Gold In The Mine

What I've Learned in Two Years

2008-01-24T02:44:00.000-05:00

It's been about two years since this blog ended in what I would describe as a slow burn....

Life has changed and here are a few things I've learned:

That 10% or 20% or 1,000% more of something that if you JUST HAD would finally do it for you - doesn't.

Money doesn't make a difference. I make a lot more than I can spend and I feel exactly the same as when I was bucking 22K a year - it's just that now I drive a really fancy car and live on the beach. And what do I think when I'm in that car? That I'd really like an Aston Martin and a Mansion - or to be sleeping with the girl sitting next to that douche bag that just drove by... Totally not Buddah, and definitely not in the moment, but what can I say - at least I'm honest.

Titles mean nothing. I've collected them over the past few years and that title you wanted - it's funny how it's always the one just a step above where you are right now. Although I must admit that the process of moving up is something I find I enjoy most about the working world.

However you picture something being in your mind - that's not the way it actually happens: You know when someone says "I'm going to Beijing for a meeting" and you think "That sounds awesome". It is - TO SAY. The reality of it is usually much different and because (at least this is me) you're view of what the situation would be like (It usually involves a tuxedo and high stakes game of some card game you in reality have no idea how to play) is much different than how it goes down (OK, it's still cool - but you'd be amazed how quickly you adapt to finer things). You always hear that life is about teaching yourself to live in moments. I can't tell you how true that is. I am not all the way there yet - things still seem sweeter in memory or fantasy - but it's a learning process. At this point the only place this seems to happen for me is in NYC - perhaps because it's one of the few places in this world that lives up to its billing.

No one in high-end meetings speaks with a British accent. In reality - what you'd be most amazed by is how everyday everyone seems (Don't let that fool you though, they're usually very smart and very out to get you). Once again, I think maybe I once expected Gordon Gecko to pop out of the woodwork but the reality is that these people are just like you and me except that they are usually absolutely, insanely, unfathomably wealthy. You know what they value most at that point? Respect and power. Guess what, there's always someone with more of that. Those people - or actually those positions that you're chasing also have something above them that they are chasing as well. When you're young it's recognition, when you're middle aged it's respect and money, and when you're older it's power and a legacy. Remember that - and you will see a lot in people that you never saw before.

This blog at one point once forced introspection upon me - I think I'll visit it a bit more...

2006-12-03T22:43:00.000-05:00

If I could only pull the blinds over my eyes once again and believe...

My Head is Going to Pop off of My Neck

2006-02-21T21:28:00.000-05:00

I am now convinced that the world continues to revolve about it’s axis IN SPITE of the efforts of the majority of humanity. I have been bombarded recently with scary stories of how people in power have demonstrated their absolute inability to grasp the patently obvious. Let me step back here and say that, although I am about to lambaste the majority of the human race, I DO NOT engage in the type of intellectual pretension endemic to the people who usually make these proclamations. I am simply relating facts…

First, how do KNOWN terrorists consistently keep escaping from prison? Seriously, first it was from Guantanamo and then Yemen, and now Pakistan. Initially, I thought the first was the worst until I thought about it and realized that in the latter two the inmates have probably been beaten so badly they could hardly walk out let alone run. If we keep up this bang up job of prison security Amnesty International can hang up their hats, everyone will have walked out of those dens of human rights abuses before they can have their 40^th protest this week. I am PRAYING they let them escape for some higher order intelligence gathering purposes but I think this hope may be in vain.

I have been trying to obtain contacts for the past several week (Actually, right now I am without contacts or glasses which has the negative effect of about, oh, 8 beers on my driving yet has the positive effect of the same number of beers on my view of women at the gym). I have been trading phone calls with the office until I finally reached them. Here is the text of the conversation..

Hello, my name is “Gold” and I would like to have the prescription filled that I received from Dr. X in your office last month.

Her: Ummmm…didn’t we have this conversation before?

Me: Yes, I previously called and inquired about how much my insurance would cover and told you I would get back to you.

Her: Oh. I see.

Me: So, I’m getting back to you and I’d like to order the contacts.

Her: So you would like to order the contacts now?

What I wish I said

Me: No, I want to sing along to the Mr. Ed theme track and then say Fuck the Contacts and ask you out to dinner.

What I saidI

Me: That’s right. I’d like to order them.

Her Oh, do you have your prescription?

Me: No, I was under the impression you had that

(What I was thinking: Because the FUCKING DOCTORS OFFICE IS 2 STEPS AWAY FROM WHERE YOU ARE SITTING).

Her: Um, you’d have to go and get that from them and bring it here.

Me: Just so I understand you completely, you want me to drive down there, walk 4 feet behind you, pick up a piece of paper and give it to you? That’s what you are saying, correct?

Her: …………..

Me: Hello?

Her: Oh, I will get it.

Me: That’s great, when can I pick up the eyeglasses.

Her: Before we can place the order through your insurance you have to come in to sign a HIPA form.

Me: You’re kidding right.

Her: No, it’s federal law to protect your health information.

Me: Who the hell is looking for my contact lens prescription, the communists? Seriously, has the Shining Path somehow been revived and plan on extorting money from me lest they tell the world I am half blind?

Her: Shining? No, this has nothing to do with your vision, it’s just the law.

Me: I’ll see you tomorrow.

I know I am impatient and I am working on that. In the end, I had to bite it and drive to the store, to lay down a signature to protect my “health privacy” (which by the way is a load of bullshit. I’ve dated medical students and they break that violation about once an hour. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard “Did you see Mr. XX’s wang? Or, that old man needed a genital shave”).

Back to my point, the world is falling apart. We see it in decisions regarding cartoons (I don’t need to comment on that), the FISA court (It’s a rubber stamp court yet we STILL need to bypass it), and Intelligent Design (The recent decisions are actually one of the few things giving me faith in humanity). I hope each and everyone of the people who read this decide to do something about the crap that’s loaded on you by humanity today (and everyday). The less we take now the less we’ll have to deal with later.

The ISS is worthless (But space sex is not)

2006-02-05T21:43:00.000-05:00

You know, I have always been somewhat suspicious of the space program. I mean, what do we really gain from manned missions into the great beyond? There are the usual canards thrown out there, microwave ovens, pens you can use to write upside down (I’m always doing that), even Tang (how that last one is a positive still eludes me) but most of the discoveries usually mentioned as positive results of our space efforts have been proven to be stretches of the imagination if not downright falsities. Unfortunately, many people are still caught up in the romanticism of shooting people 1000’s of miles past earth’s surface into space (weightlessness is cool….) and thus accept the necessity of manned missions (I would gladly accept unmanned missions for scientific discovery as well as to keep the lid on NASA being basically a federally funded research program for our aerospace industry). I, however, know better. Fortunately, the good folks at the ISS have decided to do something so inane even the most benighted earth dweller has GOT to see past it.

Picture this, you have 3 or 4 guys up there, sitting around the table and thinking “What the fuck are we going to do today? The weightlessness thing wore off months ago, I am tired of squishing out bubbles of liquid and slurping them into my mouth, there aren’t any women up here for weightless sex, and if we attempt to rationalize this HUGE waste of taxpayer money with “Tang” one more time they are going to shoot us into the sun, so we need to think up something quick.”. What do these guys come up with? They decided to stuff an old Russian space suit full of dirty underwear, push it out the door, and see how long it would take to burn up. Not only that, they are getting Ham radio operators the world over to listen in to help them “determine how long it will take the suit to burn up in earth’s atmosphere.”. As if it weren’t bad enough that they were actually releasing this to the press they are actually admitting that they are depending on every mesh-hat wearing farmer in the mid-west to help them calculate this “absolutely essential data”. Guess what, if you fall out of the space station and aren’t somehow absolutely covered in ceramic heat resistant tiles complete with one hell of a cooling system I don’t need a Ph.D. in astrophysics to tell you you’re pretty much fucked.

Everyone, I know that you think space is cool. Space is cool. What’s not cool is wasting billions of dollars on shooting people into space when we could be doing it with robots, monkeys, or basically anything that doesn’t add 100’s of millions of dollars per flight in safety measures. Let me go on the record here as saying I am all for space sex and, should the opportunity arise, yours truly will be first in line to knock that one off the list but I don’t expect tax payers to pick up the tab. Hell, even Lance Bass knew that you had to throw down some personal cash if you want that type of high (and he was only paying for the ride up and back, the lodging was free of charge courtesy of the mostly the U.S. taxpayer). So, please tell your congressman that you would rather the money be spend on finding ways to match women’s sex drives to men’s (The most cruel of all of evolutions tricks) or perhaps increasing research into teleportation (Seriously, quantum teleportation is already being looked at and, personally, I can’t wait for the day when I can beam myself into Cabo in the winter time (Or Keira Knightly bed…). Even so, whatever the crazy things we decide to spend billions on at one point (In this case it’s pushing a million dollar space suit out a window) we must draw the line. So speak up America, you’ll thank me in the future.

Would the Fan in San Francisco Please E-mail Me

2006-01-25T16:00:00.000-05:00

So-

I would love to know what you think of the blog. You know who you are.

Please e-mail me at the address listed on the left hand side of this page.

(goldinthemine at gmail dot....you know the end)

Greetings from London

2006-01-08T05:37:00.000-05:00

Here I am on the first of many international business trips and a number of thoughts are running through my head. At the top of the heap of ideas rushing to and fro is the realization that I haven’t kept all of you updated on life.

-Oh, I have to take a break here. I am sitting in Heathrow and I have to say the women are beautiful. There is something about the way they dress. It’s similar to the feeling I get in New York City. Even the semi-attractive women seem more attractive with a chic scarf and confident look. –

That reminds me, I have met someone. Yes, it’s true. I recently “upped” my social availability at the gym from keeping it the temple that it was to being a bit more engaging in circles of conversation. There is a girl, the one that everyone notices when they come in, who caught my eye. I can’t say what it is but there are only very specific types of women I find attractive. I think it’s a type of fundamental natural beauty; a look of innocence that is only useful when followed by a matching intellect. After a few short conversations I found out that she just turned 24 (perfect age), has a masters degree from an awesome university (sweet), and now works in PR for a non-profit due to a burning desire to do good (awesome).

We have gone out on several dates and I have to say that for the love of GOD her body is amazing and, of course, I appreciate her mind as well. I don’t know where this will go. Maybe it will be nothing (entirely possible), maybe it will be more. I don’t think I am going to have time for much in the way of a serious relationship but I can tell you this, if you do have to tell someone you can’t go on a date the “business trip to London” excuse does not hurt.

I fully plan on hitting this city hard (I may go to Geneva for the weekend). I will keep you all updated on my progress.

A boy, a bible, and an atheist.

2005-12-24T11:55:00.000-05:00

This morning I heard the familiar “rap” of a fist on my door. In this city an unexpected knock usually isn’t the neighbor asking for a cup of sugar. Indeed, with the season in mind I think we can all readily assume just who it might be calling for my attention. I opened the door to find a young man (perhaps 12) dressed in his best, yet rumpled, clothes holding a bible and pamphlets. He happily wished me a good morning and immediately started to read, haltingly for a boy his age, from a pre-prepared speech he had been given by someone for this situation. Behind him stood an elderly man with an even smaller boy at his side. The old man smiled as he stood back, allowing the young evangelist to take the lead in his commitment to proselytize. I stood there, waiting patiently as he fought through the words of his document until, upon finishing, he asked me if I thought the “meaning of the season had been lost in society?” In that moment I stood and reflected on what action I should take. Before me was this young man, most likely here only at the behest of his impeccably dressed grandfather (?) asking me, an atheist, my thoughts on the season.

Who am I, I thought, to take away this boys hope? Who am I to say “I am sorry; there is no Jesus, no final deliverance or everlasting life, no rich reward at the end of it all”? In the city, many times, religion is all the hope people have. It binds families (Usually Grandparents to grandchildren unfortunately) together as a united front against the poverty, the racism, the hate, and the despair that they face as a part of their everyday lives. Should I give him the nuanced response, something like “Although love and charity are important and admirable notions, they are not dependent upon a deity for existence”? This is, remember, just a boy.

