it was this or sleeping, so...

2003-08-14T01:59:00.000-07:00

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!

2003-07-24T03:15:00.000-07:00

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.

2003-07-14T23:16:00.000-07:00

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.

2003-07-14T02:15:00.000-07:00

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.

2003-07-07T00:18:00.000-07:00

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.

2003-07-02T23:28:00.000-07:00

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...

2003-07-02T23:11:00.000-07:00

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.

2003-06-26T23:50:00.000-07:00

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.

2003-06-23T00:45:00.000-07:00

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.

2003-06-18T23:23:00.000-07:00

I'm back from my second trip in the past few weeks. I got to watch my brother graduate from med school, and I'm more proud of him than I can reasonably explain.

Hopefully I'll be able to overcome the combined powers of jet lag, exhaustion, a cold, and the time vacuum called work to write a little more. Blah.

2003-06-05T08:15:00.000-07:00

Apparently Jose Canseco is back on drugs. On ESPN's "Outside the Lines", Canseco alleged that the media is unfairly attacking Sammy Sosa's credibility because he's black.

Here's a riposte: the sports media has built up Sammy Sosa for years. Sosa has been one of the most discussed athletes of the past several years, and has enjoyed almost unilateral praise from the media (short of SI's Rick Reilly, but that's another story). That attention has benefited Sosa's pocketbook, the Cubs' popularity, and Major League Baseball in general. In turn, that leads to higher ratings for Cubs baseball and more interest in the product -- hence, more money for the media. Why would they unnecessarily tear down their own creation, and create long-term enmity for a sport for a short-term ratings bonanza? From a business standpoint, Canseco's charges don't hold water.

Two other, shorter counterpoints:

1. McGwire (who, according to Canseco, is a "protected athlete") was excoriated by the media for using legal supplements. In fact, the supplements in question were found by press members snooping around his locker, so it's clear that at least some reporters didn't get the memo on protecting McGwire.

2. I find it hilarious (if by hilarious I mean hypocritical and insulting) that Canseco routinely uses the mass media to draw attention to himself (and his oft-promised tell-all book), and then demonizes it. Well, Jose, if they're stooping to interview you, they're at least guilty of bad taste.

2003-06-03T23:20:00.000-07:00

Random thoughts:

Sammy Sosa got busted with a corked bat today, and I'm really bummed. Sosa's combination of raw power and charisma helped him become one of the biggest stars in baseball, and when combined with Mark McGwire led to the semi-revival of baseball during their pursuit of 61. I just hope he's being honest when he insists that it's a bat he uses in practice only, and that his 505 career homers are genuine. Sadly, we can't be certain anymore.

The WHO doesn't trust China's self-reporting of SARS data, and who can blame them? After all, they lied about it from the onset of the disease, so why wouldn't they continue to lie now? (In an aside, I really enjoy the paranoia-induced sales of respiratory masks, facial masks, and the like..)

Besides, China's actions simply mirror those of countries that are the epicenters of major diseases. African countries routinely forbade American and UN/WHO researchers from collecting AIDS data in their countries because of the fear that the scientists would (honestly) report those countries as the sites of disease onset. Of course, they rightly feared additional disease-fueled racism (just as Western-style eateries have gained business in Beijing since SARS hit), but their obstinacy prevented research on the zoonotic events leading to the crossover of AIDS into people, and the early evolution of the virus.

Partial-birth abortion may become illegal soon. Generally, I support this measure -- whereas I tend to vote pro-choice, I have moral concerns with abortions. Furthermore, I believe that third-trimester abortions are wrong, as many fetuses would be viable if delievered at that point -- and if the argument for abortion is that "the fetus isn't alive", then third-trimester abortions should be illegal because so many of the aborted fetuses WOULD be alive.

2003-05-31T19:15:00.000-07:00

Sorry for the complete lack of updates -- I spent this week working for the Scripps-Howard National Spelling Bee, which kept me super busy and generally away from computers...

More updates will come soon. Really.

2003-05-22T01:38:00.000-07:00

As promised in the previous post: Why I wanted the Lakers to lose.

To be honest, it comes down to one word: effort -- or, in this case, lack thereof. For most of the regular season, the Lakers displayed a dangerously lackadaisical effort towards basketball. For every impressive win they had, there was a humiliating loss (no NBA champion should lose multiple times to a non-playoff team, and the Lakers lost multiple times to a scrappy Golden State team). More significantly, most of these losses came from defensive breakdowns and selfish offensive possessions, areas which effort and coaching can overcome many athletic deficiencies.

What bothered me even more was the laissez-faire attitude that overtook the team. Shaquille O'Neal delays foot surgery, shows up several games later, and is not in respectable condition until the end of the season? "It doesn't matter; we'll turn it on in the playoffs." Robert Horry is two steps slower -- one due to age, one due to lack of effort. "It doesn't matter; we'll turn it on in the playoffs." Phil Jackson is unwilling to rip anyone for fear of screwing up the team's delicate chemistry? "It doesn't matter; we'll turn it on in the playoffs." The only Laker who looked disgusted with it all was Kobe Bryant, who showed a mix of distrust and contempt for his teammates with his selfish play -- but, to give him credit, he was the only starter on the team who always was trying to win.

To top that, I worried that this crew might somehow pull together in the playoffs, eke out a win over a San Antonio team that has trouble in close games, and win a series over Dallas or Sacramento with mindgames, and waltz out with the title. I worried because of the message it would send fans: you can work hard 20% of the time (21 playoff games, give or take a few, vs. 82 regular season games) and still come out on top. That's a terrible message to send to kids, and it makes for quite the sales pitch to season ticket holders.

However, one simple fact of life prevented the dubious glory of a Laker title: people are creatures of habit. To wit: scientists and doctors work long hours for years. They get used to it, such that the 40 hour week becomes a vacation of sorts. On the other hand, ask an heiress to work 40 hours, and beware the consequences. Analogously, the Spurs, Mavericks, and Kings spent the whole offseason training like crazy, and played the whole regular season with fire, while the Lakers coasted. In tightly contested playoff games, the differences in conditioning were obvious: the Spurs were able to outwork and outthink the Lakers in close moments, and that made the difference in close games.

2003-05-17T19:42:00.000-07:00

I don't want to gloat too much, but:

Texas 2, California 0

I'm hoping the Mavs beat the Spurs, but we'll see. I respect the Spurs as a team, and as men (David Robinson is one of the, if not THE, most charitable athletes of modern times), but I'm still rooting for Dallas.

BTW, I'll soon put my rant on WHY I wanted the Lakers to lose, and why a victory for them would've been terrible for the NBA and a terrible example for their young fans.

2003-05-15T00:35:00.000-07:00

Why do people eschew their responsibility for their own actions?

