Scientific Research

Politics and other nonsense

Are you one of those people who bristles when congresspeople and political talking heads tell you about “silly” scientific studies your tax dollars are being used for?

Like one study on truck-drivers’ homosexual encounters at truck stops?  The people who did the study actually had to appear before Congress after some politicos started in on them.  The Congress’s findings?  That the study was furthering our understanding of how AIDS is spread–one of the things it was designed to do.  The study continued.

Now, including winners of the Ignoble awards (those who actually do stupid research), most scientific inquiry looks odd to outsiders, although those outsiders should remember that many scientific discoveries were not even planned.  Viagra and microwaves are just two things discovered while scientists were doing their thing–running studies.

An article in a recent Mental Floss (May/June 2009) hits the point home with “10 Technologies We Stole From the Animal Kingdom.”  Why study shark skin, bat radar, or resurrection plants, to name the first three?  I’m not sure why they were originally studied (other than–cause we want to know!) or how the studies were funded (private or public), but now there’s a new coating to avoid germs in hospitals, canes for the blind that really let you know what’s out there, and how to keep vaccines viable for longer–the better for the vaccines to help children in inhospitable regions.

Science inquiry is cool and it’s time we reclaim it as an American value.

Share
0 comments

I think I have this whole blogging thing backward

Politics and other nonsense

It occurs to me that the life blood of a blogger is bad news–all the better to bitch about.  I even advise my students to write about something that bothers them if they want to be able to write a good quantity of work.

Yet when I’m stressed out and tired, the last thing I want to do is blog.  I don’t want to whine & I don’t (always) want to rant.

So what’s the news that’s keeping me from writing?  Telling myself that I lived on next year’s wages in grad school, and then remembering that in grad school, I had student loans to supplement that income (and a decided lack of student loan payments).

Dealing with the panic of some of my students (you see, one class is worried because if they don’t pass, they get kicked out).  They really should have worried nine weeks ago.  And turned all the papers/homework in.  I mean, if failing a class gets you kicked out, don’t you attempt to do the work?

Finally, people shooting abortion doctors.  I have wanted to write about this because I have a lot to say.  I have not wanted to write about this because I’m afraid that once I get going, I won’t be able to stop.  Here’s a very short version of my thoughts.

They killed abortion doctors where I grew up (in Pensacola, FL).  It didn’t stop girls from getting pregnant and it didn’t stop people from getting abortions.  All it does is make it really difficult for a certain group of people to call themselves pro-life.  Oh, and kill someone, which that Bible thing sometimes says is wrong (not always, though–the people who shoot doctors are reading the Old Testament, but not the parts of the Old Testament where God kills babies, as he is wont to do).

Speaking of nomenclature, I would like to go on record as saying that we pro-choicers are not pro-abortion.

Even if someone is super-callous, they don’t want women having to have procedures that are potentially life-threatening (though not as dangerous as carrying to term) and usually cost more than they can manage.  No one wants more surgery.

I don’t know any super-callous people, though.  I simply know a bunch of people who know that you don’t reduce abortion by shooting doctors or by outlawing it.  Any medical historian can tell you that it was easier to find someone to perform an abortion when it was illegal (you didn’t have to find a doctor–women through the centuries have passed abortitives down with the family recipes (birth control and abortion are not just tools of single women–married women have used them to control their family planning for ages)).

What does reduce abortion?  Making sure that we reduce unintended pregnancy.  Remember that abstinence teaching doesn’t work, as studies show.  But comprehensive sex education does.  And so does providing people with affordable and effective birth control.  And so does making it easier to carry a child to term and to raise it–right now, the financial and social burden of an unwanted child can be galaxies greater than the burden of not carrying a child to term.

I have a PhD and a gifted child, but people still judge me because I had him young and alone.  Amazingly, it’s mostly the pro-life people who think they get to judge me, but only because I made the choice they preferred, carrying with me the evidence.  If I’d made a different decision, they wouldn’t get to have this attitude with me, because the last seventeen years of my life would have been very different.

We all want fewer abortions.  I just think that my way will actually work better than the “don’t have sex, but if you do, don’t use birth control” method currently so popular among “pro-lifers.”

If you actually want to save lives, take the guns away from the crazy fringe people and fight for sex ed and birth control.