I told him that indeed, the meaning of the season had been lost in society, that people were too involved in material possessions rather than each other and that with just a little more love, we would all be better off. I looked down and saw him beaming, as if my simple response somehow connected us in our view of the meaning of Christmas. On some levels, he was right.

He walked down the stoop to his smiling grandfather’s side and, as all three walked away to find the next door to knock on, they turned and wished me a Merry Christmas. I found myself hoping that that the boy would stay in the church, away from the streets. I hoped that he would hold on to that vain belief in a distant savior for whom he should stay vigilant in life, if just long enough to escape his life in the city and then decide for himself if he still needed that invisible man to guide him along. In the best of all possible worlds we wouldn’t need this type of paternal religion but, as I’ve written before, in this world we just might.

Christmas

2005-12-22T21:54:00.000-05:00

Christmas is here and I believe it is the time of year in which we all remember the blessings and gifts the good lord has given us. Unfortunately, I am an atheist (Although I beginning to agree with Sam Harris who says that we should not even need a term for a “person who does not believe in god”. After all, we don’t have names for those who don’t believe in astrology, the Easter bunny, or the tooth fairy, do we?). So, in lieu of a “giving thanks” article I thought I would do something truly American and complain about the negative aspects of the many positive things that have happened recently in my life. As you all know, I recently sold out to the man after spending what seemed like an eternity staring at the shadows on the cave wall in graduate school and am now out in the sunlight, breaking my back for the almighty corporate dollar.

As part of this recent “sell out” I have had to agree to a bit of traveling. Many would see this as an exciting. Here I am, a dashing young fellow with the no roots in the ground galavalanting across the globe on trips paid for by the company. In part, this is true. I am excited about the next two months which will see me in the U.K., most likely Japan, San Diego, Long Beach, Munich, and possibly elsewhere. Superficially it is interesting. I am sure all of those places are exciting (Check that, I KNOW San Diego is exciting) but business trips are MUCH different than vacation. I will be spending most, if not all, of my time in offices with managers who want nothing more than to tell me all about themselves, laboratories with scientists whose social skills often resemble an odd mélange of autism and Tourettes syndrome, or conference rooms surrounded by people who just MUST offer their opinion no matter how obvious or irrelevant their point. When I do have a spare moment, the locals will undoubtedly fill it with dinners (These are fun for married guys, people who don’t actually go out on the weekends and view business trips as vacations from the wife and kids.) tours, or nights at Karaoke bars; basically those tourist activities I have come to know and hate. I know, I know, it won’t ALL be bad. I am sure some of those nights will be fun, and the ability to experience all of those cultures on somebody else’s dime is definitely nice but, via my friends, I know business travel isn’t entirely what it’s cracked up to be.

Having said that, I fully realize how lucky I am. I have a wonderful, caring, intelligent, and most importantly, interesting family for whom I am thankful everyday. I have friends who I would be proud to call brothers, who support me in every insane endeavor, and with whom I always have the time of my life. I have also had the opportunity to meet some amazing women who come and go, but always leave me with interesting stories to tell. I am thankful I have and had the people in my life to share those moments which wouldn’t have happened, or been as sweet, without them. Tonight my light shines and, as this doesn’t happen everyday, I am going to enjoy it while it lasts.

Merry Christmas everyone, I hope your light is shining out there too.

What is Causing My Ex's to Go Insane?

2005-11-20T21:34:00.000-05:00

I am sure many of my readers have never heard of the “Three S’s” but they are a widely used barometer to judge the “marriage viability” of women. They are, in order, Smart – Sexy, and Sane. It is extremely rare to find all three in the same woman but if one does, so the saying goes, you should marry her. I have been looking for quite some time and have found a few who I thought met that high bar but, thus far, have found myself disappointed in the end. It seems that I am very good at picking out the smart/sexy women but, for some strange reason, sanity has eluded me. I have begun to think that as they all seemed fairly sane at the beginning of our relationship perhaps it is me who is precipitating their irrational behavior. Could that be? Is it possible that somehow, via my own actions, I am driving the people I date to act completely and utterly without reason? It is a topic worth addressing as it could have major implications for my relationships in the future.

I have taken the time to construct a small graph of the relative sanity of my previous girlfriends versus the % progress of the total time we were together. A disturbing trend is evident. In all of the cases, save for J, the women I date end up dramatically less sane after spending a significant amount of time with me.

At first glance, one might assume a causal relationship between the amount of time a woman spends with me and her progress towards insanity. Fortunately, I have been schooled in the intricacies of data analysis so I am not likely to make such a superficial assumption. Let’s address the possible relationships between these factors point by point.

#1 I am Driving My Girlfriends Totally Insane.

I put this first to avoid any appearance of bias in this article. I take seriously the possibility that I could be somehow pushing the people I date to the brink. Upon addressing the facts though, it seems somewhat unlikely. First, none of my actions are of the type which normally elicit bizarre behavior on the part of significant others. I don’t drink excessively, I don’t verbally or emotionally abuse anyone I date. I am considerate, kind, and caring and always supportive of my partner’s dreams and aspirations. I have never cheated on a girlfriend and am, whenever possible, upfront about my intentions. I can think of some idiosyncricies which might be considered annoying such as bizarre humor, tendency towards being aloof in light of my partner’s interaction with members of the opposite sex, and love of subjects not usually discussed at dinner (i.e. political philosophy, sociology etc..). I may be biased but I just can’t seem to glean from any of these qualities what exactly would be causing my girlfriends to go insane. Thus it seems unlikely that my actions directly are somehow the cause of the mental instability I have observed in my ex’s and so we must move on to other possibilities.

#2 My Girlfriends Aren’t Going Insane, I Am.

This is a distinct possibility. Reality is, of course, perception and as such it may be the case that as the world stays the same around me (i.e. my mate’s sanity) and I change everything just seems off kilter. I will admit to being somewhat insane in my day. I would go so far to state the vast majority of my college years were spent in some form of abnormal mental state or another. As I have gotten older though, I feel that I have developed a much more objective view of myself, and my actions, than I had in the past (Thank you Karl, P, and Tim). In addition one might expect that as I slowly (or precipitously depending on mate – see graph) lost my sanity other people in my life might recognize this and comment on it. The fact that this has never happened may indicate the unwillingness of my friends and family to comment on my mental state but that is unlikely. Why? First, because my Mother alone has no problem in pointing out mistakes that I may be making. This isn’t a negative, it is a positive. She doesn’t do it in a mean or demeaning way, she is the rock of a moral/philosophical arbiter which we should all have in our life. So it would seem that at the very least my family would comment on my progressive loss of sanity. This has not happened although they have in the past delicately questioned the sanity of my girlfriends (Very delicately. My family is loathe to intrude on my feelings when it comes to women although in retrospect I wish that they had sometimes been more active in their objections).

#3 My Girlfriends Were Always Insane and the Graph Just Reflects My Slow Realization of that Fact.

In the interest of full disclosure, I must tell you that I consider this to be the most likely possibility. I am somewhat of an optimist. I tend to believe the best about people and, more importantly, see in them the things I want to see rather than what is actually there. Does this mean that all women are insane (absolutely not) or, does this study somehow suffer from a selection bias (Not likely as the four relationships on the graph represent the totality of the serious relationships I have had over the past 10 years). Perhaps I somehow seek out unstable women? Superficially I would have to say no. The qualities I find most attractive; wit, intelligence, ambition, and aesthetics seem to be incompatible with mental instability but, the fact remains that most women that I have dated have had at least a majority of those qualities but have nonetheless often acted in truly bizarre ways. The vast majority of women with these qualities aren’t irrational. In fact, I would go so far to say that the portion of the female population which possesses these attributes are less likely to suffer from insecurity, depression, or maladaptive behavior than the population as a whole. So, as much as I do not like saying it perhaps there is something in women who have “a little bit of interest” that I find attractive. My most recent girlfriend was so high-maintenance she made the space shuttle look like a huffy tricycle but I think it just made me that much more intrigued. If this is the case it is indicative of some pathology of which I must rid myself. Looking for a challenge is one thing, dating Delilah with trust issues as deep as the Marianas trench is quite another.

#4 My Definition of Insane is “Whoever Doesn’t Agree With Me”

This is possible. We are all liable to characterize actions with which we can neither empathize nor sympathize as "bizarre" or "irrational". In this case, it is useful to solicit outside opinions about the behavior of your ex. I have to say at this point that there were times when I characterized someone's behavior as insane simply because I didn't agree with it (particularly in the case of A) but, I can also name a number of incomprehensible actions performed by each of these women (I am using the term “insane” loosely in this blog) that any reasonable person would say were not only irrational but also unwarranted.

It’s quite possible that the trend observed in the “Insanity Index Graph” is due to a confluence of all of these factors. In fact, it’s likely. I certainly hope my next relationship bucks the trend though and heads north as we progress towards the 100% mark rather than the sharp drops south observed thus far. If not, I may be making a graph of my own sanity with a zero slope, right at “0” the whole time.

If you are in San Francisco...

2005-11-18T13:33:00.000-05:00

Hey there. If you are a reader and reside in or around the San Fran region drop me a line at goldinthemine at gmail (the full address is just a click away on the side of this page) dot com. I hate those e-mail bots who steal addresses.....

I am looking to start a collaboration of sorts.

Our Gratitude

2005-11-12T20:28:00.000-05:00

It is easy, too easy, for all of us to forget the sacrifices made on our behalf so that we may enjoy the simple pleasures of freedom. In honor of Veterans Day I have decided to post President Ronald Reagan’s speech from the top of Pointe du Hoc on the 40^th anniversary of D-day. May we all hope that should ever so terrible a war recur that we face it with a fraction of the honor and bravery of the men who walked off the boats that day prepared to give their lives for an idea so abstract as freedom.

President Reagan’s Remarks:

The ceremonies honoring the fortieth anniversary of D day became more than commemorations. They became celebrations of heroism and sacrifice.

This place, Pointe du Hoc, in itself was moving and majestic. I stood there on that windswept point with the ocean behind me. Before me were the boys who forty years before had fought their way up from the ocean. Some rested under the white crosses and Stars of David that stretched out across the landscape. Others sat right in front of me. They looked like elderly businessmen, yet these were the kids who climbed the cliffs.*

We're here to mark that day in history when the Allied armies joined in battle to reclaim this continent to liberty. For four long years, much of Europe had been under a terrible shadow. Free nations had fallen, Jews cried out in the camps, millions cried out for liberation. Europe was enslaved and the world prayed for its rescue. Here, in Normandy, the rescue began. Here, the Allies stood and fought against tyranny, in a giant undertaking unparalleled in human history.

We stand on a lonely, windswept point on the northern shore of France. The air is soft, but forty years ago at this moment, the air was dense with smoke and the cries of men, and the air was filled with the crack of rifle fire and the roar of cannon. At dawn, on the morning of the 6th of June, 1944, two hundred and twenty-five Rangers jumped off the British landing craft and ran to the bottom of these cliffs.

Their mission was one of the most difficult and daring of the invasion: to climb these sheer and desolate cliffs and take out the enemy guns. The Allies had been told that some of the mightiest of these guns were here, and they would be trained on the beaches to stop the Allied advance.

The Rangers looked up and saw the enemy soldiers at the edge of the cliffs, shooting down at them with machine guns and throwing grenades. And the American Rangers began to climb. They shot rope ladders over the face of these cliffs and began to pull themselves up. When one Ranger fell, another would take his place. When one rope was cut, a Ranger would grab another and begin his climb again. They climbed, shot back, and held their footing. Soon, one by one, the Rangers pulled themselves over the top, and in seizing the firm land at the top of these cliffs, they began to seize back the continent of Europe. Two hundred and twenty-five came here. After two days of fighting, only ninety could still bear arms.

And behind me is a memorial that symbolizes the Ranger daggers that were thrust into the top of these cliffs. And before me are the men who put them there. These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. These are the men who took the cliffs. These are the champions who helped free a continent. And these are the heroes who helped end a war. Gentlemen, I look at you and I think of the words of Stephen Spender's poem. You are men who in your "lives fought for life and left the vivid air signed with your honor."