These days, anyone can seemingly get a court hearing against the manufacturer of any mildly harmful product on the market. Oreos are unhealthy, so I'm going to sue Kraft Foods. Too many guns are sold in poor communities to commit crimes, so I'm going to sue the manufacturers. I didn't know fast food was bad for me, so I'm going to sue McDonald's!

Hey, if the nutritional information is public (and it is), then you should know which foods are good for you and which are not. (And, to that end, I do believe that trans fats should be specifically labeled on food packaging; I just don't believe that food manufacturers should have to stop using them in the interim.) Most guns sold are not used for violent crimes, and most guns used in violent crimes are re-sold and/or stolen. The tobacco lawsuits were successful only because of the systematic duping of the American public carried out by tobacco companies, and not because of the inherit health risks caused by use of their products. (If you're interested in plumbing the depths of said deception, watch The Insider.)

Is it unrealistic to expect people to actually read up on products before using them? Maybe.. but it shouldn't be.

2003-05-07T00:16:00.000-07:00

Boston sports columnist Bob Ryan said on TV that Jason Kidd's wife should be smacked during a live show last weekend.

If you're not familiar with why this is so outrageous, here's a brief history. In 2001, Jason Kidd struck his wife and received court-mandated counseling. During the 2002 NBA Eastern Conference Finals, Boston fans taunted Kidd with "wife beater" chants. Clearly, there is an uneasy (at best) history between Boston fans and the Kidd family.

Here's my take: if Joumana Kidd is giving her husband a second chance, the Boston fans should respect the family's privacy and drop the issue. Clearly their family has reached some sort of peace and forgiveness, and it's not for fans to dredge up painful reminders of it -- whereas some aspect of taunting my be fair for an adult to receive, it's classless at best, and almost unforgivable when that man's toddler is sitting at courtside as well. It becomes worse when talking heads like Bob Ryan encourage the taunting -- and then make similar threats to that woman! That makes Bob Ryan worse than the taunters, because it also makes him a hypocrite.

2003-04-30T20:53:00.000-07:00

I guess the cockroaches will have company: in a surprising find, searchers found live worms in the wreckage of the Columbia space shuttle.

If the name C. elegans sounds familiar, it's because this year's Nobel laureates in Medicine used the worm to find mechanisms for programmed cell death. C. elegans is also commonly used to explore basic questions in neural connections and biology.

Of course, I don't really know what experiments they were doing with worms on the shuttle -- but I thought I'd put a blurb up, just as another example of how seemingly odd organisms can have significant revelations for human biology and disease.

For more elegans info, check out the C. elegans community homepage.

2003-04-22T00:08:00.000-07:00

ESPN is running a story compressed from an NY Times report on drug use in baseball. The report indicates that major league players considered boycotting drug tests in order to artificially amplify the percentage of players testing positive.

Why would this matter? The new collective bargaining agreement only mandates a test for steroids during the 2003 spring training, followed by random testing of 240 more players. If more than five percent test positive, tests will continue into 2004 -- and positive tests will then be punished. All positive tests this year are anonymous and no players will be punished.

Here's a question: should the Players' Union continue its fight against drug testing? After all, isn't rampant drug use just hurting a large number of baseball players? Look at the sad case of Ken Caminiti, whose steroid and cocaine use have destroyed his life. How is the union looking after its own when it allows them to take any and all drugs without repercussion? It doesn't protect the jobs of drug-free players, and it doesn't protect anybody's health. Does the union only care about active players? That's the only conclusion I can make.

Besides, it's not like reports of rampant drug use in baseball are new. In Ball Four, Jim Bouton wrote about rampant use of "greenies" -- which are amphetamines used for an energy boost before games -- among his Seattle teammates. He didn't play for the Mariners, though -- he was a Seattle Pilot in 1969, in the first year of that franchise's existence, before Bud Selig bought them and moved them to Milwaukee.

Yes, that means that performance-enhancing drugs have been around in baseball since the very birth of the labor union, and therefore that the union has been able to avoid the issue in negotiations. I'm just not sure if that means they're doing an excellent job or a poor job.

2003-04-17T00:06:00.000-07:00

Remember Rodney King?

Well, although the LAPD would like to forget his case, Rodney won't let them. Once again, he's found himself in trouble with the law. This is the third major incident he's had since he received his settlement from LA; in additional to his high-speed crash, he's also been jailed for spouse abuse and spent a year in drug rehab after exposing himself while on PCP.

Why do I bring this up? Well, I mentioned this incident today at work -- and, more than a decade later, his very name instantly froze the air with tension. It made me wonder: what, if anything, have we learned from this incident? What questions have been left open in discussing the case that should be discussed?

Here's my take: it's obvious, to me, that people of different races see this case with very different perspectives. Let's face it: white people (like me) don't experience the frequent racism that non-whites do. The LAPD has a particularly bad reputation for racial intolerance -- I can neither confirm nor deny this, granted, as I have no experience dealing with them; however, it seems that none of my non-white friends from SoCal have a nice thing to say about them.

Here's the following question, then: do our different perspectives make us assess the consequences of Mr. King's arrest and beating differently? My experience would argue the affirmative case. I'd argue that, as he was resisting arrest, he deserved getting beaten until he was handcuffed and defenseless (and therefore unable to attack the officers) -- but after that point, it was morally wrong. Many of my friends would argue that the entire beating was wrong, because it was racially motivated, and that if he were white, he'd not have been touched. Unfortunately, that argument cannot be substantiated or refuted definitively, because there is no real litmus test for it. (As a digression, I'd note that this issue seems to resemble much of the dialogue on the death penalty: arguments about its morality in general aren't germane because issues of unfair, racially biased application obscure a fair analysis.)

Sigh. I fear that the American culture is already divided enough by political opinion and economic stratification. The last thing I needed was a reminder that different races have very different experiences, which color our worldviews more than I wish they did.

2003-04-13T22:38:00.000-07:00

Regarding my April 9 post:

See this story to see how much teachers can mess with a student's privacy and civil rights. Again, this is another case of teachers trying to coerce people into conforming to their beliefs. Teachers can't prevent someone from being homosexual -- after all, why would someone in Arkansas CHOOSE to be gay and to be persecuted?? -- and I don't think they have the right to prevent someone from admitting it. They can, by conduct standards make sure he doesn't use explicit language or obscenity, but proscribing short, non-obscene declarative statements is ludicrous, and mandating Bible reading is a clear violation of Constitutional protections.

2003-04-10T23:29:00.000-07:00

Al-Jazeera: for all of your propaganda needs.

I realize that the American media has biased coverage of the war -- the very nature of televised news mandates bias, because every presenter of information imbues that information with his or her opinions through voice inflection, tone, and other verbal and non-verbal cues. Furthermore, I'm certain that our "embedded" reporters don't get the full story -- and certainly there are interesting tales they can't cover.

