:: it was this or sleeping, so... ::

:: Thursday, August 14, 2003 ::

Laziness rocks. See, when I get burned out or tired, the site suffers. Since I'll be in New Hampshire next week (the Plasmid and Chromosome Dynamics conference), it will continue to suffer. Fie.

In the meantime, keep up with the California recall, won't you? I can't be the only one scared of the opportunities for fringe candidates... I foresee a massive ruck of candidates fighting over small percentages of the vote, leaving a few distinct possibilities -- 1. Schwarzenegger wins on name recognition. 2. Bustamante wins because he's the only prominent Democrat on the ticket, so while the Republicans fight each other for votes, Bustamante cleanly takes a large block and gets his promotion. 3. Bustamante picks up some opposition from independent moderates (Huffington, perchance? Ueberroth playing the middle?) and allows an outsider (Flynt? Simon? a Green Party or Libertarian candidate?) to win with something around 20% of the vote. Now, I put those in (what I presume is) their likeihood of occurring, with 1 and 2 being nearly even and 3 being very unlikely but formally possible.

In some ways, I wish there was more time for candidates to campaign. I believe it would allow time for coalition building, pare the field down to a few select candidates, and let voters have more time to digest the issues and proposals of a few. I fear this hurry helps Schwarzenegger solely due to name recognition -- and since I know very little of his agenda (does he have one?), I can't comment on the plausibility of his campaign. I also fear that it opens up the campaign to the more atypical candidates -- in most elections, attaining 30% of the vote is a crushing defeat -- but in this case it could win! I have problems with appointing someone who may be unpalatable (at best) to 70% or more of the voters of California.

Just a few thoughts -- and off to bed for me. Cheers!
:: William 1:59 AM [+] ::
...

On the road again...

The sporadic nature of my updates has had more to do with my absence from the computer than a lack of news. I was visiting family last weekend; I'll be in Boston for the US Pombe meeting this weekend. (Pombe is a much more handy moniker than "Schizosaccharomyces pombe" or even "fission yeast" -- but that explains part of my tagline, now doesn't it?) Hence, no updates.

One story caught my eye lately: a woman who consulted for the Pampered Chef used online petition drives to shut down Berkshire Hathaway's "charitable dividend" program, which gave out over $200 million in money in the past two decades. I can understand how a pro-life supporter could choose to not work for a company that gave money to pro-choice groups -- but is the answer in shutting down ALL charitable donations? It's not like Warren Buffett (who runs Berkshire Hathaway) will stop supporting causes; instead, all this does is take money out of the pockets of many worthy charities and spread that money into the pockets of Berkshire stockholders. It is mind-boggling to me that people who want all babies to be born then treat people so shabbily that they force actions like this. Sigh.

As for the Kobe case: I'm not commenting. I have very, very, VERY strong feelings about the stigmatization of sexual assault victims. (If you want to be more horrified, realize that victims in the US have it good: a scan of NY Times articles about Japanese sex abuse cases show how victims are shunned, and victims in Africa are often penalized and judged more harshly than rapists!) Most sick is an unnamed disk jockey who refers to the victim by name on the air, claiming that he believes that Kobe's innocent and a victim, and that the accused should not have their names publicized, either. I have two replies to this: 1. Even if accused criminals didn't have their names released, victims' names would not be released -- at best, releasing the victim's name is returning one wrong with another. 2. It is extremely likely that Kobe was charged with this crime because of a preponderance of evidence -- it was strong enough to force a public admission of adultery already. If the evidence were more flimsy, I'd wager that his attorneys would have the charges dismissed by now.

Oh, and pray for everyone and Liberia now, won't you? They could use God's support, and ours. I fear it will get much worse there before it gets better.
:: William 3:15 AM [+] ::
...

This is so ridiculous that I can't give it a proper comment. It gives me a good idea for my next trip to Jiffy Lube, though.
:: William 11:16 PM [+] ::
...

Maybe I should rename this site "it was this or writing, so...". I've been a little skimpy on content lately -- and whereas I'm trying to atone for paucity of quantity by having significant quality in my rants, I'm a little embarrassed by the dearth of new columns. I'll work on it (at least, while I'm in town, which will be quite little for the next month).