I think I know what you may be thinking right now -- thinking "we were just part of a bigger effort; everyone was brave that day." Well everyone was. Do you remember the story of Bill Millin of the 51st Highlanders? Forty years ago today, British troops were pinned down near a bridge, waiting desperately for help. Suddenly, they heard the sound of bagpipes, and some thought they were dreaming. Well, they weren't. They looked up and saw Bill Millin with his bagpipes, leading the reinforcements and ignoring the smack of the bullets into the ground around him.

Lord Lovat was with him -- Lord Lovat of Scotland, who calmly announced when he got to the bridge, "Sorry, I'm a few minutes late," as if he'd been delayed by a traffic jam, when in truth he'd just come from the bloody fighting on Sword Beach, which he and his men had just taken.

There was the impossible valor of the Poles, who threw themselves between the enemy and the rest of Europe as the invasion took hold; and the unsurpassed courage of the Canadians who had already seen the horrors of war on this coast. They knew what awaited them there, but they would not be deterred. And once they hit Juno Beach, they never looked back.

All of these men were part of a roll call of honor with names that spoke of a pride as bright as the colors they bore; The Royal Winnipeg Rifles, Poland's 24th Lancers, the Royal Scots' Fusiliers, the Screaming Eagles, the Yeomen of England's armored divisions, the forces of Free France, the Coast Guard's "Matchbox Fleet," and you, the American Rangers.

Forty summers have passed since the battle that you fought here. You were young the day you took these cliffs; some of you were hardly more than boys, with the deepest joys of life before you. Yet you risked everything here. Why? Why did you do it? What impelled you to put aside the instinct for self-preservation and risk your lives to take these cliffs? What inspired all the men of the armies that met here? We look at you, and somehow we know the answer. It was faith and belief. It was loyalty and love.

The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead, or on the next. It was the deep knowledge -- and pray God we have not lost it -- that there is a profound moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.

You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One's country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you.

The Americans who fought here that morning knew word of the invasion was spreading through the darkness back home. They fought -- or felt in their hearts, though they couldn't know in fact, that in Georgia they were filling the churches at 4:00 am. In Kansas they were kneeling on their porches and praying. And in Philadelphia they were ringing the Liberty Bell.

Something else helped the men of D-day; their rock-hard belief that Providence would have a great hand in the events that would unfold here; that God was an ally in this great cause. And so, the night before the invasion, when Colonel Wolverton asked his parachute troops to kneel with him in prayer, he told them: "Do not bow your heads, but look up so you can see God and ask His blessing in what we're about to do." Also, that night, General Matthew Ridgway on his cot, listening in the darkness for the promise God made to Joshua: "I will not fail thee nor forsake thee."

These are the things that impelled them; these are the things that shaped the unity of the Allies.

When the war was over, there were lives to be rebuilt and governments to be returned to the people. There were nations to be reborn. Above all, there was a new peace to be assured. These were huge and daunting tasks. But the Allies summoned strength from the faith, belief, loyalty, and love of those who fell here. They rebuilt a new Europe together. There was first a great reconciliation among those who had been enemies, all of whom had suffered so greatly. The United States did its part, creating the Marshall Plan to help rebuild our allies and our former enemies. The Marshall Plan led to the Atlantic alliance -- a great alliance that serves to this day as our shield for freedom, for prosperity, and for peace.

In spite of our great efforts and successes, not all that followed the end of the war was happy or planned. Some liberated countries were lost. The great sadness of this loss echoes down to our own time in the streets of Warsaw, Prague, and East Berlin. The Soviet troops that came to the center of this continent did not leave when peace came. They're still there, uninvited, unwanted, unyielding, almost forty years after the war. Because of this, allied forces still stand on this continent. Today, as forty years ago, our armies are here for only one purpose: to protect and defend democracy. The only territories we hold are memorials like this one and graveyards where our heroes rest.

We in America have learned bitter lessons from two world wars. It is better to be here ready to protect the peace, than to take blind shelter across the sea, rushing to respond only after freedom is lost. We've learned that isolationism never was and never will be an acceptable response to tyrannical governments with an expansionist intent. But we try always to be prepared for peace, prepared to deter aggression, prepared to negotiate the reduction of arms, and yes, prepared to reach out again in the spirit of reconciliation. In truth, there is no reconciliation we would welcome more than a reconciliation with the Soviet Union, so, together, we can lessen the risks of war, now and forever.

It's fitting to remember here the great losses also suffered by the Russian people during World War II. 20 million perished, a terrible price that testifies to all the world the necessity of ending war. I tell you from my heart that we in the United States do not want war. We want to wipe from the face of the earth the terrible weapons that man now has in his hands. And I tell you, we are ready to seize that beachhead. We look for some sign from the Soviet Union that they are willing to move forward, that they share our desire and love for peace, and that they will give up the ways of conquest. There must be a changing there that will allow us to turn our hope into action.

We will pray forever that someday that changing will come. But for now, particularly today, it is good and fitting to renew our commitment to each other, to our freedom, and to the alliance that protects it.

We're bound today by what bound us 40 years ago, the same loyalties, traditions, and beliefs. We're bound by reality. The strength of America's allies is vital to the United States, and the American security guarantee is essential to the continued freedom of Europe's democracies. We were with you then; we're with you now. Your hopes are our hopes, and your destiny is our destiny.

Here, in this place where the West held together, let us make a vow to our dead. Let us show them by our actions that we understand what they died for. Let our actions say to them the words for which Matthew Ridgway listened: "I will not fail thee nor forsake thee."

Strengthened by their courage and heartened by their value [valor] and borne by their memory, let us continue to stand for the ideals for which they lived and died.

Thank you very much, and God bless you all.

The Brazilian

2005-11-09T22:21:00.000-05:00

I am slowly coming to be familiar with the practices and customs of the modern workplace. I know where to park my car, who to avoid in the mornings, and when to just listen during meetings (That last one could enjoy a little more popularity among employees in my opinion). I also like to think I know the line between appropriate and inappropriate behavior. For example, saying “That is a nice color on you” would be what I deem to be an innocuous, appropriate, socially relevant comment. For some reason, one of my co-workers, a professional with a terminal degree, insists on making sexual comments. She is a female, not stunningly attractive, but constantly alludes to what I consider to be subjects which should be off-limits in the work place. My first experience with this situation was during a conversation about how she is unhappy with her husband’s dressing habits. Apparently he wears extremely baggy jeans and she stated (vociferously) that she likes to see a “little ass on her men” then described in detail how she is an “ass woman”. Personally, I am neither offended nor made uncomfortable by these comments. What I am is stunned that she would make them in a professional environment. Having given you a bit of background perhaps I shouldn’t have been surprised by what happened recently.

I was in the laboratory when she came in, ostensibly to ask me to e-mail her a few needed files. She started off the conversation by telling me how hungry she was. As it was 2:30 I asked why she hadn’t eaten lunch. It was then that she told me that she had had a “waxing appointment. Upon hearing that I immediately scanned her face for evidence of recently sculpted eyebrows, or even a red mark where a mustache used to be but there was nothing. Knowing where the conversation could be leading I said absolutely nothing. She, of course, wouldn’t let that go. She went on to tell me that unfortunately her “regular” wasn’t there so she couldn’t actually get anything done. This brought a glimmer of hope, perhaps she had back hair? Why would she need to go to one particular woman for grooming anything else? I responded with an “Oh, you have one particular woman that you like?” Bad move, it was just the in she was waiting for and replied “Oh no, the other women aren’t qualified to do Brazilians.”

How the hell am I supposed to respond to that? I almost laughed at the ridiculousness of the forced statement. The only thing I could come up with was “Wow, you need to be certified to do that? Does that come with a diploma you hang on your wall? What type of training does that entail?” When in doubt, immediately go into logistics, that way you can avoid any emotional content. She had no answer (fortunately) and left. I would complain if it wasn’t hilarious. Of course, if the comments become directed I will have to say something. What, I have no idea. I just have to wonder though, what goes through someone’s mind when they decide to say things like that? Were they brought up by parents who owned chains of porn shops? Were they so sheltered they feel they need to react to their prior constraints? In any case, the next time you are going for an “All Out” bikini wax make sure you search for the diploma on the wall. Apparently they are required.

Graduate Education: A Retrospective

2005-10-18T12:20:00.000-04:00

That’s right, after 5 and ½ years I am finished. Ironically, I feel little sense of accomplishment. I would have to say the overwhelming emotion would be one of relief. You see, although one certainly may gain valuable skills in graduate school, and may publish a few papers of import (such as yours truly) graduate school is more about the ability to survive than to accomplish. This is an unfortunate fact. There have been a number of people who have dropped out of Ph.D. programs with the ability to be more than excellent researchers but the sheer political, emotional, and physical turmoil forced them to turn their backs on science. Whether it was the poverty of empathy of their advisors, the cut-throat competitiveness of their peers, or the persistent negativity which seems to be the norm among graduate students, many people who could have made great contributions to a number of fields are now either in other, more “affirming” disciplines (hopefully) or languishing in unfulfilling positions with little opportunity to make the social difference that was their genetic due (hopefully not..).

I am sure many (especially members of the academic set) are thinking “But those people are better off left behind. You know, sort of like separating the wheat from the chaff. People without the emotional wherewithal to make it through the rigors of a Ph.D. are unlikely to contribute in any significant sense to science in general”. This is, of course, rather backward thinking. Although our model of graduate education is the envy of the world it does not mean that it is without the possibility of improvement. Would it be difficult, for example, to place newly minted assistant professors in a one semester managerial class so that they might be better able to deal with, quite literally, controlling the lives of their graduate students? Perhaps it is totally without merit to institute a set of policies to which graduate students could turn in the event of a totally unreasonable advisor. Any reasonable person would approve of these small changes but, unfortunately, academics are quite often not reasonable people. They, like most, jealously guard their own fiefdoms of power and so are unlikely to advocate that new rules, or even restrictions, be instituted for the greater benefit of the masses if it means that their own near omnipotence be even slightly curtailed.

This jealously guarded power is of course not new in the world. It is seen on a daily basis in the dealings of unions with management, legislators with members of the judiciary, and even in the intricate social interactions between children and parents. It is not within our nature to easily give up powers which have accrued but, as this power becomes more concentrated (as it is in academia) it becomes not only more difficult to control (For an example look at the effects of the fundamentally innocuous idea of tenure on graduate, and secondary, education as a whole) but also more prone to be abused. Currently there are few checks on this near absolute power leaving the emotionally, psychologically, or physically disadvantaged student at the mercy of his or her "mentor". This is unacceptable. How many potentially great students must be sacrificed at the alter of academic ego before we learn that the system can and should be changed? Why must people who enjoy lifetime appointments, cushy teaching loads, and 6 month sabbaticals also be given free-rein to be the judge, jury, and executioner of a student’s life?

The question of my objectivity must be raised at this point. One might question my own motives by asking “Surely your views are a tainted, simply a bitter graduate student who now must face the world without the niceties you once expected as the first-year ingénue you were as you entered.” While it is true that, in retrospect, I do not view my graduate experience with any particular favor it isn’t true that I am embittered. I received a number of job offers before graduating with my Ph.D. (certainly not the norm for my particular institution, or science Ph.D.s in general) and agreed to a lucrative position with a scientific concern working in a cutting edge area of science (proteomics). These statements are not meant to be self-congratulatory or boastful, I write them only to communicate that I have been fortunate enough to obtain a position in the sciences without a post-doc and thus have little reason to be resentful about my graduate education. Although I did not have a stellar experience in academia, the concerns I state are borne of objective, reasonable observations I have made while still within the “ivory tower”.

The process of graduate education must be changed so that it not only fosters the ability to withstand tedium and negativity, but also promotes creativity and productivity. Currently sycophancy is the skill best learned; one, I must say, that is not particularly conducive to the dialectics which produce the best ideas. The comfortable world of the academic must be readjusted to reflect the needs and realities of the workers upon whose backs those great discoveries are made. I have decided that this will be a mission of mine. I will not step out of the tower, satisfied that I have made it only to leave others behind, mired in the dysfunction endemic to academia. We Americans have a great tradition of picking what works from institutions and discarding what does not. As such, we must look the tradition of higher education in the eye and say “Stand aside and prepare yourself for change”.