That said, I'm willing to bet that we get a much more accurate version of the truth than most of the "Arab Street" media get. Most of those media outlets are either under too much political pressure or pressure from their viewers (many are, after all, delivering news to a targeted market, and thus targeting their content and opinions accordingly).

Either way, check it out for yourself. It's disturbing yet compelling, and no doubt educational to some extent.

2003-04-09T00:43:00.000-07:00

OK... argh... I keep losing column entries to Blogger. I need to just paste them in here from Word or something; losing a half hour of writing multiple times in a month is a huge aggravation.

Anyhow, I was ranting about the war, the stupidity of trying to enforce "moral leadership" by law, and how CS Lewis is really making me think lately. Too many capsule summaries and not enough content lately. Not a good week or so lately, but it's getting better -- hopefully leading to more content for you, the reader.

2003-04-06T12:51:00.000-07:00

Attacking the diplomats of your allies isn't smart. I wonder how much Russia is going to take Iraq's side now.

2003-03-30T23:48:00.000-08:00

This, too, is a rewrite of something that Blogger ate. Sigh.

The point: check out this interview with Crispin Glover. He makes a number of astute points on the lack of a true counterculture in film, and hints at the societal and financial requirements a true "culture" would require.

Most strongly, though, he discusses the need for people to be confronted with discomfort, and to face difficult questions that they often avoid. This resonated strongly with me: many of the difficulties I've had with my practice of Christianity stem from my distrust of authority, and my occasional dissent with church dogma. Furthermore, I've always had difficulty understanding an unquestioning faith; to me, a lack of examination and questioning hints at a lack of striving, which is much of the point of Christianity. The desire to be better people and follow Christ, and the desire to bring others to Him, and the desire to understand His will are ceaseless, especially in our imperfect states.

These contrasts were pointed out very honestly in Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. His choice of military metaphors in the book, about Christianity as a secret, life-changing revolt, as a form of resistance against our sinful ways are striking -- but, in many ways, they weren't entirely appropriate. Military metaphors also suggest quick, violent actions, and Christianity is a process of questioning, and thought, and depth. To me, Christianity itself seems like more of a counterculture -- a group that actively questions the social mores promulgated by Hollywood and the commercial media, that seeks a different truth (or Truth, in this case). By extending Glover's point about the film culture to religion, I saw how revitalizing this force of questioning could be.

The problem: church dogma often discourages dissent, and artificial power structures often occlude the relationship between people and God. This structure itself should also be questioned. The purpose of organized religion should be to facilitate individual relationships with God, and to encourage striving and seeking His path for us. It shouldn't be to patronize us or offer pat answers, and it shouldn't be to judge us for our weaknesses. Groups should be available to offer outside experiences and materials to guide and encourage our questions, and not to bludgeon us into conformity with social pressures.

I recognize that this post is a severe extrapolation on a philosophical point; however, this does not invalidate the points I make. Rather, I took this interview as a starting point to consider applying Glover's ideas in other contexts in search of fresh thoughts. Furthermore, like his idea of a countercultural film movement, the Counterculture for Christ would required massive re-education and paradigm shifts about how we view Faith.

Funny side note: this path of thought was spurred by the thoughts of a man whose middle name is "Hellion". Wacky, but true.

2003-03-25T00:06:00.000-08:00

Dah! Blogspot ate another post!

Oh well. Basic point: check out Michael Moore's website, and go see his movies. I don't agree with everything he has to say (particularly concerning the war), but he's a fascinating storyteller, and a man of great conscience and talent (and, yes, ego). Besides, anyone who's familiar with his work would've fully expected him to make a political statement if given a microphone and network time -- and at the Oscars, he did just that. No surprise.

Also, if Spellbound comes out in your area, go see it! Check here for dates and locations.

2003-03-24T23:04:00.000-08:00

Whether or not the U.S. is fighting this war for oil, it sure seems like Wall Street can't wait for us to get access to it.
The stock market had its worst day in six months, dropping 3.5%-3.6% (S&P500 and DJIA, respectively), mostly because of fears that the war isn't going as well as hoped. What did these people expect -- that we'd already be pumping barrels of crude oil? That we'd find a way to counteract this trough in the business cycle in four days? That a small expenditure on defense funds would cause a major spike in the American economy?

Right now, people are selling off their stocks in fear and panicking. The savvy investor will know better and start buying everything soon -- if decades of stock market history have taught us anything, they have shown that market averages beat the inflation rate over the long haul, and that overly fearful sellers will get clobbered while patient buyers make out like kings. All I know is this: I put a portion of my (small) retirement fund/savings in market indexes a couple of weeks ago, at similarly priced levels. The rest will go to other stocks very soon. As long as I choose the companies carefully, the short-term losses they incur over a few months will be minimal compared to years of consistent growth.

Of course, while you're cashing in, remember to be a good American. Peacefully voice your opinion (whichever side you take), and vote accordingly. Support research into alternative power (better yet, buy stocks in companies that do this, and buy their products!). If you come in contact with military members -- friends, relatives, acquaintaces, random bumping into people -- let them know that you respect their dedication and commitment. Don't get into a fit if the Dow Jones dips a little more, and DO NOT sell off everything --- you'll lose big-time in the long run, and such selling catalyzes market decline.

2003-03-21T00:40:00.000-08:00

A few scattered thoughts on the war:

1. Violent anti-war protests are hypocritical. I saw footage on television tonight of protesters in San Francisco clashing with police (in full riot gear). Why would people so opposed to physical conflict try to push their agenda by using physical conflict? It's an almost pure form of irony. 99 and 44/100ths percent pure, at least.

2. We may end up seeing neither "shock and awe" nor the "mother of all bombs". The early returns from Baghdad prove what we've known all along: Saddam is feared by all but hated by almost all, and without his firm grip on all of Iraq's police and military, officers are rapidly surrendering. I'm hoping for more of the same, so that we can spare as many military and civilian lives as possible.

3. If Saddam Hussein has been violating UN resolutions for 13 years (and is now using weapons that he possesses illegally!), how is this war a "pre-emptive attack"? He had more than a decade to disarm; in that time, millions died needlessly due to hunger, genocide, and torture. If we waited for two more years, we'd just be discussing the same topics, while having let hundreds of thousands more die. Why don't people see that? How are those deaths any less of a humanitarian crisis than any civilian deaths from the war? Is it just because people have an axe to grind, and are just now paying attention for the first time? Besides, I'm sure that the families of people who disappeared in the night and never returned don't consider this war "pre-emptive". If I were in their shoes, I'd consider it "too little, too late".

2003-03-21T00:05:00.000-08:00

Classy. Truly classy.

Hockey fans in Montreal booed the Star-Spangled Banner today. It seems that the French-Canadians are falling in line with the political views of France (as they are wont to do).