Share
0 comments

In the press today

Politics and other nonsense, Simpsonology, Words, words, words

Some blogger believes I “forgot” things; not mentioning things in a non-comprehensive list is not to have forgotten them.  His title is also weird–I distinctly mention that there have been lawsuits, so his claim that they’ve not had them in 20 years is off.  The article is here:  http://reporter.blogs.com/thresq/2009/05/the-simpsons-20-years-of-lawsuitfree-funny.html

My touching tribute to Dom DeLuise (via my matchflick column) is here:  http://www.matchflick.com/column/1946

Was watching last night’s Daily Show whilst doing yoga this morning.  Newt Gingrich claimed that socialized medicine (aka universal healthcare) would be bad because bureaucrats would be making your healthcare decisions.  He said the responsibility for your healthcare (and he seemed to imply fiscal as well) should be on you (and your consultations with your doctor).

My doctor and I do make decisions.  But they all have to be approved by bureaucrats at the insurance company.  Those bureaucrats were forced to take me, but if I were a freelance writer, I wouldn’t be able to get health insurance at all.  Let’s not forget that other bureaucrats make my health care decisions at the law level–whether I can have medical marijuana, whether a doctor can use the word “abortion,” etc.

So there are three problems with Mr. Gingrich’s fear of bureaucrats.

1.  He’s fine with a lot of laws about what my doctor can say or do.  That’s government intervention in health care.

2.  Bureaucrats completely run my health care.  And the really bad thing is that they do so for profit, which means that they are not in any way motivated to make decisions based on what’s good for me or what’s medically better.  They are motivated to deny coverage because that’s what happens in a profit-based system.

3.  For all those without healthcare, they would love to have a bureaucrat deciding whether they can have their cancer treatment.  Right now, there is no “decision” available to them.  At least a bureaucrat might say yes.

Am sick of this “bureaucrat” scare tactic.  WTF do they think we have now, if not bureaucrats?  Who’s living in a place where all the decisions are made by you and your doctor?

Oh, wait, those people in countries with universal healthcare tend to have that freedom.

Share
2 comments

Michael Savage (and other news)

Misc–karmic mistakes?, Politics and other nonsense, Teaching

Michael Savage was on Talk of the Nation today because he has apparently been banned from entering the U.K. because of his hate speech. He was offended, of course, and kept talking about the first amendment, which does not apply to the U.K. He also mentioned the Magna Carta, but not in a way that indicated he had read the document.

Talk of the Nation is a call in show, so they took a call from a man who pointed out that if you replace “Christian” or “Jew” in place of “Muslim” when Savage talks, he might not be on the air.

Savage interrupted him and said he wouldn’t stay on the show if he had to listen to people calling from insane asylums in their pajamas. He ended up hanging up on the show.

Yes–our defender of free speech, who makes sure he has all the freedom to speak and all the freedom to not let anyone else do so in his earshot.

The other news: had meeting with the boss about my future (meaning will I be invited to be more permanent in three years). The good news: some of the highest student ratings in the department. The bad news: I thought my “file” was cumulative, meaning that whatever I added each year was added. I had been trying not to submit the same stuff again and again, but apparently that’s what I need to do for the next three years.

Not a problem, of course. I just feel silly.

 

What we’ve learned today:  students appreciate me, I’m not skilled at selling myself, Dan Savage is so much cooler than Michael Savage (that’s not even Michael’s real name, by the way).

Share
0 comments

The Downside to Obama’s Election

Politics and other nonsense

I know, I know, we’ve all been so happy.  But something occured to me this week–I didn’t have to hear much about Rush Limbaugh in the last eight years.  Now I can’t stop hearing about him and the inane, hypocritical things he says.  I’m not going to waste my time going over his talking points and what’s wrong with them.  I will just say–he’s about to rise again.

You see, there wasn’t much for him to do when the Republicans ruled everything.  He (like Ann Coulter) sat around hating anyone who disagreed with the President, but it seemed somehow beyond the point.  Now that he can sit around hating the sitting President (and presumably the majority of the country who voted for him), he’s going to get more followers.  His numbers may even come close to what we saw under Clinton.

The NRA is benefiting, too.  A book came out last year by an ex-NRA insider–the whole point was that having a Democrat in office is very good for their business.  (And anyone who’s watched politics at all knows that nothing much changes in policy, no matter who’s in power.)  Deep down, Rush has to love Obama, maybe not as a man, but as a target and a cash cow.