Amazing Discovery!

2005-06-08T11:22:00.000-04:00

I am sure you will all be shocked by this but the new areas of knowledge being opened by science are apparently never ending. Here it is, females apparently have orgasms! I know; I was completely bowled over by this newfound fact as well. Even more interesting is that their ability to achieve this "female orgasm" is partially based on genetics. So, if for some reason your partner is not achieving this thing recently coined "female orgasm" it is undoubtedly due to their genetic makeup rather than your own poor performance.

Science is wonderful because it not only opens us up to these amazing discoveries but also provides convenient rationalizations for men (Who, by numbers, dominate science) who just can't seem to please their partners.

A few interesting tidbits from the study:

14% of women achieve orgasm every time.
98% of men achieve orgasm every time.

32% of women report never, or almost never, achieving orgasm during sexual intercourse.

99.9% of all male scientists think both the female orgasm and foreplay are myths.

Ok, I made that last one up but I wouldn't be surprised if it was in the upper 80's.

You know what I could use? A little more stress..

2005-05-26T15:41:00.000-04:00

You know what I could really use right now? A little more stress. I was thinking that defending in July, restarting a job search I believed to be over (but now am not entirely sure), finishing a paper, putting the final touches on my thesis, juggling actually having emotions again (that’s a later blog), and of course, losing my glasses just isn’t enough. Maybe I could be hit with some serious disease to put it all in perspective. I think a nice bout of tuberculosis would be good for me at this point. Then I could think, “Man, those days when I just had to worry about putting together my entire future in the span of 8 weeks were easy. I never knew how good I had it” as I took my 20^th pill of the day to avoid coughing blood. Or maybe I could just be somehow held hostage (But only for a bit, kind of like a 24 hour bank hold-up.). That would give me time to reflect on how truly easy my life is right now. I don’t have to forage in the woods for food, my stomach isn’t distended due to intestinal parasites, and how I don’t have a history of dwarfism (Check out the “other terms” section in that link. It’s hilarious) running through my family.

Unfortunately, the whole prospect of “putting it in perspective” has never worked for me. I’ve never been starving in the Danube or on my death bed in Zaire so how the hell could I think about that and say “Oh, my life is great!”? I couldn’t. So, when you think that telling me “Oh, it could be a lot worse” in some way helps “put all of it in perspective”, take a step back, inhale deeply, and realize that it’s a completely fucking ridiculous statement. Maybe your time would be better spent hitting yourself in the head with a tack hammer than dispensing advice to someone who sees through bullshit like superman sees through women’s skirts. Of course, I'm great at pretending like it helps because I realize your intentions are good but a little bit more effort would be appreciated. Maybe not saying something like "In the real world you are going to have to worry about getting fired, not just not publishing" would be a start. And guess what, in the real world I will be getting paid more than 20K a year, will be able to quit without ruining my life, and will have recourse when my boss decides to turn peoples lives into complete and utter trainwrecks (not mine thank god) so the real world looks pretty good right now (If I was actually able to land a position I wanted. Having a Ph.D. sometimes seems like job repellant).

I am off to spend a few days with friends who call me even when I don't call them, pick up flights when they sense I might not go, and remind me that I am everything short of invincible whenever I am around. Trust me, I am one of the luckiest friends around. Havesu will be a cathartic time for me. I could definitely use the time away from the lab....

Judge by action, not by words

2005-05-26T15:16:00.000-04:00

We all fool ourselves into thinking things which aren’t necessarily true. It is a natural defense described in detail by Tim Wilson in his book “Strangers to Ourselves” (which I highly recommend to everyone). We sometimes simply must believe that we are more competent, moral, attractive, or humorous than our peers in certain situations (The obvious example is dating but the implications are much more far reaching.). I have personally made an intense effort over the past several years to view myself in a more objective light. This isn’t always easy but it is a process in which we should all engage. We tend to think that introspection will lend us a hand in divining our base motivations, feelings, or thoughts when in reality we are better served by observing our actions rather than our words. An analogy has been offered that introspection is akin to asking oneself “how do I digest?”. Many of the motivations for our actions lie outside the reach of our conscious selves in something called the “adaptive unconscious”. This portion of our brain conveniently takes up the tasks of deciding what it is we want and, many times, what we should do to get it.

I am sure all of you are immediately rejecting the notion. Why, of course I am in charge of my life; after all, I make my own decisions! I decide that I want to go out on that date, apply for that job, or yell at my child. In some respects you are correct, there is conscious control over our actions (Although I am not prepared to yield the issue of consciousness, I will accept it as necessary for the sake of the discussion.). We do consciously decide to perform certain actions but, can we ever really know why it is that we perform them? Why is it that we all know that putting something off is the wrong thing to do but we do it anyway, even when immediate gratification is absent? What is our underlying motivation? Why is it that some people are continually attracted to the “wrong type” of people? I am sure they have devised complex narratives to explain their aberrant behavior but do they truly know their own motivations? I suspect that they do not. It very easy to tell ourselves that we wouldn’t make the poor decisions we so often bemoan in others, that we are somehow morally or intellectually superior (Indeed this is often used as a rationale to explain why others may not accept us.) but the reality of our actions may just tell a different story.

It is through this process of self observation that I have come to my view today. I no longer think of myself as a moral absolutist and I am much less likely to condemn the actions of others without fully recognizing the power of their motivations. This does not leave me in the morally tenuous situation of being unable to condemn horrific actions due to an inability to “consciously control” behavior as I do concede that at least some level of higher-order, conscious reasoning does occur prior to action. It does mean that I have a much clearer picture of myself, and the world in general. It also helps to me to see beyond the actions of others to the reasoning behind their own strange behavior (Motivations are almost always complex and are too often simplified to such things as “insecurity”, “jealousy”, or “arrogance”). So, how has it affected my life? I can’t say that I still don’t make incorrect decisions (although now I do usually recognize their uselessness), or act purely due to emotion (The heart has reasons of which the mind knows nothing) but I am better able to see judge exactly why it is that I do certain things and think about whether or not they contribute to the individual I would like to be rather than who I would like to believe I am. This has been thrown for a loop recently as I have had to attempt to determine the origin of actions or events which seem to be absolutely puzzling to me. I suppose that it is part of the fun of life that I can’t figure it all out and that maybe, sometimes, I should stop trying.

My Next Move? A Job in Iraq

2005-05-25T14:41:00.000-04:00

Here I am at the end of all of this and I have spent a significant portion of my day filling out an endless procession of application response forms. I did notice something interesting on one though, it was based in Bagdhad, Iraq. The pay was phenomenal (as it should be for any position which might get you killed) and the adventure seemed awesome. Of course adventure is a fairy tale. It is simply a word some genius of an advertising agent came up with to help us convince ourselves to risk life and limb. Fortunately, some adventures are absolutely worthwhile (The military comes to mind) but I don't know if 100's of thousands is enough to for me to agree to sleep in a flak jacket....

In any case, I submitted my resume. Let's see what happens.

I am REALLY busy...

2005-05-13T11:47:00.000-04:00

Posts have been slow as of late due to the amount of preparation I have had to do for my review meetings. These are the last hoops I have to jump through before the big day (Defense). Fortunately I haven't forgotten ALL of my differential equations but I have realized I could do with a little review.

I have a few posts in the works including "Everyone thinks the other guy is the idiot" and "My life is about to get REALLY exciting". The former describes a phenomenon I have observed recently and the latter is simply a description of my life currently and the opportunities which lie ahead. My trepidation about entering the "real world" has dissolved. I can't wait to get out and make my mark.

Jesus Christ in legal battle to get license

2005-05-10T10:59:00.000-04:00

I knew the DMV was difficult. Apparently even being a deity doesn't get you to the front of the line.

CNN.com - Jesus Christ in legal battle to get license - May 10, 2005: "Jesus Christ in legal battle to get license"

Opinion Journal Follows Gold In The Mine

2005-05-04T23:09:00.000-04:00

This article seems eerily similar to my previous post found here. To the editors of the City Journal, if you would like me to expound on any of my previous posts (Although it seems you have done a pretty good job already) please let me know.

Not this again

2005-05-03T18:04:00.000-04:00

This is truly terrible.

CNN.com - Evolution on trial in Kansas - May 2, 2005

Trust me, we don't need this in our schools.

What are you missing in your life? More advice from me...

2005-05-03T12:35:00.000-04:00

A friend of mine solicited my advice on the keys to a happy marriage (One of her friends was getting married and in a very touchy/feely gesture decided to ask for anecdotes from everyone so they could write it down in some book, and likely never look at it again.).

What amazes me is that anyone would solicit my advice on what constitutes a happy marriage. Although I recognize the rationalist view I tend to err on the side of empiricism when it comes to relationships. In spite of this I felt obligated to pontificate. Most of what I wrote I learned by observing my parents, who are the paragon of a happy couple. After writing this it made me realize how high my expectations are for a relationship when my reference is almost perfection itself. Fortunately I achieve perfection is nearly all areas of my life so I suspect that eventually my relationships will fall into line (I know who is reading this and, of course, I am kidding).

Here are my thoughts for the world. As my hit counter went above 1500 hits/day for the first time I thought I might as well start trying to make your lives better via my genius as well as my wit.

What is the key to a happy marriage? There are a few easy answers,
love, caring, mutual respect, but they all seem to be abstractions,
really feelings rather than actions. Feelings and emotions are
notoriously difficult to consciously control so I would focus on things we
can control. I believe that by doing things and creating habits we
create an atmosphere which reinforces those emotions.

Do something everyday completely for that other person. Don't expect
anything in return. Don't "add it up" so that you can one day say "I
did this for you". Whether it be making the coffee, cooking breakfast,
cleaning the downstairs, or writing them a note to tell them how great
they are, just do it. Selfless behavior transmits how much you love
that other person and it reminds you that they are worthy of your love
just because of who they are, not because what they do for you.

Remember, appreciate, and keep perspective. There will be times in
your marriage when you will feel like you are floating on a cloud. The
wedding will be the most obvious point but even that even will
eventually pale in comparison to the simple joy of waking up to someone
you love. Burn those thoughts into your mind; remember the time without
that person and how happy you are now when they are in your life. These
times may be easy to forget when things get difficult (And you will go
through hard times, vide infra). When you are hurt, or angry, or
lonely remember what this is all about. Forget the pain, remember the
love. This is a long road you are walking together; you don't need to
add rocks to your pack (anger, hurt, despair). Those thoughts and
memories of love will make you lighter on your feet when the hill gets
steep. Write them down if you have to but keep them close.

It isn't always 50/50. It would be great if you both got home
everyday, in the same great mood, ready to tackle the house, the kids,
and whatever work is leftover from the day at the office. Of course
things won't always be like this. Sometimes one of you will have more
problems, more concerns, and less strength. You will need each other
during those times. They may last a night; they may last longer but at one
point or another one of you will be giving 99% and the other just 1.
You'll both have carried each other through the rough points in each
other's lives. It won't be easy but you'll be closer because of it.

Stay together but keep Separate. Have you ever noticed how old couples
tend to look alike? Have you ever wondered why that is? I suppose it's
because they have gone through so many of the same experiences. They've
laughed at weddings, smiled when their children took their first steps,
and wept when they had to walk them down the aisle and off to their new
lives. These events leave marks on our characters and our faces. You
will both experience them together, and you will change together, but
you shouldn't forget about yourself. Marriage means devotion, not
sycophancy. Keep up with the things and people that were in your life
before you got married and remember that happiness you find in yourself,
satisfaction in what you do, and bliss in those you love.

It actually pained me to write something so filled with "feelings" and "emotions". I hate to paraphrase the Matrix but apparently knowing the path and walking the path truly are different things.

I don't want to have to spend the day deleting comments so please, I know this is waaay lame but, as I had already written it in an e-mail, it is an easy thing to post.

And yes, I am aware of the irony that this is posted directly above "Celebrate Penis Day".

Celebrate Penis Day

2005-05-03T10:45:00.000-04:00

Oh God this is funny. It describes the reaction of some students to "The Vagina Monologues" and "VDay" phenomenon currently all the rage on college campuses. Here is a clip from the artice.