I guess some people would consider that a symbolic protest, but I consider it an affront to the American men and women fighting in the Gulf right now, and all Americans who have served the military. If you disagree with Bush's politics, you can make signs about Bush, or (better yet) about the specifics of his policies. If the prospect of a neo-colonialist superpower bothers you (and yes, it bothers me somewhat), then protest accordingly. However, a generic gesture like this is so non-specific that it becomes pointless, and only reinforces anti-French and anti-French-Canadian sentiments here.

2003-03-19T01:21:00.000-08:00

Before the war begins, I just wanted to say a few things.

I'm praying for all of our soldiers; for their health, and their wisdom, and their ability to do their jobs as best they can. I'm praying for all of the world's leaders with the hope that they'll be able to reach an enduring peace with lasting security. (I do not consider genocide, systematic torture, or the starvation of millions conditions of peace, which is the reason I support this action in the first place.) I'm praying that the Iraqi people remain safe and unharmed; they have already suffered enough, and it is my hope that the targeted destruction of a few military targets will allow for the renaissance of an entire nation. I'm praying that terrorists and potential terrorists can find peace within themselves and love for their fellow men and women, and realize that suicide and homicide in the name of God are misappropriations of divine will and tantamount to blasphemy.

Most of all, I'm praying that all of us -- Americans, Muslims, Europeans, Iraqis, French, Chinese, and everyone else -- remain safe, healthy, and prosperous enough that we have the physical health and political freedom to let us discuss (and even disagree on!) our political opinions in the near and far future.

May God bless us all in this perilous time.

2003-03-15T21:04:00.000-08:00

According to a Congressional committee, file-sharing sites allow trading of porn.

In related news, water is wet.

Seriously, though: there will ALWAYS be technology that allows children to see things their parents don't want them to see. It doesn't matter how indignant people get or how morally outraged they become -- whenever people come up with a way to filter the content of a medium, others develop entirely new media that aren't as easily restricted.

Instead of being shocked, why don't these people spend time talking with their children and imbuing them with their own senses of morality? Five hours of complaining in hearings will do orders of magnitude less good than five minutes of open discussion with their kids about WHY things are allowed or not, and WHY they're immoral (or not).

After all, I've found doing something that's naughty can make it more fun -- but when I understand why something is immoral, I generally have little to no interest in it anymore. I don't think I'm aberrant in that regard, either, and I'd bet that most adolescents possess enough cognitive development and morality to make similar choices. And if people really don't trust the kids that much, just put the computer somewhere public in the house and require a password to install new software (Unix and Apple OSX do this automatically if set up properly).

Or, instead of doing simple things to really teach and watch over their children, they can just blather about how hard it is to porn-proof computers, while allowing their children several unsupervised hours a day in front of one.

2003-03-13T22:41:00.000-08:00

I heard the new Beastie Boys song today. I recognize that's intended to be a protest against Iraq; however, the song ends up being a useless ad hominem attack against the President. This, of course, does NOTHING to communicate why a war in Iraq is pointless, or why we should protest it vociferously. Instead, all it can do is polarize people without presenting them reasonable facts for discussion, which just promotes bickering instead of any lasting peace. All it's done for me is make me question how I view their artistic works.

You can download the song and listen for yourself, or if you're in San Diego, get it from the FM 94.9 website. However, listening carefully to it did nothing but anger me, and add elements of antipathy to my sentiments for the anti-war protests. For every logical point I've heard against the war, I've heard hundreds of illogical, vituperative declarations about George Bush that in no way discussed how this war will hurt the Iraqi people. I may not agree with Win Without War or other groups, but at least reason rules their site instead of calumny.

2003-03-10T01:12:00.000-08:00

Nature Medicine is running a story predicting that by Summer 2004, 40.6% of S. pneumoniae strains will be resistant to the two most commonly-used antibiotic treatments: erythromycin and penicillin. Given that only 8.6% percent of the same bacteria were doubly resistant in 1996, this is a gravely troubling trend.

The worst part: there's an easy cure for this problem! If people would stop using antibiotics inappropriately, this problem would slow significantly. Government estimates note that almost half of the antibiotic prescriptions given are needless. I know that people distrust doctors and health care practicioners who won't prescribe them medications, but this can't be blamed on greed -- antibiotics are dirt cheap (as drugs go), and won't cost your HMO very much. Generally, the doctor's only giving people the drugs to shut them up, not for any curative or prophylactic value. This phenomenon simply selects against drug-susceptible bacteria, allowing the drug-resistant bacteria relatively more resources to divide, as well as a higher probability that any other bacterium with which it exchanges genetic material (by conjugation) will have a drug resistance of some sort.

Well, by that prediction, we have only a few more years of having bacterial infections that the average person can afford to treat.

The message: next time you have a cold, just sleep and take some vitamins. Odds are it'll go away without a doctor's visit. If you do go to the doctor, don't put him/her on the spot and demand prescriptions -- he/she likely had a reason for not prescribing you erythromycin, and that reason is usually that your illness is not caused by an erythromycin-susceptible pathogen.

2003-03-10T00:54:00.000-08:00

Apparently now I'm a trend-setter...

CNN has published a story about blogging and its commerical and cultural potential.

Just an FYI.

2003-03-06T01:37:00.000-08:00

Finally, a media outlet is covering a tradition of higher education that I dislike: legacy college admissions.

Legacy admissions, in essence, are tantamount to affirmative action for the descendants of alumni of a particular university. Just as affirmative action uses race (an inherited factor beyond the control of the applicant) to help minority candidates gain admission to a school that would have rejected them otherwise, legacy admissions use pedigree (another inherited factor beyond the control of the applicant).

Because I consider both of these variations on a common theme, I have the same opinion on both: I'd prefer that they didn't exist, but I can see reasons that universities keep them in place. Affirmative action guarantees ethnic and cultural diversity, which adds different elements to education of students. Similarly, legacies are often more knowledgeable about the traditions and history of an institution, imbuing the school with a deeper sense of spirit and appreciation. However, all of these perceived benefits are very subjective, and vary wildly student by student. Furthermore, the benefits of these programs to the students they purportedly help are mixed. I find it difficult to argue that any admissions policy that admits underqualified students is a boon to their education; most of the time, it's simply damning them to an expensive, high-pressure failure.

I'm not offering a pithy, pat opinion to close this piece because I can't offer a plan that would easily ensure diversity while selecting only the most capable students available. What I can offer is this proposal: institutions that both support and oppose affirmative action (such as MIT and the University of Michigan, respectively) should assemble internal records for candidates who gained preferential admission due to status (either by affirmative action or legacy). These schools should keep those lists of students and determine their graduation rate, grade average, and other indicators of academic success and community participation. They should also keep similar lists to get a better sense of what is "average" for their community (to serve as a control group). After five years (time enough for engineering students to finish on time), the schools should all determine if there is a stastically significant difference in performance between preferentially admitted students and the control group. (Of course, to prevent any bias in the ascertainment of data, the study must be done in complete secret, and not announced until the results are satisfactorily analyzed and the logical conclusions are drawn.)