So here's a question: when in the past few decades did we decide to start buying our childrens' love with indulgences? I was reading the San Diego Reader this week, and stumbled on the column on families and children. The author described her practice of taking one of her children on a "date" of sorts every week, as encouraged in Dr. Stephen Covey's Seven Habits series. In this column, though, the author described the mutation of the weekly outings into a sort of contest between the kids for the best, most expensive toys. This lead me to many questions: why would one choose the mall as an ideal place for a parent/child outing? Why would the author/mother not recognize the trend sooner? Whatever happened to the word NO?

Clearly, children have gained strength as a consumer market in the past twenty years -- witness the proliferation of child-focused television, radio, and movies. Consider also the targeting of fast food and other consumables to kids; even Starbucks is advertising to the younger market! Why did this shift happen? Is it a leaking of the feel-good ethic from the hippie generation to parenting? Is unguided consumption really beneficial for all kids? And is the increased targeting to the youth market a cause of this consumption, or a reaction to an already extant trend?

Here's a thought: the ethic of the late sixties contained the ethic of moral relativism, and preached feeling good instead of doing good. For experienced adults, this may be a feasible way to live one's life (it's not my choice, granted) -- but it hardly provides a strong base of ethics, rules, and reason that children need as a bedrock for their own lives. Without firm rules that are consistently and fairly applied, children will naturally drift -- they need guidance and leadership from their parents. Parents who continually bribe their children with money and toys end up robbing them of more important possessions: self-worth, morality, and determination. (It's hard not to take life for granted when you're sixteen and steering your BMW with one hand while holding your new cell phone with the other.)

After all, even children raised in hermetically sealed bubbles of wealth and ease will encounter denials and frustrations. Is it better for young people to be unprepared for these, only to find them in the uncaring world outside of their spacious enclaves? Or is it better for them to have heard the word "no" at home, from people who use it judiciously and care about their well-being? It's not a tough choice -- but the discipline of the parents to make it every day is tough, and from watching people in San Diego, often missing.
:: William 2:15 AM [+] ::
...

Meditations on the holiday weekend

While we celebrate our nation's independence, and for all intensive purposes its 227th birthday, we should consider what's occurring now in a former colony of ours.

Liberia was originally settled by freed American slaves in the early 19th century (its capital, Monrovia, was named for President James Monroe). It was both one of the hallmarks and hypocrisies of the abolitionist movement: it was a place where freed slaves could live peacefully, but it existed because many abolitionists did not believe the different races could peacefully coexist. (Joseph Ellis' book Founding Brothers discusses this issue briefly, citing the example of early abolitionists who favored expatriation of freed slaves to Africa.)

So, while we're celebrating our freedom -- immigrants from all countries and nations, descendants of slaves and slave owners, and everyone whose ancestors weren't here for that chapter of our history -- let's remember that others with the same heritage are struggling and dying on the Western coast of Africa, with only the hope that the Americans can repay the debt we owe them.
:: William 12:18 AM [+] ::
...

SARS gets all of the news, and anthrax caused all of the fear, but thirty years into the epidemic, AIDS is still killing generations of people.

Now it's spreading throughout Asia; more specifically, India and China. I can't say that this is a surprise; if anything, it's scary how long it took the media to even mention this problem. Combine large, poor populations, easy tourist entry, and societal taboos and shame on sex and sexual abuse, and venereal diseases will spread like wildfire. Add the slow onset of AIDS symptoms and you have an even greater probability for spreading of the disease to new populations.

At least we can count on China's public health administration to chart a responsible policy to deal with the problem. Right? Well, if underreporting cases and ignoring the problem are their policy (and they are with every other disease), they've met our precedent of acting slowly and obeying social pressures at the cost of disease prevention...
:: William 11:28 PM [+] ::
...

Today, I lived up to my page's name...

I did some math today -- and realized that, in the past two days, I'd worked about 2.5 times as much as I'd slept (26 hours vs. 11 hours). Normally, I wouldn't think so mathematically about such a thing, but the exhaustion I felt today (and the spikes of caffeine I used to lift the mental gloom) gave me a rather odd disposition for most of the day.

Anyhow, flash forward to 7 PM -- I'd been at work since about 9AM, and was waiting another 40 minutes or so to add some antibody to my samples and call it a day. I was checking my email in the lab computer room, listening to some sports talk radio, and relaxing with my head on the wall.... until a bit later, when I woke up and walked back to a now-empty lab. Oops.

