how the Koran was not only wrong but also bad while the Bible was obviously divine, emphasized by one of the host's continuous chuckles regarding one of his Muslim friends who, he said, really shouldn't be his friend because the Koran instructs its followers not to befriend nonbelievers, despite the Bible's numerous instructions to the same effect (1, 2, 3, 4). I found it hard to give them credibility when they insisted that the Koran was a flawed work full of intolerance while the Bible was a divine work that contained no contradictions or problematic teachings. There are good things in the Bible; much of Jesus's teachings are humanistic in nature (feed the hungry, heal the sick, love your enemy, etc.). There are also good things in the Koran ("Be kind to parents, relatives, orphans, the needy, neighbors, and travelers."; "Value justice, for both poor and rich, even when it adversely affects you or your family's interests."; etc.). It's just a trick of picking out the good stuff and discarding the rest.

Addendum: I remembered today one other point of their broadcast that struck me (it's difficult to write things down while driving . . .). The hosts suggested that the Koran was not inspired by the Archangel Gabriel (as the Koran holds) but rather by Lucifer who disguised himself in order to lead people away from Christianity. This is a particularly dangerous claim and one Christians should be wary of making, because, whether true or false, it opens a very large door to other, similar claims (for example, that Jesus never existed and it was Lucifer who disguised himself and faked the Crucifixion in order to lead people away from Judaism . . .).

Labels: religion and atheism, social commentary

Posted at 1:55:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Tuesday, August 18

Superior Firepower

Thursday, August 6

Court of Public Opinion

Monday, April 27

Enhancements

Wednesday, April 22

I Can' t Drive 55 . . . er, Wait, Yes I Can

Happy Earth Day

Tuesday, April 21

Pocket Change

Wednesday, April 8

Sliding Scale, Redux

Tuesday, April 7

Cascade Effect

Monday, April 6

Go Nebraska

Saturday, April 4

Sliding Scale

Friday, April 3

Over the River

Thursday, April 2

Defining "Predation"

Friday, January 30

Inheritance

Monday, December 8

Math Is Hard, Pt. II

Friday, December 5

Just Let Me Grab My Credit Card

Wednesday, December 3

Money To Be Made

Wednesday, November 26

Beep Beep

Wednesday, September 10

Warm-up Laps

Monday, July 14

I'm Not Dead Yet

Monday, June 23

Please Commence the Procedure

Sunday, June 22

Taste My Rainbow

Friday, June 20

Math Is Hard

Thursday, June 12

Liquid Nitrogen and Nudity

Friday, May 30

Smooth Criminal

Wednesday, May 21

Hold Your Nose and Declare Victory

Tuesday, May 20

Redrum si taem

Tuesday, May 13

No Dice

Wednesday, April 30

Scientists Are Hard at Work on a Vaccine

Tuesday, April 29

Print Lag

Monday, April 14

Robert Armes, This One Is For You

Saturday, March 29

The Night the Lights Went Out in [Insert State Here]

Tuesday, March 11

Geek Chic

Wednesday, March 5

Pretty Packaging

Friday, February 22

Idiocracy

Monday, February 18

Psychics and Psychoses

Tuesday, February 12

"Math Is Hard"

Wednesday, January 23

Age of Majority

Tuesday, January 22

Wednesday, January 16

Purpose-Driven

Monday, January 14

The Constitution Should Be Required Reading

Sunday, January 13

The Perils of Open Content