Despite the persistence of arguments for and against preferential admission policies, most institutes of higher learning haven't taught us whether or not the policies have any beneficial effect. Such a large-scale test, with samples taken in public and private schools across the country, might offer us a first glimpse at the truth.

2003-03-03T01:12:00.000-08:00

Is multitasking smart?

To many of us, myself included, multitasking is a way of life. If I'm not making yeast lysates, I'm probably reading a paper or streaking out colonies on a plate. I might have cultures incubating at the same time. What I'm trying to convey is this: I always have a lot of things going on at one time, and I have to carefully plan them to make sure I can get everything done properly.

The reason I ask the titular question is this: Can the American government handle multiple large-scale military operations at once? To me, it appears that our forces will likely be participating in combat in Iraq within the next two months. At the same time, we're dealing with the aftermath of deposing the Taliban in Afghanistan, and certainly have goals left to achieve in those operations. Furthermore, we are on the brink of a nuclear standoff with North Korea -- and few things are more frightening than a man of questionable sanity controlling nuclear arms. These scenarios don't even include less-likely possibilities like a war in Saudi Arabia or domestic attacks requiring military forces here.

This is my worry: we've already seen a massive shift of manpower and technology from Afghanistan to Iraq. (It is my hope that American forces are continuing the manhunts for Al Qaeda operatives and materials; however, the media silence on this topic is frightening.) This shifted focus, though, leads to diminished priority on the endgame of the invasion, and on the vital rebuilding of Afghanistan that is absolutely required to prevent the rise to power of another extremist regime. If we are still incapable of doing two jobs at once, then, should we try? What happens if we go to Iraq but repeat the mistakes of the early 1990s, in which we did not accomplish our goals? It seemed that the incredible success of Desert Storm allowed the later failures in the region for which we are still paying. Can we afford a similar set of mistakes anywhere in the Middle East? And is Iraq really our biggest worry right now? Shouldn't we consider deposing a despot whom we KNOW to have nuclear weapons instead of toying with one who probably doesn't?

This is by no means a call for peace. It is, however, a set of questions that I hope the military brass are pondering before they continue to send thousands of our young men and women to the Persian Gulf. I believe that, in time, war with Iraq will become unavoidable. I'm just not sure that it should be America's first priority. Instead, I think we should continue to work diplomatically to pressure the international community into action, thereby allowing us to move some of our men and materials to other regions. At the same time, we should put significantly more pressure on North Korea to follow the treaties they've broken; the "non-proliferation for food" (or, as Gregg Easterbrook called it, "lies for food") is an obvious failure. We need to work more closely with South Korea on this; North Korea
generally achieves its goals by playing the Americans and the South Koreans off of each other, relying on threats and ethnic unity (or both in some cases) to cajole them into signing unfavorable treaties. In the background, we
need to continue our work on finding and eliminating terrorist threats (especially the Al-Qaeda networks and the "charitable organizations" that front for them). These methods can all pay huge dividends while requiring little military commitment. If (or, more likely, "when") one of thesesituations merit a more full military commitment, we'll be able to put all of our focus on that one problem, and thus have a greater probability of rapid success.

Yes, I realize this is all incredibly oversimplified. I'd just like to see our military forces do a better job of prioritizing and fully completing operatives. The partial successes we've achieved won't be good enough; "partial success" is a nicer way of saying "failure", and with so many American lives at risk, any option that has more than a slight chance of failure is an unnecessary, stupid option.

2003-03-02T21:30:00.000-08:00

My apologies for the slow week of blogging. I've been consumed with getting things done at work while trying to clean and renovate my apartment for my mom's visit this weekend. In contrast to my title, I actually sacrificed writing to sleep this week!

2003-02-26T23:03:00.000-08:00

For those of you who didn't know, I've worked for the Scripps-Howard National Spelling Bee for the past six years, and participated in it for three years as well. Today, I learned that Dr. Alex Cameron, the head pronouncer for the Bee since 1980, passed away at the age of 65. Many of my memories of the Bee are tied to him; he was the man who pronounced the words I spelled, and to many of us children, he was the very embodiment of the Bee. As a staffer, I had the privilege of speaking with him during the Bee Weeks, and I feel very lucky to have had the opportunity to do so.

I'm looking forward to this May and the next Bee -- but I'm not sure how it's going to be without Dr. Cameron there. I just wish that we didn't have to find out so soon.

2003-02-24T09:07:00.000-08:00

Since I'm way behind on writing, here are a few opinions I have:

Club fires: It doesn't seem like prosecutors want to put the sets of owners in jail, but I'm not certain that they shouldn't. The Chicago fire is an example of owners blatantly disregarding orders to shut down, but for some reason, a judge is not allowing them to be thrown in jail for contempt of court. I also don't know why Jesse Jackson is calling for blame to be taken off of the owners; I thought he was supposed to defend the black community, and not people whose negligence causes their deaths.

AIDSVax doesn't work, basically, and that's terrible news for the global health community. By and large, the first vaccine to HIV failed the Phase III clinical tests designed to determine the efficacy of the vaccine. Interestingly, it's possible that the vaccine may be more effective in African-Americans: whereas the vaccine was only "3.8% effective" (I'm not sure how they measured this figure, hence the quotations) in the 5400 tested, it was "78.3% effective" in black people. Whether this is due to genetic factors, exposure to different virus clades (which, given the vaccine's design, is highly probable), or something else is unknown, but may provide clues to viral function. Still, the next testable HIV vaccine won't be ready for a few years, and I shudder to think how many millions will be infected by then.

NATO: If Turkey's in NATO, then everyone else in NATO has to protect them. The refusal of the French and Germans to protect Turkey disgusts me -- or as Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA) says, it's "beneath contempt".

2003-02-19T00:56:00.000-08:00

Not to say I told you so, but...

Several hours after the Mike Tyson/Michael Jackson post, this gets posted on ESPN's website. I feel especially prescient.

Sadly, I do not have an accompanying link for the picture of Mike's facial tattoo.. let's just say that if the tribal/Celtic look ever goes out of style, he's got (even more) problems.

On a more serious note: I realize that the common denominator between these two men is most likely severe mental illness. Do I think that they're both grown men who must be held accountable for their misdeeds? Of course -- but I also think that they both need serious medical help. It's just shameful that their assistants and family are beholden to these men financially to help them. After all, it's possible the emperor wasn't wearing clothes because he was too crazy to know any better.

2003-02-17T23:54:00.000-08:00

Has anybody else noticed the parallel declines of Michael Jackson and Mike Tyson over the past few years?

Sure, at first, the comparison seems almost fatuous -- sure, they're both crazy, famous black men named "Michael". They also have high-pitched voices and faces that have taken some damage over the years.