Want to see what Rush et al are saying lately?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=219517&title=intro-harold-varmus-is-here

It’s a great day for name calling.  It’s a great day for making fun of war veterans (if they’re John Kerry).  It’s a great day for hate.  It’s a bad day for debate and civility and, if you watched the footage from the Republican meeting this weekend, for bi-partizanship.

Share
0 comments

Rude People

Movies & Television & Theatre, Politics and other nonsense

Last night I went to the opera.  Figaro was my first.  When I was in theatre, we would make fun of opera–too much singing, too little acting, but I had to go, especially when the chance presented itself.

I enjoyed it, but I have to say that sometimes the art of the singing did get in the way of the plot/acting.  I was taken out of the moment each time a character told another to whisper (because they were hiding) AT THE TOP OF THEIR LUNGS. 

I was also taken out of the moment by the incessant tapping of shoes.  The man seated behind me kept tapping both of his squeaky shoes (not in time to the music).

There were a surprising number of kids at the show (and the show went past 11:30).  One was seated to my right and in the fourth act, she got tired enough to need to whisper a lot.  She wasn’t rude, though–her mother was.  She decided that her tired little girl needed to leave the theatre before everyone else, so she waited until the last line to leave.  So I didn’t see the last line, I was too busy standing up to let her pass.  I sat down just in time for the curtain to fall.

The last rude thing of the show–the director came out and bowed with the cast.  WTF?  Who does that?  Is that an opera thing?  No wonder we theatre people made fun of them.  Our directors are pretentious off-stage, not on.

But the winner of the rudest person of the week contest:  Richard Williamson.  Yes, our favorite Holocaust-denying Bishop is back.  (Did you know that he hates The Sound of Music, not because its pap, but because it portrays Nazis in a bad light?  Seriously.)  He issued an apology and the Vatican has said it’s not good enough.

He said:  “Observing these consequences I can truthfully say that I regret having made such remarks, and that if I had known beforehand the full harm and hurt to which they would give rise, especially to the Church, but also to survivors and relatives of victims of injustice under the Third Reich, I would not have made them.”

Karma’s quick translation:  If I’d known everybody was going to get upset, I wouldn’t have said it.  (Note that he doesn’t say he was wrong.)

He also said:  “On Swedish television I gave only the opinion… of a non-historian, an opinion formed 20 years ago on the basis of evidence then available and rarely expressed in public since.

“However, the events of recent weeks and the advice of senior members of the Society of St Pius X have persuaded me of my responsibility for much distress caused. To all souls that took honest scandal from what I said before God I apologise.”

Karma’s quick translation:  Twenty years ago, I think we were all agreed that the Jews were overexaggerating things and I haven’t learned anything since then.  The Church has ordered me to say I’m sorry, so I am.  Saying it.

1988?  I think we all knew about the gas chambers in 1988 (I did, and I was 13) and it’s the gas chambers that he’s really not convinced about.

Note: no one from the Church is asking him to recant any of the sexist bullshit he believes or even make him agree to Vatican II.

Share
1 comment

New Matchflick Column and an Atwood update

Politics and other nonsense, Words, words, words

The matchflick column is here:  http://www.matchflick.com/column/1882

I reported a little while ago on Atwood not attending a conference in Dubai because the conference censored an author whose book had a gay muslim character.  Atwood (and the rest of us) have since learned that the conference says they didn’t censor the book or author, but that they did not choose the book for inclusion in the festival.  The author seems to have exaggerated.  Atwood is going to appear at the conference via satellite for a panel on censorship.

I think there’s going to be a lot to talk about.  Her own book, The Handmaid’s Tale, is still under review by a school system after a challenge.  Part of that book was inspired by Atwood’s visit to Islamic countries and her experimentation with a burka.

Also, while the conference says it didn’t censor the other author’s book, one interview I read did say that a conference organizer felt the text was “too controversial.”  As we asked in book group last night, what’s the line between “I censor your book!” and “Sorry, due to its content, we won’t work with this book–it’s too controversial/thought-provoking”?