Christina Hoff Sommers on The Penis Monologues on National Review Online: "“Testaclese” tipped the scales when he approached the university Provost, Edward J. Kavanagh, outside the student union. Apparently taking him/it for a giant mushroom, Provost Kavanagh cheerfully greeted him. But when Testaclese presented him with an honorary award as a campus “Penis Warrior,” the stunned official realized that it was no mushroom. After this incident, which was recorded on videotape, the promoters of P-Day were ordered to cease circulating their flyers and to keep Testaclese off campus grounds. Mindful of how school officers had never once protested any of the antics of Vagina warriors, the P-warriors did not comply. The Testaclese costume was then confiscated and formal charges followed."

I know, I know

2005-05-02T21:38:00.000-04:00

A lot of you have complained about the lack of details of my personal life on the blog along with the format/content change that happened a while ago. I can't keep deleting your comments (Which is getting old by the way) so I am writing this to address your concerns.

#1. I not only have to respect my privacy (Which I do, zealously) I also have to respect the privacy of individuals in my personal life. I either choose to post the details of my life or not but it wouldn't be fair if I described everyone else's life as well as my own. They may not want it public (Lord knows many shouldn't).

#2. I know what ALL of your feelings are (even those who have no idea who I am but read the blog before and after the "change") but as my life isn't a democracy (I consider it a benevolent dictatorship run by yours truly) I am going to make my own decisions.

#3. Rice Krispy treats are delicious and if you want to send me anything, send me some of the pre-packaged store bought variety. I don't think I can trust any of you to send me home made treats. After that "Old People are Greedy" post I am bound to get some laced with cyanide or old people juice (it's poisonous, you know).

We're Moving In The Wrong Direction on this one

2005-05-01T16:09:00.000-04:00

Cape may New Jersey has just legalized "Speedos" on men. Do we need to be encouraging this? While they are at it they should outlaw deodorant and shaving underarms. Hey Cape May, if I wanted to live in France I'd move there.

It Should Have Been Me

2005-05-01T14:06:00.000-04:00

I spend a significant amount of my time preparing for the day when I hit the lottery. In fact, I am probably the most well prepared person on the planet to "Hit the Big One". I have my dream house designed (It has an underground passage to a balcony built into a cliff, secret passages, and of course, a stream which runs through the entire first floor so you can get from room to room via a gondola. The stream is sort of a rip off of the Silver Spoons train theme but hey, a good idea is a good idea.), a method of concealing the fact that I’ve recently won millions (I will tell tell everyone I got the cash mowing lawns, surreptitiously of course. I believe that if people think I actually made the money they’ll be less likely to ask for $$$), and the gifts I’d give to my family and friends (There will be a whole lot of chartered jets to Vegas. I’ve even factored in the cost of rehab.). Thus you will understand how angry I am to have read that someone won the 208 million dollar jackpot and that person wasn’t me. A couple from Michigan, the Stebbins, collected their first check of 1 million dollars and set off across the country in an RV. That’s right, the best they could come up with after winning over 208 freaking million dollars was to set off into the wild blue yonder in an oversized rancher on wheels. The money is wasted on these people.

If incredibly fortunate events are going to happen they should happen to people who would at least make the most of their good fortune, people like me. I can see it now, the Stebbins will use their newfound wealth to sponsor their own NASCAR team, become equity partners in WWE, and buy out every Fashion Bug in the nation. Yours truly would be on a round the world trip with the boys acting as a good will ambassador to bars, beaches, and casinos everywhere. Screw RVs, it would be limos, jets, and possibly rickshaws depending on the country. There is a corollary to this; it’s the “I found Jesus” movie star. If you are going to be rich and famous you should do it right. What’s right you ask? I would say "right" can be found in the life of Charlie Sheen. This guy has lived the life one is supposed to while ensconced in wealth, fame, and power. Allow me to provide you with a quote from the linked a Playboy article.

PLAYBOY: Five women in one bed at a time?

SHEEN: True, but it happened only once. It wasn't a habitual thing.

PLAYBOY: Did you have them laid out in a pentagon?
SHEEN: [Smiles] No, it was just the end of the night and everybody had split. It was me and five girls, and I said, "Well, I'm up for it if you girls are." They're like, "Yeah, right." That was a challenge, so I went for it. I was with one at a time with the other four watching. It was a little uncomfortable, actually. I think I said, "Can you guys just look the other way until it's your turn?" I wouldn't recommend five at once. There's just not enough guy to go around.
PLAYBOY: Where do you normally draw the line?
SHEEN: At two. Even with two, somebody's always jealous. Even if it's their idea, someone comes away pissed off. Something happens and you spend the rest of the night apologizing for something they initiated. A lot of times you'll be with your steady and she'll invite a girlfriend; they'll get a couple drinks in them and say, "Hey, whaddya think?" Before you know it, you're into it. Then you pay more attention to one or the other and there are problems. Two women is a big guy fantasy that looks better on paper.

That’s just amazing. Kirk Cameron, you’re a jack ass.

So, I didn’t win the big one. I suppose I’ll have to continue working this whole “real world” thing until my foolproof lottery retirement plan hits but if I see one more headline that reads something like “54 year old Etch-a-Sketch factory worker hits the big one, buys lifetime supply of jean shorts” I think I’m going to snap. And oh yeah, Mr. and Mrs. Stebbins, if you are reading this I was just kidding. Swing by the east coast and pick me up; I’m sure I can find some inventive ways to spend your money.

Who Needs Fingers?

2005-04-29T10:21:00.000-04:00

I believe this company also makes the ever popular "Razor Wire Knitting Kit" and "Fun with Crushed Glass" baking sets.

If this guy can declare himself President can I declare myself graduated?

2005-04-28T11:22:00.000-04:00

I love proclamations. Just think of how much better life would be if I could just "declare" that things were going to be a certain way (My desire to do this explains my lust for absolute power).

The Artist's Wittgenstein

2005-04-28T11:09:00.000-04:00

This is a wonderful review by Terry Eagleton of a new book on one our great thinkers. Here are a few snippets,

"Wittgenstein had no time for the notion that philosophy was a set of propositions about the world; it was more a demystifying practice or therapeutic intervention than a system of doctrines. Like the Freudian analyst, its task was not to make propositions but to elucidate them."

"...it is salutary to be reminded that Wittgenstein, unlike Stanley Fish or Jacques Derrida, by no means believed that interpretation goes all the way down. On the contrary, he taught us that the word has force only in situations where there is genuine doubt over meaning."

I know you think that it's going to be boring but you might be surprised. Check it out.

Oh God, The Government Really Has Become Powerful

2005-04-27T15:58:00.000-04:00

No wait, it's just another one of CNN's incredibly sensationalist headlines. Don't worry, the FBI can't hear you on Mars (yet).

Old People Are Greedy

2005-04-27T12:14:00.000-04:00

I am going to break the current silence on the greatest problem facing the United States today, the incredible greediness of old people. I mean really, these people are absolutely insatiable and even worse, they vote like pack animals. The AARP is the most powerful lobby in the United States (Trust me; I am intimately familiar with the subject. They enjoy a bipartisan support, or sycophancy depending on your point of view, unequaled among special interest groups.). Can anyone think of a recent bill that went against the wishes of the “aged”? Do you think anyone above 50 actually cares whether or not Social Security will be extant when their children/grandchildren come to collect? You will hear a number of platitudes but when it is explained that someone is going to have to pay either by increased taxes, reduced benefits, or a combination of both those altruistic wrinkles quickly turn into Polident scowls. Currently we all assume that the old people living across the street go to bed at 7 p.m. but we are wrong. The reality is that they are busily working on behalf of a well organized, generously financed cabal of interventionists bent on skewing American legislation to disproportionately serve their own needs.

I know you don’t want to believe that grand mom has been plotting against you this entire time but it is an unfortunate fact. How many times have you arrived at her house to find her “just taking the cookies out of the oven”? How many cookies can she possibly bake? Grand mom isn’t baking cookies, she’s formulating detailed issue papers, calling congressmen and congresswomen, and perpetuating the myth that older Americans are somehow in special need of society’s largess. Did you know that the poverty rate of those 65 and older is lower than that of the population as a whole and has been that way since 1974? Did you know that in 2000 35% of ALL federal spending dollars went to social security/Medicare and by 2040 that number will be something like 60%? Older Americans do have to deal with “huge” medical bills due to their deteriorating health (A fact you will often see played up in the media) but the average medically related bankruptcy filer is a 41 year old home owning woman, not a 77 year old male shuffleboard player. The unfortunate side-effect of the New Deal and the Great Society was to inculcate an idea among American citizens that the U.S. government was responsible for their retirement as well as all of their medical expenses. These same citizens are unwilling to accept ANY cuts although, just on social security, they will be paid out an average of $77,000 more than they paid in (While we members of Gen-X and Gen-Y can expect to pay in $377,000 more than we receive in benefits).

So, where did we go wrong? A major problem is that the age limit to Social Security was enacted at a time when CT scans were science fiction and cancer treatment consisted of morphine and a “Good to know ya.’”. I admit that it is unfortunate that all of the oldies out there have banked on social security for all of their retirement needs but I’m sorry, for the health of society we are ALL going to have to sacrifice, you included. I can think of several changes we could make right now; first, no more bullshit “old people” wheelchair seating on flights. Is it just me or does every single old person now require a wheelchair to get on a freaking plane? I saw one guy lug his golf bag in from his huge Cadillac (of course), stroll to Cinnabon, then request a wheelchair and priority seating due to his arthritic hip. How about this Oldie Oldstein, if you can play golf you can sure as hell walk the 100 yards to the gate and wait with the rest of us. And no, I don’t care if you have a colostomy (although I pray I don’t sit next to you).

Even shopping is now a hazard because, in a fit of genius, stores have begun to provide people who can barely handle a car with motorized electric wheelchairs. They then set them loose along narrow aisles filled with people. Let’s be honest, most of these people are either fat (I see plenty of 40 something fatties in those things) or just lazy. What did old people do 5 years ago before they filled the stores with those things? I’ll tell you what, they drove to the store in their monstrous cars and walked down the aisle to get their batteries, milk, and bread (because it’s going to rain 0.5 inches three weeks from Tuesday) on their own two feet. And do they require any proof of driving ability to use one of those things? I saw a 65 year old guy take out a seven year old at Wal-Mart. It was ugly, the guy had glasses on so thick I think he could see the future but somehow he missed a huge preteen in the middle of the candy section (In America, all the kids are huge).

If we just added on a few years to the Social Security age limit maybe we could pay for 1/100^th of that generous new prescription drug benefit that was never meant to be a part of Medicare. But, our politicians have forgotten how to lead and only remember how to follow (particularly the wishes of a large, well coordinated voting block such as, say, OLD PEOPLE). Someone needs to stand up and say “Enough” to these people. We have given away the store (In the form of vast entitlements, privileges, and motorized wheelchairs) and now are left holding the bill but they still ask for more and yet want to pay less. I do find it difficult to say all of these things to people who spent 2 years of their life in Europe or the Pacific defending my freedom but call me crazy, all of those people in the senior citizen line couldn’t have been at Bataan. Personally, I’m not going to go around kicking senior citizens in the shins (although I think about it) but I don’t think I’m going to be able to hold back next time I sit down next to one and they begin to pontificate on what they “deserve”.

Get Rid of Pennies

2005-04-27T12:02:00.000-04:00

Seriously, why are they still crowding my pocket? I despise those little copper craps more than heel blisters which is why I’m starting a country wide boycott. I will no longer deal in pennies. Heretofore all of my purchases will be rounded (in my favor). I suggest you all join the movement.

Alas Poor Television! I knew him, Horatio

2005-04-25T12:52:00.000-04:00

Last night at 11:45 p.m. my television committed suicide. It is true. I was moving it from a place of honor in my living room to its small alter in my bedroom when it leapt out of my hands to the cold, hard floor below. I am still not sure why it would do this. Was it too many hours of “American Chopper”? Is it possible that my television could not stand yet another night of “Aqua Teen Hunger Force”? I can’t believe it. We had such a wonderful relationship. I would turn it on whenever I was even close to hear that soft soothing hum of C-SPAN in the background. I couldn’t dream of going to sleep without the flickering light and hushed voices it provided. Why have you left me television? What am I going to do now?