Still, they have one common root to most of their problems: there is nobody in their lives who can tell them "no". They're both rich enough to hire and fire people on whims, and therefore even their most loyal employees become yes-men and lackeys. They'e both incredibly sensitive to criticism (real or perceived), lash out with lawsuits, vitriol, and threats. Compare Tyson's disturbing quotations about "kicking childrens' testicles" to Jackson's bizarre public statements about Tommy Mottola and the record industry. They both have suffered major psychological damage from abusive childhoods, and have thus retreated into childlike delusions as adults. They both, at times, are manic, and both seem to feel a compulsive need to perform for any audience, no matter how small.

I don't know if this has a point, other than as yet another cautionary tale about the dangers of adolescent fame. It's just bizarre, and thus mildly interesting to me.

2003-02-16T00:39:00.000-08:00

A night at the movies

In case you hadn't noticed, I'm on a bit of a Kurosawa kick. I purchased the Kurosawa Samurai Classics DVD set for Christmas. Lo and behold, the Ken Cinema here in SD decided to show a Kurosawa/Mifune retrospective. Naturally, as a film buff, I think that the only thing better than a DVD of a great movie is seeing that movie play on a large screen.

Tonight, I went to see Seven Samurai. If anything, it was better than I remembered -- for some reason, the magnitude of the film was only increased by seeing it on a larger scale. The cinematography was particularly more striking, and the larger subtitles helped me keep better track of the different characters. Some of the less-studied characters (Heihachi and Kyuzo in particular) really grabbed my attention as well. That, for me, is one of the most striking things about the film -- in addition to the beautiful cinematography and action, several characters are developed and we can watch them change throughout the film.

Anyhow, rather than spoil the movie or give it a more full rant, I'm just going to strongly recommend that you see it.

2003-02-12T00:57:00.000-08:00

Surfing the waves of ambivalence...

Today has found me in more of a pensive, unsure mood than I've experienced in a while. I've felt an odd juxtaposition of confidence and diffidence, of faith and uncertainty, of energy and lethargy. I feel capable of handling extra work, but partway in feel buried by the massiveness of my tasks.

For some reason, this seems to be a leitmotif in the graduate student experience, this blend of mixed feelings. I know that I'm certainly not alone in experiencing these feelings, yet I feel isolated by the physical constraints of my laboratory and my small apartment. Perchance there's unity among the overworked and disaffected (this would explain most of the esprit de corps at MIT), but it's difficult for separated entities to feel a sense of togetherness. Unlike most of the overworked, though, we don't have harsh bosses or large paychecks -- we're lured by our own curiosities, and enchanted by a mystical, distant goal with an uncertain, nebulous, yet intensely personal feeling of accomplishment.

Anyhow -- I don't mean for this to be a jeremiad; it's just that I'd be less than honest if I pretended that I was always psyched, energetic, and happy. This, too, shall pass.

2003-02-07T00:33:00.000-08:00

This is almost too disturbing for me to properly describe. In many ways, it's indicative of something that denizens of the Internet regularly forget: everyone posting, lurking, or somehow connected is a real person. Whether that person is truthful, a liar, a hypocrite, or an undercover officer is not the point -- the point is that we're all people, and that we all need to look out for each other a little bit.

If you don't care to read the link, the story is this: a 21 year old young man, Brandon Vedas, overdosed on drugs in his room. The difference is this: he did it live on his webcam while boasting of his "high tolerance", and while some others on his IRC channel urged him to continue his lethal binge.

Was Brandon responsible for his own death? Obviously; the drugs were his, and he initiated the massive overdose. Still, we must consider the duties that the others online neglected. The IRC log shows his friends were concerned for his well-being -- but their concern started too late, and they were more worried about his getting arrested (for possession) than his dying from an overdose.

For all of its wonders and possibilities, the very nature of the Internet allows people who make horrible decisions to find information on their vices, and places them in shut-off communities full of people who reaffirm those mistakes. I'm not saying that the medium needs to be regulated to prevent these things from occurring. I am saying that we all need to remember to actively care for and keep watch over the other people who frequent the same places we do. (After all, I don't have _that_ many readers on here, so I'd like to have all of you around here safe, sane, and going strong. )

2003-02-04T02:31:00.000-08:00

And now for something completely different -- a reflection on my 26th birthday.

Tonight, I had a vision about how the roles other people have played in my life, and what I’ve done in theirs.

I was talking to a friend, and we discussed how he leaned on his men's group at church to get through hard times. I, in turn, mentioned how I got through college because of friends and family, and how most of the people I knew really relied on their loved ones to help them through tough times.

As I considered this, I thought about a large bonfire. I could see each of us, as people, as one large log in a pile. Now, a log off by itself will surely fall; it has no buttressing influence from other logs. A log with a few other logs around it (friends) has a much better shot of standing true, and one leaning on a group of several (family) will almost certainly stay standing through almost anything.

The dilemma, though, became this: how does this motley collection of wood stay standing? I then realized that, much like a bonfire, it needed a central pole; a support for all of the other logs in the pile. I then saw how God was that central pole – how He helps us all stand, either directly, or through helping other logs to help your log stand, even when that log is far removed. No log is ever too far from the center pole to be uninfluenced by its firm, unchanging support.

This is of significant comfort to me – after all, I don’t have to be alone in standing, or be afraid of falling. I just need to lean on God a little more, knowing that He’ll keep me staying upright.

2003-01-30T00:39:00.000-08:00

Lawsuits a-plenty...

Is anybody else disturbed by the increased trend in large-settlement malpractice lawsuits seen these days -- or, on a similar matter, the reaction to them?

To wit: doctors in Florida and Mississippi staged a walkout this week to protest the rising costs of malpractice insurance. Doctors in West Virginia did the same earlier this month. The Florida Medical Association notes that medical liability insurance costs have quintupled since 1975, except in California, where reforms have kept the increase to a more reasonable 167%.

Think of this: doctors are now being forced to pay more to stay in business while they receive significantly less money than their predecessors. Because of the increased litigiousness of this society, they're placed in situations where any failure in treatment -- even if it's the proper treatment -- could make them the target of a lawsuit. On the other hand, if they try a more risky procedure and it fails, they'll get sued for risktaking. Furthermore, if they actually fight frivolous suits, they're spending time in court and not in practice, which just costs them that much more. The incentives to settle mean that few malpractice suits are even likely to get to court.

It's because of these things that I'm willing to support most forms of tort reform for malpractice. (This link provides a story and outline on the Bush plan for medical liability limits.