Share
0 comments

Four things

Misc–karmic mistakes?, Politics and other nonsense

1.  That re-communicated bishop I wrote about has been charged to disavow his denial of the Holocaust.  (See the story here:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7869995.stm).  Interestingly, he is not being called on to disavow any of his sexist shit.  He doesn’t believe women should wear pants.  I’d like to sick the ghosts of Katharine Hepburn and George Bernard Shaw on him.  It’s also fascinating that the Pope apparently didn’t know he’d been saying all those anti-Semitic things.  Isn’t the Pope infallible?  Oh, wait, if he were, this guy wouldn’t need to be re-communicated.

2.  Obama has signed into legislation a bill that will grant insurance to a bunch of children.  I am all for this, and for the eventual plan to have everyone covered.  However, I find it odd that we always take care of the children first.  I know that it’s easier to make people care about abstract children than abstract adults, but adults are more likely to get seriously ill as their bodies fall apart.  And if the adult in a child’s life is ill, that child suffers big time.  Won’t somebody please think of the adults?

3.  I heard Heart’s “All I Wanna Do Is Make Love to You” in the car today.  I have three problems with this song.  You know the story, right?  A woman picks up a hitchhiker and fucks him for a night and then she runs into him years later.  She has had his child, and says she only slept with him because her partner was incapable of providing said child.  Fine.  But she says, “We made love–love like strangers.”  Um, they were strangers.  It wasn’t “like” they were strangers.  Second, she said “I am the flower, you are the seed, we walked in the garden, we planted a tree.”  Has this woman not taken any biology classes?  Middle school bio will tell you this isn’t how you plant a tree.  Third (and this is not a writing problem), I remember when this song came out and all these guys would dedicate this song to their girlfriends.  Presumably because they had only listened to the title of the song.  Or else there were a bunch of sperm-lacking men who were comfortable enough about it to make songs suggesting they be cuckholded.

4.  If you haven’t seen them, there are two souces of internet fun you need to see.  www.escapistmagazine.com has two weekly series.  Zero Punctuation is a review of video games by a brilliant, funny Brit who lives in Aussie Land.  I don’t even play video games, but I love this series, mostly because of the analogies (he makes fun of his own analogies this week).  Unskippable is a new series that does the MST3K thing to video game opening stories.  Again, you don’t have to be a nerd, you just have to have a sense of humor.  Most videos are only five minutes.  Enjoy!

The Zero Punctuation guy's basic relationship to most games

The Zero Punctuation guy's basic relationship to most games

Share
4 comments

excommunication isn’t about popularity or sanity, right?

Politics and other nonsense

The Pope just re-communicated four bishops who were excommunicated in the 1980s. Richard Williamson, one of the four, is a holocaust denier and thinks 9/11 was a zionist plot. While he’s been vocal about these things for years, since he gave an anti-semitic talk this week, people are upset about the timing of the re-communication (know a better term? I don’t).

First: this has nothing to do with timing. He’s been a bigot and an idiot 24/7 for years. If the issue is his belief about Jews, then what week he gets reinstated shouldn’t have anything to do with the complaints against the church now.

Second: but, his excommunication didn’t have anything to do with his beliefs about the Jews. It was because he saw the church as becoming too liberal and he joined a splinter group of traditionalists. Now that we have a very traditional Pope, it makes sense for him to be brought back in.

Third: after all, you can be a bigot and an idiot and be a Catholic; you just aren’t supposed to go against whatever they’re for at the moment.

Theoretically, excommunication comes if you’re a heretic. To be a heretic (by the way, that word comes from the Greek for choice), you have to have a member of the Church tell you what to believe and then refuse to believe it. This is what distinguishes it from paganism, etc.

As far as I know, Catholics still have the choice to not believe in the holocaust. Has there been an official position on that?

P.S.  I’m not defending this guy; I’m just questioning the logic of the complaints.  If I got to design hell, he would be in it, along with a bunch of other stupid/evil people.

Share
0 comments

What will Cheney do now?

Politics and other nonsense

My friend Afzal asked me yesterday what I thought Cheney might do now.  Here are my top five ideas:

1. He will retire to an undisclosed location to ponder whether his nickname is unfortunate, if fitting.

2. He will start construction on the third Death Star.

3. He will hide in his man-size safe to wait out the racial civil war my mother assures me is coming.

4. He will wait for someone to ask him who to hire for a powerful job and then nominate himself.

5. After taking off his human camouflage, he will return to his planet of Predators a failure.  While he hunted the most dangerous game–man–he did not get a kill shot.It's true--there is no good part of him anymore.  Tell your sister you fucked up.

Share
1 comment