I am unabashedly in love with television. You will find many Americans who deny the fact that they even watch television let alone kneel in front of it to be enveloped by its soft purple haze and vibrant timbre. I can’t even sleep without the television in the background. Last night I re-read the entirety of Kant’s “Fundamentals” and was still up until 3 a.m., absently reaching for the remote in the vain hope that with just one more click she would come back to life. I have since given up all hope of resuscitation. I must reconcile myself with the fact that my television is gone; that it would rather rot in the technological junkyard with mainframe computers and outmoded fax machines than provide me with just one more episode of “Nature”. Where we went so wrong I will never know.

I am consoled though by the flashy websites containing a multitude of beautiful new televisions. Why, for only a few dollars more than I paid for the 25’’ TV/VCR combination that committed seppuku in my living room I can have a gleaming 27 inch model with picture in picture, flat screen, S-video, and of course, the sleep option. I am already dreaming of the time we’ll spend together. Nights with Bravo, mornings with C-SPAN, and all of the infomercials I can stand in between! Perhaps this loss has really been for the best. Maybe my previous television relationship wasn’t as healthy as I once believed. It did often take several “clicks” of the remote to come to life and the picture was often a little fuzzy toward the end of the day. Those scratches I once referred to as “character marks” really didn't do much for the aesthetics of my room. I suppose picking up and moving on, trading in the old for the new is just a part of life. It’s possible that the television knew this even more than I and decided that rather than undergo the pain and humiliation of my direct rejection that the floor was the best option.

I am sure I don’t have to overtly convey the implications of this nuance piece but think how lucky we are that we don’t treat humans as we do other objects, using people to our own ends then discarding them at will.

If I pray hard enough will Jesus write my thesis?

2005-04-22T11:27:00.000-04:00

I have been a bit stressed lately and a friend of mine suggested that I “Pray to God for guidance”. Apparently things weren’t going too well in his life so he said a few prayers and voila; he awoke the next day to a job offer. I wish I could believe that I could “hand all my problems over” to the J-man and kick back and wait for the good times to roll. There have been a few times in my life when I was worried about a big test or making that last payment and I said a quick prayer to hedge my bets. Strangely though, not much happened until I started praying with my head in a book or by writing a prayer down in the form of my signature on a check. In reality if I’m going to ask God to perform some miracle on my behalf via his omnipotence I’m definitely asking for something big. I’m going straight for X-ray vision, laser beam eyeballs, or the ability to read minds. That way on the off chance he does decide to fulfill my wish I will have hit the jackpot. On second thought, I can think of something I need more and won't so obviously contravene the laws of physics. God, if you're reading this and aren't too busy increasing the penis size of some fat rich kid in Kuala Lampur I'm hereby saying a prayer for a completed thesis. You can just put it on my desk....

2005-04-21T12:25:00.000-04:00

Me shitting my pants when I wake up next to some guy dressed in a plastic Burger King/serial killer outfit. How much did I drink last night?

Note to Burger King: Creepy Plastic People Do Not Make Great Spokesmen

2005-04-21T12:24:00.000-04:00

I don’t know what Burger King was thinking but the new plastic/serial killer “King” they have hawking their burgers is like Deep Woods Off for customers. In case you haven’t seen it most commercials involve a guy waking up and strolling out of bed to the sound of rapping at his window. Upon opening the curtains he sees what looks like some combination of the killer from “Valentine”, Mike Meyers from “Halloween” , and that creepy ass plastic family from the Duracell commercials (I think people actually went back to wind powered radios after those ads). Now, the king is holding a sandwich and the guy just smiles and opens the window. This is totally ridiculous. If some huge plastic guy (He has to be huge, he’s tall enough to be head level with this guy’s window) dressed as a king with a maniacal look on his face (see above) came to my window in the morning the last thing I would be doing is eating the chicken sandwich, it’s way, way too early for that. It would be much more realistic if he showed up with a croissan’wich, some French toast sticks or maybe even that new breakfast whopper that has so many calories you actually don’t have to eat for an entire month after gulping one down (Supposedly it’s made specifically for people who want to hibernate as well as the entire mid-west).

Of course I think everyone’s realistic reaction would be to go a messin' right in their Garanimals. That would be followed by screaming like a 4 year old then, to complete the emasculation, cowering under the bed. This probably doesn’t play with the general public but I guess it doesn’t matter to the fast food fanatics. Those fatties who eat Burger King all the time probably wouldn't mind if Jack the Ripper showed up in the dark as long as he brought them a few onion rings. Who came up with this feat of marketing brilliance? What did the meeting involve? “Hey, I’ve got an idea. Let’s come up with a character that will make people flee from the television whenever he appears; maybe they'll run to Burger King.”? Sometimes I worry whether or not I'll be able to make it in the "real world" then I see something like this and realize that I should have the nuclear launch codes in a manner of minutes once I graduate. Here is some totally unsolocited advice for the Burger King marketing department.

To attract men: Chicken Sandwich on semi-naked hot chick.

To attract women: Chicken Sandwich on semi-naked hot chick but imply that she
got that way by eating the chicken sandwich.

To attract children: Toy included. Food does not matter.

To attract mid-westerners: Deep fry the chicken sandwich. Include vat of
Crisco© brand shortening that can be used as fry dip.

Should Burger King require my obvious marketing genius please feel free to contact me via the blog.

Why We Can’t Switch -The U.S. economic model versus the European Union’s.

2005-04-19T12:01:00.000-04:00

The level of disparity between the rich and the poor in the United States stands at an all time high. Calls have been made on both sides of the aisle to address this issue as a matter of moral import. The European economic model, which emphasizes social welfare over economic growth is increasingly touted as a viable alternative to the semi-libertarian free market model currently extant in the United States. Should the U.S. move to actively redistribute wealth “equitably” and if so, how would this be performed? Or, are economic classes simply the byproduct of an open market where humanity is viewed as a resource with varying degrees of utility and thus, value. It does not follow from the fact that some people in the United States may not have marketable skills that they should be allowed to remain below an objective poverty line (Insert Hume’s Guillotine here). The question remains though, is the European model a viable alternative and if not, why?

While it is true that the distribution of wealth in the United States is much less "equitable" than its European counterparts it is worthwhile to note that the average standard of living enjoyed by U.S. citizens is much higher than every country in the EU (excepting Luxembourg). For example, the standard of living (as measured by the average GDP per capita) in the United States allows the average American to spend $9,700 more per year in consumables (cars, electronics, etc..) than their average European counterpart. In 1959 22% of Americans were considered to be living below the poverty line while today that figure stands at 12%. In addition, in 1999 25% of Americans were classified as “low income” while if Sweden, widely considered to be the model of a successful welfare state, were held to the same standards 40% of all households would be placed in the "low income" category. The emphasis on absolute economic equality as a measure of the health of a society is wrong-headed and counterproductive. Opportunity theory, or the knowledge that social and class mobility is achievable through effort, functions to provide incentive for progress at all levels of society. The European model certainly homogenizes income distribution via various social welfare/tax programs but also has the unintended consequence of reducing the impetus for productivity over all levels. European politicians rationalize this disparity as emphasis of “intangible” economic goals such as leisure and quality of life over the goals promoted in the American model such as increases in per capita GDP. Of course, these things are not unrelated.

The ability of the European economies to focus on those “quality of life” issues such as 6 weeks of annual vacation, 35 hour work weeks, and “universal” health care is possible only by accepting a de fact lower standard of living and, even then, is only enabled via huge indirect subsidies from the U.S. economy. These soft subsidies are transmitted in several ways. The most often cited is the United States total defense expenditure which is almost twice that of the entire EU combined. Although many disagree with the policies of the U.S. it is difficult to argue that the enormous military advantage it maintains does not deter aggression and, indeed war, in many parts of the world. Bosnia and Kosovo are two examples of conflicts which may have devolved further in the absence of American military intervention. It is also doubtful that the Korean stalemate would have been maintained without an American military presence. The outcome of the Iraqi invasion is still to be determined but the spread of democracy in the Middle East, if it should occur, is likely to produce tangible social and economic results. The rise of democratic movements/institutions in the Mid-east also would have been unlikely to have progressed at the current pace without military intervention by the United States. (Disclaimer: By stating that the U.S. does provide a global military subsidy I am not discounting the implied responsibility that the U.S. should intervene militarily in conflicts which may be less directly germane to its interests i.e. Darfur).Fortunately, many conflicts are addressed diplomatically but it is understood that the threat of potential U.S. military intervention provides the “stick” that has prodded many aggressors to the negotiating table. This disparity in defense spending allows a higher proportion of the EU’s total budget to be earmarked for social welfare programs. (An excellent detailed discussion of this disparity is given in Robert Kagan’s book “The Paradise and the Power”).

In addition to defense spending, the healthcare system in the United States also provides a large subsidy to the world in terms of innovation stimulus and profit recoup. Most countries in the EU, and indeed in the world, have instituted either legislative or de facto price controls on medications, medical procedures, and medical devices. It is of no surprise therefore, that much of the profit required to recoup the cost of development and provide profit incentive for further investment and innovation is made in the U.S. marketplace. It is popular to condemn pharmaceutical companies for predatory pricing in the American market but unfortunately the R&D costs of drug discovery are so high (Pfizer alone spent 7.1 billion dollars on R&D in 2004) they require a significant investment stream which, in turn, requires an incentive to invest. The profits achieved by pharmaceutical companies in the U.S. allow them to attract investment and, in turn, utilize that capital to support the manufacture of newer, improved medications. The drugs thus produced are used to improve the lives of people the world over. Theoretically the U.S. could institute price controls on prescription and non-prescription medications but we would be economically inhibiting the very research that has so greatly improved the living standards of people the world over (Many would argue that the profit margins of pharmaceutical companies are too high to allow for the market pricing of medications. This discounts the assumed risk that these companies annually face in terms of loss of pipeline and product liability/litigation exposure. I would admit, though, that some protection methods often utilized by pharmaceutical companies, such as frivolous additional patent claims, should be overhauled). The majority of novel medical devices (such as coated cardiac stents, joint replacements, pacemakers, and advanced surgical navigation units) are either pioneered by U.S. companies or are only developed due to the market available in the United States. In effect, the healthcare systems of the entire world depend on the U.S. market to provide innovation incentive so that new and improved products can be discovered and utilized.

Yet another major subsidy provided by the U.S. is the R&D products of our national research institutions which are in large part funded by grants from governmental agencies. The U.S. government has requested a total of 132 billion dollars for the total science and technology research budget in 2005 with 28.6 billion allocated for basic research. This is the first time since 1993 that the R&D budget has been over 1% of GDP. The vast majority of research produced via this investment will be published in freely available journals. Scientists in France, China, and South Korea comb through the governmentally funded research of American institutions to support their own academic, industrial, and governmental pursuits. While it is true that this research is often enabled by foreign researchers it is a testament to the incentive provided in the form of capital investment (bestowed by the government through the largess of the American taxpayer) that the best and brightest from other countries come to the U.S. to pursue scientific careers.

Thus, the “leisure” and “quality of life” emphases of the “European model” discount the fact that the E.U. can afford to have high unemployment rates and “generous” social welfare systems as they are handing off many of the costs to the U.S. marketplace and, in effect, to United States taxpayers. So, should the U.S. choose to disincentivize production and innovation via an attempt to create an absolute equality of wealth distribution the question must be asked, who would provide the market necessary to induce the innovations on which the world relies to maintain the constant increase in quality of life? I submit that the market would stagnate, that innovation across all industrial/service sectors would be significantly curtailed, and that we would soon have to make due with life “as it is” rather than “how it could be”.