In some ways, this isn't an easy plan to accept -- after all, setting limits on pain and suffering is difficult, and hard to measure. On the other hand, the real economic and punitive costs aren't capped as long as there is significant substantiation for the larger amounts of money. This, while somewhat of a hardship to legitimate cases, does well to help battle the more frivolous suits by battling the rising claims sought by unethical lawyers and claimants. I'm also not sure that allowing long-term dispersals of monies (as opposed to the current requirement for one lump-sum payment) are always appropriate. Still, this bill should significantly lower the numbers of unmerited lawsuits doctors face, as well as lowering the amount of money sought in those suits; hopefully, it won't do anything to hinder just malpractice claims.

As an aside: note that the only significant public opposition this faces has come from former trial lawyers (and I'm looking at YOU, John Edwards) and the American Trial Lawyer Association. Read their comments: their claims against the insurance industry's finances have been proven somewhat untrue, leaving them to make snide ad hominem attacks against the insurance industry. (Besides, I don't trust most juries to make reasonable financial decisions -- they don't have the expertise or training, and the numbers they hear from the most sensationalized cases are so ridiculous that they don't have perspective, either. Why should the insurance companies trust them?)

2003-01-29T23:21:00.000-08:00

Random humor:

If you didn't see the Super Bowl, or want another look at the best commerical of the day, check out Terry Tate online.

I only wish that someone could insert him into the Dilbert world. I find the juxtaposition of the two oddly delightful.

2003-01-25T00:04:00.000-08:00

The INS must be run by football fans...

The San Diego Union-Tribune broke a story today about an INS sweep that netted 110 illegal immigrants in the immediate vicinity of the former Jack Murphy Stadium, site of the Super Bowl.

Here's one immediate question: if they found so many people in such a small area with only a few months' worth of work, what do they do the rest of the time? They're obviously not perusing security guards' profiles -- 45 of those 110 were hired as security workers! Maybe they're hunting for convicts... nope, 34 of those 110 have prior convictions on their records. So, if they're not looking for convicts, and they're not checking the legality of peoples' employment papers, what do they do?

Also, why should 9/11 have changed the INS' job that much? The INS' essential function always should have been to deport people who are here illegally, with a special emphasis on those with criminal records. The fact that they've already failed once doesn't mean that their task has changed; it simply means that people expect them to actually serve that duty with some success.

One other note on this story: an immigration lawyer named John Mansfield is complaining that his client's rights have been violated because said client was in the process of obtaining legal documentation to stay in the US. My contention is simple: if someone is here illegally, deportation is not a violation of their rights, but rather an enforcement of the law. Mansfield's complaints that the INS "pretty much pick up any person who's overstayed their visa whether or not they're a security risk" serve as more of a compliment to INS efficacy than any sort of legal appeal. Instead of complaining, maybe he should help his client fill out the legal paperwork and encourage him to not use fraudulent Social Security numbers to get a job.

Back to the main point, though: the INS should use this as a springboard to continue finding and deporting criminals that shouldn't be in the USA. Our society is very proficient at turning out accomplished criminals -- do we really need a trade deficit there, too?

2003-01-22T01:19:00.000-08:00

Short, belated note: I hope that everyone on here was able to take some time on Dr. King's holiday and think about all of the struggles that we've gone through in the past few centuries in this country. I don't know that any other country has ever tried so boldly to integrate so many cultures and ethnicities into one united whole, and it's important for us all to learn from and appreciate the successes and failures we've encountered along the way.

I also want to stress that, whereas the holiday is named for Dr. King, the day should be used to remember all who sacrificed their time, money, freedom, and lives for the dream of racial equality in this country. Dr. King should, and must be remembered, and so must contemporaries of his like Malcolm X, Thurgood Marshall, and Medgar Evers, as well as all who came before, such as Dred Scott, Frederick Douglass, W.E.B. DuBois, and Marcus Aurelius Garvey. (And if some of these names aren't familiar to you, I implore you to use Google and look a few up -- after all, it's likely that you did get an entire day off because of them.)

Just remember this much: every day, we have a chance to make Dr. King's oft-cited dream a reality. It's not about affirmative action, or racial profiling, or politics. It's about treating other people with dignity and love, and encouraging everyone else you know to do so with your voice and your example.

2003-01-20T00:21:00.000-08:00

Sigh. I just wrote a substantial column using this article as a touchstone for discussing what democracy is and is not. Sadly, it somehow disappeared into the netherworld of the Blogger servers, and is now part of a vapor cloud hanging over Lake Michigan (along with the obscenities used by Ralphie's dad in A Christmas Story.)

Anyhow, just ask yourself these questions: How could anything be "truly democratic" in a state where no opposition party exists? Doesn't the ability to vote "yes" to all candidates on a ballot preclude the concept of opposition, and turn a supposed "election" into an acclamation? After all, democracy is supposed to be a process of the exercise of the peoples' (oft-misguided) will, and by definition cannot be an outcome.

Just ponder this: at least we can choose from the lesser of two evils instead of having an evil provided to us with a predetermined outcome and an exhortation (which, depending on your location, may or may not be accompanied by a strategically placed weapon) to support that outcome. Bush and Gore may have been similarly bland, overcoached, robotic, and beholden to corporate interests, but at least we have the right (and duty) to actively dissent; to protest that with which we disagree, as loudly and informedly as we can, and to find alternatives. The only alternatives in Iraq involve emigration or a dusty grave.

2003-01-19T22:32:00.000-08:00

This deserves its own blog, but I just can't do it justice with my writing skills. Check out the homepage for Peja Drobnjak, a forward for the Seattle SuperSonics. Wow. This might be the funniest single sports pages I've ever seen.

2003-01-16T02:13:00.000-08:00

Yojimbo: or why I have some hope for the action movie.

Over the Christmas break, I was fortunate enough to find the Akira Kurosawa box set at Fry's. I initiated the viewings of the four films contained therein by seeing Yojimbo last night.
Without giving the film a full, formal review, let me instead give a few reasons why I think it's a seminal action film -- and why directors and writers of other films would do well to analyze the movie and learn from it.

1. Yojimbo works as an action film because it's not filled with needless action. Kurosawa has a masterful sense of pacing. Seibei and Ushitora, at various turns, are near desperate to attack each other, for both personal and financial reasons. However, as conflict is about to occur, breaks (the arrival of the inspector in particular) only forestall the inevitable -- which only serves to whet the audience's appetite for violence and resolution. [For parallel example, contrast an older Bond film, such as Goldfinger, to a newer one such as Tomorrow Never Dies.]

2. Yojimbo works as an action film because its primary dilemmas are internal, not external. I don't care how many hit men of the current stereotype of choice are after your hero, if the movie adheres to the "action formula", the audience is relatively certain that the hero will triumph. However, if the hero instead has grave moral dilemmas to resolve, it is still possible that he can win the external battles but remain a defeated shell (unless he's Steven Seagal making a long-winded plea to save the environment, but I'll spare you the through-the-roof unintentional comedy provided by that.) In Yojimbo, nobody seems entirely certain of the hero's motives. Is he in the town simply to make money? Is he there to help people? Is survival his only motive? Not even Sanjuro himself seems entirely certain. The introductory text to the film mentions that ronin survive by their swords and their wits -- but nobody mentions their consciences or hearts. Sanjuro triumphs because he finds his, but the film is halfway over before the film reveals his true morality. There are early hints -- for example, how he allows Ushitora's men to brag of their unscrupulousness before he slays them -- but it takes a while before we can separate his desire from justice from his seeming bloodlust.