Fortunately, I woke about three minutes before my timer went off, making my accidental nap perfectly timed. Of course, now I'm writing this instead of going to sleep for real, but that's rather appropriate...

I don't know; I thought this was inordinately funny for some reason. Just thought I'd share.
:: William 11:11 PM [+] ::
...

Senator Strom Thurmond died today at the age of 100, and like so many politicians before him, leaves a mixed legacy behind.

At his best, Senator Thurmond was an exemplar of local representation in the government. He fought hard for the interests of his constituents, and used his influence to help South Carolina. (Whether this is appropriate or, from a national perspective, selfish and misguided is a discussion for another day.) As the obituary on cnn.com notes, he was one of the last politicians to observe the geniality of pre-Nixonian politics, when cordial discussions were replaced by wiretaps and mudslinging.

At his worst, though, Senator Thurmond represented someone guilty of promulgating the basest values of his constituency. Throughout his early career, he railed against civil rights legislation and integration, and ran for the Presidency as a separatist. As an elected official, he further engendered the stereotypes of racist, ignorant South Carolinians through his vocal support for racist policies as well as his consistently anti-progressive voting record.

His life and legacy remind us of a question as old as democracy itself: is it the duty of an elected officer to rubber-stamp the interests of his constituents, or should he follow his conscience first? Should elected officials support pork-barrel bills that will spend unnecessary money in their districts? Is their primary responsibility to their nation or to their constituents? (This, in particular, is a question older than the USA; The Federalist Papers and other Revolutionary era works discuss these questions in some detail.) Should they back legislation that they find morally distasteful?

While we consider these questions, let us pray for Senator Thurmond, and wish him well. While I often disagreed with his policies and example, and questioned his fitness for his last two terms in office, I am grateful for his long period of service to his state and his nation. That alone demands our respect; regardless of our opinions on his policies, his dedication to the greatness of America is unquestioned.
:: William 11:50 PM [+] ::
...

Time Magazine is featuring this question: should Christians convert Muslims?

What's interesting in this, though, is not that question so much as the exploration of methodologies of ministry and their effects on other Christians and Americans in local cultures. One of the difficult dilemmas that liberal Christians face is this: how aggressively should the Church try to convert people?

This question, of itself, leads to several successive questions: which style of proselytizing is most effective? To what risks should missionaries be exposed? Can general "do-gooding" convert enough people to merit the effort -- and, as counterpoint, isn't that hard work to improve people's lives a worthy reward in and of itself?

Simultaneously, these efforts bring questions of cultural and political significance. Does hardcore preaching reek of cultural imperialism? Doesn't it, when combined with American military efforts, reinforce the image of the USA as a self-appointed, hegemonic, racist power? Does that effort thus contradict the efforts of American forces and politics to win enough trust to establish democracies?

They're hard enough questions that nobody has a real answer to them; instead, each person's answers are shaped by his beliefs about the intersections of faith, politics, and psychology. I'm not convinced that the "hard sell" approach to faith is effective -- it turns off believers as well as non-believers, and it creates a culture of faith based on fear of God instead of love and gratitude to God. I don't feel that a neo-Puritan influence on Christianity will help the Church adapt its image to the 21st century, and help bring this generation to Christ. I'm also not exactly a fan of endangering missionaries -- and as the article describes in great detail, the overenthusiastic misdeeds of one missionary can endanger the lives of many.

A separate point upon which the article does not touch is this: within the described 10/40 window, which consists almost entirely of non-Christians, is it more effective to preach in predominantly Muslim countries with dangerous social taboos against conversion, or is it more effective to preach in less dangerous areas with more radically different belief systems (and often in areas with lower standards of living)? Again, I don't know. Even if mass conversions happened elsewhere, the ultimate goal of Christianity is to bring everyone into the fold, so sooner or later, missionaries will go, and go in force. Still, while I see a mass flux of American missionaries to Iraq and neighboring countries as a move of possibly great rewards, I can't help but fear for the risks those brave families take -- and question the need for those risks.
If you pray -- whether you're Christian or of another faith -- I ask you to pray for their safety.
:: William 12:45 AM [+] ::
...