The moral case against market dynamism and the resultant wealth distribution asymmetry argues that society should completely provide for the least able before allowing investment in products which may be deemed to be superfluous. This argument is valid although it assumes that the provision of goods and services to the least able would be adequate in an economy without the market incentives present in the U.S. This is rather unlikely. Although the relative poverty rate in the United States is high, and should be brought to zero, it is unlikely that by increasing taxation we could sufficiently provide for the indigent while maintaining GDP. Put another way, if we significantly increased taxation in order to better the services provided to lower social classes total government income would likely be reduced and the ability of the government to provide those very services would be curtailed. This would occur as a result of the removal of potential investment capital from the private sector, provision of a disincentive for productivity, and the inherent inefficiency of institutions which lack a profit motive. Legislation instituted in the EU effectively ensures that there is little disparity in wealth distribution by instituting a steep progressive taxation. This policy ensures that income over a certain level is heavily taxed. The revenue obtained from these levies is then filtered through the government and redistributed through the social welfare system to the “needy” in society. This form of taxation inhibits real innovation and wealth creation by removing the economic stimulus to succeed. Thus the European model improves the relative lifestyles of the lower classes not by significantly increasing their economic standing but by significantly decreasing the assets of the “rich”.

I must emphasize though, even if the U.S. decided that the “less tangible” assets are preferable they would not be achievable if the U.S. adopted the European economic model. The European model depends on a separate marketplace to provide the incentive for the majority of innovation and production (as well as defense etc...). There is no other economy which could provide us with the indirect market subsidies we currently provide to the rest of the world (Although I would allow that due to our recent fiscal profligacy Asian central banks have been very effective in maintaining U.S. liquidity in the face of a large current account deficit.). Thus, not only could we not increase our social welfare spending while maintaining our very significant advantage in the economic measures of quality of life, we could not adopt the European model and realistically expect to maintain even the much lower standards currently enjoyed in the EU. The wealth distribution problem in the U.S. is institutional and a result of the overarching positive of vast wealth creation. The lower classes in the U.S. enjoy a standard of living similar to those of the members of the middle class in European countries. Although, in its current form, tax and social policy do not allow for a form of wealth redistribution which would positively affect the U.S. economy the issue of the disparity should be addressed. Equality of opportunity should be prioritized and maintained while economic alternatives, such as a consumption tax, should be considered to address some of the root causes of the wealth distribution asymmetry extant in the U.S. economy. The European model is not a viable alternative to the United States free market although methods of reducing income disparity while maintaining market incentives should be explored.

Coming Soon...

2005-04-16T16:09:00.000-04:00

I know it's been a few days since my last update. I have been knee deep in weddings, graduations, and jousting. I have just finished a compartive report on the operational theory of the European versus American economies. I'll post it soon. Til' then check out www.aldaily.com. It's the best.

2005-04-13T15:55:00.000-04:00

Wisconsin Declares Open Season on...Cats?

If humor can be found in potential terrorist attacks it's on this page

2005-04-12T23:10:00.000-04:00

I usually don't post simple links but this page is hilarious.

Number of horrible movies declared "awesome" vs number of actually awesome movies

2005-04-12T16:08:00.000-04:00

Most Movies are only considered great if 99% of America Hates Them

2005-04-12T11:17:00.000-04:00

Why do we trust “experts” to tell us what is “great”? Gastronomes sing the praises of escargot and foie gras, things that were only ever eaten because snails were slower than deer and if you could catch a duck a few hundred years ago well, you might as well eat the whole thing. Oenophiles tell us that we aren’t living unless we’re drinking that $100 bottle of Chilean Merlot we probably can’t distinguish from the $9 version at Sam’s Club and movie critics call us “coarse” and “unrefined” if we don’t immediately proclaim Sideways the greatest movie of the past 25 years (Obviously it’s Roadhouse) I am sorry but other than the naked guy (which I won’t go into detail on but it was fairly funny), the movie just wasn’t that great. It actually combines two things I can’t stand, pretension and overweight people who constantly end sentences in prepositions.

I had entered the theater expecting, once again, to be blown away by a thoughtful exposition on life and love. I was treated to a fairly obvious plot with slightly better than average acting by Paul Giamatti. What did I miss? Obviously I must be unschooled in the “craft” of acting. (I can’t stand that actors call it a “craft”. Acting is pretending and I did that in a sandbox when I was three. Did I get paid for it then? And guess what, plumbing is a craft too but they don’t gather in a dark theater to be fawned over by some obsequious “professor of plumbing” and asked to pontificate on the intellectual demands of pipefitting which, incidentally, is 1,000,000 times more difficult than acting.). The number of movies proclaimed “masterpieces” by movie critics and subsequently ignored by the public in general has steadily increased over the past 6 years. This is in stark contrast to the actual number of incredible movies over the past 6 years (See Graph Above. Note the Malthusian exponential increase in the number of movies critics have deemed “awesome”. I suppose this indicates that a serious war, bout of disease, or terrible famine is going to have to occur in the ranks of movie critics to establish a natural equilibrium.).

Having lived with a movie critic, (His middle name was “Gooch”. Seriously, I couldn’t make that up) I can assure you that their tastes are nothing like the normal moviegoer. A movie critic, for example, probably watches something on the order of 15 to 20 movies per week while a food critic might go out for nearly every meal (Like me, although I still don’t like foie gras.). When you are that immersed in your field you are no longer looking for what the person who might go to the movies once a month or to a nice dinner every few weeks desires. You do the same thing so much you are just looking for something different. The same old steak doesn’t do it for you anymore, you need pâté made from horse testicles or a movie that concerns a man who doesn’t realize that he’s old, way too obsessed with wine, and can’t keep his air of pretension if he hasn’t published an advertising flyer yet let alone a novel. So, the person who goes to the movies everyday is naturally going to look for things much, much different than the average person (And apparently what they are looking for is an extremely boring plot coupled with little, to no comedy).

The cultural pressure to conform to these “experts” is absolutely enormous. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard horrible movies described as “brilliant” by people just because it was shown at Cannes (Barb Wire opened there as well, was that “brilliant”?). If you don’t believe me about cultural pressure just think about the fact that at one point piano neck-ties were considered high fashion, people actually “vogued” at clubs, and for some time the citizens of the US were convinced that afro-sized pubic hair was the height of sexiness. People want to conform to what the “experts” tell them is cool or acceptable when in reality what these “experts” deem as “cool” is simply the opposite of what has been popularized at the time. It really is a stereotypical cycle that is as predictable as it is boring. To all of you plebeians out there I say if you like NASCAR, watch it (I reserve the right to make fun of you in future columns). If you enjoy Burger King then eat it (But I will write an article on why you should be paying more for your health insurance). Most of all, if you want to go see Queen of the Damned then do it guilt free. Let the experts hang out in the art house while you enjoy Aaliyah in a leather outfit. Trust me, it’s better than subjecting yourself to something you hate just because some “expert” tells you it’s great.

2005-04-11T17:48:00.000-04:00

Today's Editorial

2005-04-10T15:02:00.000-04:00

Photo of police officers being forced to watch the new Mork & Mindy TV Movie

At what point did a “Mork & Mindy” made for TV Movie seem like a good idea?

2005-04-10T14:38:00.000-04:00

Seriously, who gave the green light to this movie and why are they not on the unemployment line? The original show wasn’t funny, Pam Dawber wasn’t hot, and every show had some incredibly not-at-all insightful comment on humanity made by Robin Williams (Ironically, while he was blowing through a kilo of coke a day) to some invisible guy in a dark room. Maybe that is the key to appreciating the show; lot’s and lot’s of drugs. I’ll tell you what isn’t the key to the show, the writing and acting.

Speaking of acting I have to state the obvious here; Robin Williams is not funny. I must apologize to all of you who find someone acting as if they had just mainlined a triple speedball hilarious but his act doesn’t do it for me. About the only thing I find humorous about Robin Williams is that he’s so hairy it looks he’s half wombat. He must never be cold. If he ever runs out of cash he should shear himself like a lamb and make and sell thousands of sweaters (Or maybe knit a blanket that I could put over my head whenever “Patch Adams” comes on TV). I’ll admit that he isn’t bad a dramatic actor but I think it might just be that I’m relieved he isn’t jumping around the room shouting in the voice of Popeye.

There are a million better ideas for TV Movies than “Mork & Mindy”. Why don't they remake “The Fall Guy”? They could fuse it with “The Six Million Dollar Man” and the real life story of Lee Majors. The story would involve a bounty hunter who spends his days nabbing criminals on the lamb, crushing tennis balls in his hand, and bionically banging every chick in Hollywood (The bionic sound would be especially effective in the sex scenes). No, the geniuses who cancelled “Mr. Show”, didn’t turn the “Tenacious D” shorts into a full running program, and cancelled “The Upright Citizen’s Brigade” would never give this a go. I suppose I’ll have to sit through the “Facts of Life” reunion sequel currently gaining momentum and the inevitable dramatic miniseries based on “ALF”

2005-04-09T18:01:00.000-04:00

My Manichaean Nephew.

My Nieces and Nephews are Awesome

2005-04-09T17:42:00.000-04:00

Seriously, they are super cool. Take for example my 3 year old nephew (shown above). He is undoubtedly a genius. Whenever I see him he has somehow managed to finagle huge amounts of candy from my sister (The only woman I know who is strong enough to live in a house with three men) while simultaneously discussing the apparent moral/classist conflicts inherent in the Power Rangers television series (“Power rangers only shoot the ugly people.”). It is no surprise to me that someone who at least tangentially shares my genetics expresses such gifts at a young age. His brother happens to be one of the best baseball players in the country under the age of 17 (He’s 6). He is less than 1⁄4 of my age yet his athletic ability exceeds my own. I am not kidding, he swings a bat like Barry Bonds but the only juice he uses is Mott’s. My nieces are just as talented.

One niece, for example, dances as well as any prima ballerina I have seen, sings mellifluously in the choir, yet manages to hold discussions on the epistemology of death matched only by Edgar Allen Poe (“Caroline is sick. Is she going to die? How do we really know someone is dead?”). Her younger sister has the patience of Job. I have witnessed her rebound from a particularly nasty rotavirus with nary a complaint. She also has the incredibly rare ability at the age of three to play quietly while making few demands on her mother (who is a saint). My other nieces are no less amazing. One has more library books out than I do. Her mother (a genius) encourages her voracious appetite for reading. I will see her next week and would not be a bit surprised if I found her in the living room of my parent’s house perusing the op-ed section of the Wall Street Journal (Oops, sorry Moe, the New York Times). Her younger sister, who is but three years old, has somehow managed to develop her vocal skills to a level only achieved by yodelers in the Alps while exhibiting a fearlessness around people (and swimming pools) that fates her to a career in international politics. So you see, when I say they are awesome it is a factual statement, not simply my opinion.

In view of the universally positive traits of my nieces and nephews I have come to believe that the stories my sisters relate of these angels must be simple misunderstandings. For example, my three year old nephew with the penchant for Power Rangers purportedly said in response to my sister interjecting in an argument he was having with his brother “Mommy, did anybody ask what your opinion was? ”. It is obvious to me that he meant that as a serious interrogative rather than a sardonic remark. It is somewhat more difficult to see what he meant by “I don’t want your stinking meatballs” and “What are you looking at weirdo?” but I am positive these remarks were in offered with the most sincere of intentions. My niece with a love of reading also enjoys expressing her creativity by crafting her younger sister’s hair into new and beautiful styles. Strangely my sister and brother in-law were less than happy when she transformed her sister’s golden locks into something resembling a very young Annie Lennox. The dancing niece has the determination of Churchill, so when she says that she is going to wear “This dress or nothing” I take it as a testament to her will. Unfortunately, although they are truly far, far above average their intellect does not yet allow them to fully transmit their undoubtedly honorable intentions. My sisters therefore mistake their exemplary behavior for mischievous acts.

(Addendum: Even with their near perfect children I must admit that my sisters display superhuman powers in parenting. Let’s hope we all get it this right when the stork comes knocking on our door.)

Common Sense is for Suckers (Apparently)

2005-04-08T11:04:00.000-04:00

I would LOVE to say that this story was fictional but it’s not. If you don’t want to click on the link because you are using Internet Explorer and don’t want to deal with the extra windows (Please, get Firefox.) just read the first sentence of the story.

“A man trying to pay a fee using $2 bills was arrested, handcuffed and taken to jail after clerks at a Best Buy store questioned the currency's legitimacy and called police.”