3. Yojimbo works as an action film because its characters and outcomes are realistic. The seemingly popular trends these days involve improbable stunts, ridiculously dangerous car crashes, and exotic double agents who seemingly switch alliances every five minutes. After a while, too much simply becomes just that -- too much, and therefore tiresome. As viewers, we can't relate to the characters and their general affluence, wealth, and ridiculous aptitude for all things athletic. On the other hand, we can relate to most of the charactes in Yojimbo. Sanjuro, the hero, is a glowering, gruff man -- one that we later find has a strong conscience -- but, foremost, a bully, using his strength to earn his money. Gonji, the old man, takes care of Sanjuro, but does so initially primarly out of fear. The two warring leaders, Seibei and Ushitora, are waging a brutal war over a small town without many resources for one crime syndicate, much less two. These aren't power-crazed premiers or cunning, debonair criminals -- these are wild dogs fighting for the last scraps from the table. Their lack of scruples simply allows them to pursue these remainders more viciously.

I could go on for a while -- but instead, I'd just suggest seeing the film yourself. I've heard that Netflix keeps the Criterion Collection version in stock, and I'd recommend it -- my DVD plays looks great, especially for a transfer of a 40 year old film.

2003-01-16T01:19:00.000-08:00

Quick sports note: man, I hate it when Dallas loses. I hate it even more when Dallas loses and I forfeit all trash-talking rights at work for the foreseeable future.

Oh well. I still have 3:1 odds on my $10 for the Mavs to win the NBA title, and the dream is alive. The loss dropped them to the rather outlandish record of 31-6. Awesome.

2003-01-12T23:02:00.000-08:00

Illinois' Death Row: Justice or Copout?

For the few who haven't already heard the story, George Ryan, the outgoing governor of Illinois, issued a blanket commutation of all condemned inmates' sentences. In other words, he took everybody from Illinois' Death Row and gave them life sentences without parole (except for a few cases, who are still likely to die in prison).

Gov. Ryan cited his personal beliefs as the touchstone for this decision: "Because the Illinois death penalty system is arbitrary and capricious--and therefore immoral--I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death." After significant studies clearing about 10% of Illinois' condemned inmates of their charges, the furor to reopen more cases helped to prompt his decision.

The question lingers, though: was a blanket commutation the proper act? After all, this is not subject to any sort of appeal or administrative review; the commutation is instant and final. It is almost certain that the life of an innocent has been saved. It is entirely certain that many guilty murderers will now receive the opportunity to live a full life, which is something that they denied their victims. Furthermore, what does this do to the families of the victims? In televised interviews (on WGN TV), many declared that the governor had promised that he would not do such a thing, and that after apparently changing his mind he gave them no notice until after his announcement. For many of these people, the death of their loved one's killer would provide an opportunity for closure, which is something that they won't get now.

Whereas debate over this decision is somewhat pointless -- after all, the questions you want to ask later don't matter if you've shot first -- the moral questions they leave are vital, and deserve public consideration. We live in a society where peoples' rights are in question. Do victims have rights? Do the families of victims have rights? Do criminals have rights? When these conflict, whose rights supersede the rights of others?

Here's what I think: all people have basic rights, whether they're presidents or prisoners. Our Bill of Rights guarantees them to everybody, without any qualifications or exclusions. (Whether the death penalty should be considered "cruel and unusual punishment" deserves its own consideration, so I'll regretfully omit that in this blog.) Whereas the guilty murderers have forsaken their claim to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", the innocents most certainly have not. Is it the duty of the state of Illinois to kill them along with the guilty to salve the wounds of the living? I don't believe that this is the case -- after all, whereas the families of the victims have been wronged, their right to closure is not more important than the lives of the wrongfully convicted. I believe that, in the cases where poor legal representation or unclear evidence has obscured the truth, the commutation of a death sentence may be the most moral choice.

That said, I'm not certain that a blanket commutation is the best answer, either. After all, there are certainly many guilty parties who are also being freed. Is the money we'll spend to incarcerate them for the rest of their lives really a valid expenditure of tax money?

Is this self-contradictory? I'm not sure, although I am one of many with complex feelings about this issue (and the death penalty in general). I think that a state-sanctioned murder upheld for propriety's sake is still the murder of an innocent person, and the moral equivalent of the murders committed by the guilty. I also think that the clearly, blatantly guilty should not benefit from the innocence of others. I guess I'm only bothered by the scope of this gesture, and the sense I have that the blanket commutation is as much a political act as a moral one. After all, the presumed political intent of the act was to engender public discussion of the death penalty, and in that regard it's succeeded wonderfully. Still, the fact that so many guilty murderers will get off easy for this disturbs me.

2003-01-09T00:25:00.000-08:00

Thought for the day: would you ever be able to trust someone who initiated your relationship with a series of lies?

The more I read (and think) about the show Joe Millionaire, the more I'm convinced that it's an incredibly mean-spirited premise from which nobody on the show stands to gain anything but notoriety. These women are flown abroad, systematically deceived, and encouraged to vie for the attention of one suitor. (In some ways, this seems like a gender reversal of the European feudal tournaments, but I digress.) Eventually, he'll choose one, and tell her the truth -- and then put her in an incredibly difficult spot.

Think about it: this woman gets told, on national television, that her entire relationship with this man has been built on a bedrock of lies. She's then asked whether she trusts her feelings and will stand by him or not. If she does, then she's supposed to be seen as a paragon of virtue; if not, then she's a greedy, gold-digging trollop. My contention is this: any woman who'd stand by this guy after she finds out the truth probably doesn't have much self-worth. How, and why, would somebody trust their intuition about a guy when it's already been proven wrong (and to a spectacular degree!)? Even moreso, would they be in any proper emotional condition to make such a decision? I really doubt it. It seems to me that Fox is wagering (substantially) on an emotional train wreck of a last episode, and moreso on peoples' willingness to be a part of it.

The shameful thing (to me) is this: before I really sat and thought about it, the show had some appeal to me. On the surface, it seemed like an interesting parody of pop culture, combined with a moral dilemma. However, the surface just seems to hide the rather diabolical truth of the show: it's just an elaborate web of lies, and by watching the show, we're all part and parcel of those lies.

Well, I won't be.

2003-01-08T01:06:00.000-08:00

OK... so this site is something I'm still trying to assemble in a reasonable fashion, so I apologize for the current (if not perpetual) dearth of content. I'll put something up soon. Really.