I am sure this is a reaction to the widely distributed story concerning a woman who attempted to pay for her purchases at Wal-Mart with a million dollar bill but it is still just sad. The fact that they handcuffed the guy, took him to jail, and then had to wait until a secret service agent got there before he was released is a study in idiocy. There wasn't one person among the many people dealing with this criminal who had ever heard of a 2 dollar bill? I hope that this guy sues and gets millions upon millions of dollars paid of course, in two dollar bills.

2005-04-07T15:05:00.000-04:00

My likely offspring before and after 5.5 years of graduate school in chemistry.

If I'm Lucky My Kids will only be Circus Freaks

2005-04-07T11:07:00.000-04:00

Today is lab clean-up. This entails taking all of the noxious chemicals sitting in the back of my hood (A big box with a fan on the top so I don’t have to breathe in toxic fumes) and either putting them into waste containers or placing them into someone else’s area so they have to deal with them. The latter is my method of choice for dealing with things such as metallic mercury and hydrogen chloride lecture bottles. It is also a prime opportunity to expose oneself to some really mutagenic, carcinogenic chemicals. Over the past 5 years I have spilled benzene on my pants, absorbed countless liters of methylene chloride through latex gloves, inhaled just about every volatile mutagen known to mankind, and virtually bathed in pyridine. This does not bode well for my genetic makeup.

After spending this much time around teratogens my chromosomes most likely resemble rotten spaghetti while my Cerebus-like 6-headed sperm would be lucky to make it to an egg with the help of a motorized wheelchair. Of course, if by some miracle one of my crippled sperm should reach a female ovum it will surely result in some abomination of genetic abnormality. At this point I can only hope that my child’s deformity will only be superficially disgusting so that I can launch him/her/it into a lucrative career as a sideshow performer. Graduate school has a way of lowering one’s expectations. A few years ago I might have hoped for a son who would become a football star or maybe a daughter who would turn out to be a radiologist but now I am just hoping that the hours at the bat-boy tent aren’t too long.

2005-04-06T01:33:00.000-04:00

This guy probably got to New York City before me.

Traveling by mule vs. taking Amtrak. It’s a toss-up.

2005-04-06T01:28:00.000-04:00

I used to be under the impression that taking the train was efficient. I no longer hold that belief. I have been sitting in a station for the past 3 hours waiting for a train that looks like it may never come. How many things can possibly go wrong? I suppose the engine could go down but if 1000’s of airplanes can fly around the globe without an engine failure it seems that a few locomotives that aren’t suspended in mid-air could be similarly reliable. Is an entire flock of spotted owls perched on the track? I would love to know. Fortunately I have taken advantage of this gift of time to keep everyone updated with the minutiae of my life. Now, if I could just upload this work of genius I would be happy. I could take advantage of Cingular’s incredibly generous offer of 24 hours of internet access for the rock bottom price of $9.95 (only at a single location mind you) but I think I will pass. It is more than a little chintzy to demand 10 bucks then limit the accessibility to one station. If I had to spend 24 hours at ANY Amtrak station I think I would commit seppuku in the coffee shop before I could get my money’s worth.

I was just informed that the delay is due to the malfunction of a train bound to Boston from Miami. According to the conductor the Miami/Boston route is quite popular with Miamians traveling north. Have these people slept through the past 100 years of technological progress and missed the aerospace revolution? Maybe they are all just acrophobic. My bet is this, they’re all really, really, old and for some reason taking the train brings them back to the days when they rode their rock-wheeled tricycle to go pick up more bear meat from the cave. Those trains undoubtedly stink of meatloaf and BenGay. I bet if you looked hard enough you could see the Reaper himself peeping around the corners, just looking for the next coronary. OK, I apologize to the aged among us. The trains not running on time is certainly not your fault (But I bet you can remember the time when they did run on time, huh? That Mussolini, he could do anything!).

The next time I have to travel I think I might take some more modern (and reliable) form of travel, like a hot air balloon or a rickshaw. It would undoubtedly be faster.

John Stewart, the new James Carville?

2005-04-05T14:39:00.000-04:00

I’m not sure when John Stewart decided that his show should be used as a soap box for his own “enlightened” views on politics but recently I have felt like I’ve been watching a comedy act sponsored by the DNC rather than a television news spoof program. I understand that some people don’t like President Bush and I certainly disagree with more than a few of his policies but the Daily Show has gone from light hearted lampooning to a constant tirade against the “Republican Menace”. I wouldn’t have a problem with this (Although I think it’s a mistake in terms of direction) if many of the viewers of the Daily Show didn’t receive the totality of their news from this cable comedy program. John Stewart offers editorials on the ineptitude of the administration while resisting real criticism by hiding behind the cloak of “the show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls”. Sorry John, if you are going to get into the political analysis game, and freely admit that many of your viewers look to you as a “source of news”, you are going to be held to a higher standard. I agree with Mr. Stewart that most “news” these days is simply party line analysis performed by political hacks which offers little in the way of an honest discussion of the issues but I don’t believe The Daily Show is any better. It used to be tongue in cheek but has now come to take itself much, much too seriously.

With all of the problems I have with The Daily Show I must admit that there are still sketches I love and John Stewart is still an amazingly funny talent (With a gift for playing to the audience). I just wish that he’d realize that he’s a comedian who is dangerously close to becoming a preacher. John, do me a favor and step back a bit. Make fun of the President, lampoon speaker Hastert, do the interviews about the kid with the head so big he couldn’t find a football helmet to fit it, but just please stop pontificating. If you do feel some responsibility to your viewers to present political information then please make an attempt to be at least less biased. I’m only writing this because I love(d) your show and want you to know that you are dangerously close to becoming the James Carville of Comedy Central; funny and interesting to be sure but a party hack nonetheless.

If your car doesn’t start try some eye of newt (or a human sacrifice)

2005-04-05T12:20:00.000-04:00

Most Americans do not understand science. I really think I don’t need more proof than the fact that the 1-800-ASTROLOGY lines are still in business but just in case that isn’t enough check out our ranking among industrialized countries (I think the only way we would fare better is if we were compared to countries still using the abacus and worshipping tree gods. Think about our per-pupil spending and then let me know why we are doing so poorly.). I don’t want to condemn superstition or entertaining beliefs but if you are throwing salt over your shoulder, burying statues in your lawn to sell your house, or giving people money to lift curses off of your family something, somewhere has gone seriously wrong. So, to all of this why don’t we allow a few religious zealots to teach 4^th graders that the earth did not “evolve” but was created just thousands of years ago! We could relate how the devil, being the great trickster he is, buried dinosaur bones to fool us into believing in the evil theory of evolution (I once went out on a date with an absolutely beautiful nurse who told me that she didn’t believe in evolution. She actually pulled out the “dinosaur bones are tricks by the devil line”. Hey, I’m a guy and I can overlook A LOT when it comes to an attractive female but that date ended with a puff of smoke and a me shaped hole in the restaurant wall.). We could then use the bible in all sorts of fun ways to teach children facts about history (That was one hell of a boat Noah!), how to stay safe in a whale’s digestive tract (Just ask Jonah), or even methods of levitation (If you just have enough faith you can sprint across water like Carl Lewis on a track). Why demand scientific rigor, or even simple evidence in our classrooms ?(I’m not saying that religion isn’t useful in relaying moral values but scientifically it’s less than useless.)

I suppose this would make things easier on the people who hold our nation’s future in their hands. Should any of them disagree with a question on an exam they could look up a related verse in the bible, twist it to fit their interpretation of an event, and then say “God says it’s so. Prove me wrong.” (Sound familiar, creationists?). Relating that evolution is “just a theory” and that creationism is a “viable alternative” is not an innocuous act. Children will soon learn that the rigor of the scientific method is interchangeable with belief without proof. This could easily backfire on creationists by inculcating a sense of relativism (The very thing creationists hate but something which inevitably results when one bases “factual” information on a text very open to interpretation). I can see it now, a debate at Harvard between scientists who believe that volcanoes are due to plate tectonics versus fundamentalists who state that there are invisible rock demons who vomit fiery retribution onto the wicked of the earth (Funny how those guys are always invisible. Just like the tooth fairy.).

Of course it could be that we are just “shifting the mystery”. By offering a scientifically based explanation for a miraculous event (spontaneous remission of cancer for example) with no absolute “proof” are we performing the same act as hypothesizing that it was a “miracle of god”? Of course not, the fact is that the scientific hypothesis is based on internally self-consistent and experimentally verifiable theories and laws. For example, if 400 years ago we had happened upon a dead man in the woods with no apparent physical damage one might say that god hated the man and struck him down while another might postulate that he died of a physical ailment. At the time there was no way of determining between the two but does that make the former proposition just as acceptable as the latter?

So what does this mean for society? So we have a few kids who believe that the field of evolutionary biology is akin to phrenology, what is the harm in that? Well, when you are attempting to maintain a functioning society along with a functioning economy it helps to be productive. And guess what folks, calculators aren’t “made by God”, and all of those new medicines, they aren’t miracles. They were all formulated following those rules of science about which we are becoming so cavalier. So, if you’d like to allow creationists equal access perhaps you should also prepare to substitute praying for aspirin, chants for surgery, and maybe when your car breaks down just sprinkle on a little eye of newt. After all it can’t hurt, can it?

Creationism is a disease resulting from a lack of imagination (or intellect)

2005-04-04T21:05:00.000-04:00

Recently there has been an organized effort by creationists (I refuse to call them “proponents of Intelligent Design” as it only feeds into their public relations efforts to rename themselves and thus escape the criticism they deserve) to insert what amounts to astrology into science education. In their current guise creationists describe themselves as “scientists” who offer “scientific” objections to the theory of evolution. In fact, they describe it as “incompatible” with the observed complexity of life. Creationists cleverly avoid associating themselves with religion by sophistically attacking the scientific basis of evolution by calling it “just a theory” while implying that if evolution can not successfully explain the origin of life a supernatural force must be at work. Unfortunately the scientific literacy of the American public is such that the attacks of the pseudo-scientists have taken hold on a number of fronts. I will discuss their objections to evolution specifically then, in a later article, discuss the disastrous consequences possible should their efforts to alter science education succeed.

What is a “theory”? The normal usage of the term indicates something that is unfounded, in fact just an idea that someone has offered with little or no evidence. The scientific use of the term is much different. Theories in science follow “hypotheses” which are more closely related to the general usage of the word “theory”. When a process is noted in nature scientists offer ideas, or “hypotheses” that could potentially explain the observation. Following this conjecture they experimentally test their hypothesis via the normal scientific process, by proposing experiments which would eliminate alternative theories while buttressing their own idea. These experiments are then published in the scientific literature, complete with the researcher’s hypothesis. Subsequently, other scientists in the area attempt to replicate the researcher’s data while possibly offering competing hypotheses which would also explain the event. After a period a single “theory” usually emerges which best explains the observation. This “theory” has been exhaustively tested in the laboratory and has withstood scrutiny from experts on a number of fronts. Thus, the attempt to use the term “theory” as a pejorative by creationists may gain traction with the scientifically unversed but sounds much like fingernails on a chalkboard to those familiar with the practice of science.

The theory of evolution has recently been attacked by creationists by rehashing an old argument made by William Paley which states that the very complexity of life evidences a designer. Paley asked that if a person should find a pocket watch in a field would it not make the most sense to assume that someone had fashioned it and then left it in that place (Rather than it had formed there spontaneously)? He predated Darwin (Who read, and appreciated, Paley’s work) and thus was not familiar with the theory of natural selection. Ostensibly, his argument makes sense. In our limited time on this earth how often have we seen complex structures formed by what seem to be random processes? Have we ever dropped a coffee mug to see it form a saucer on the floor? Not likely. Darwin’s Black Box, a book written by Mike Behe, uses this visceral reaction to summative processes to “prove” evolution wrong. He states that some portions of animals, plants, even bacteria, would not possibly function in a useful manner if they were missing a single part. For example, what possible function could bacterial flagella (The rotating tails which aid in the movement of certain bacteria) have predating their current form? By implication he states that they could not have possible “evolved”, they must have been created fully functional, in their current form.

This creation argument seems reasonable, doesn’t it? What good would an eye be if it couldn’t see things? What possible good could blood clotting proteins be before they quelled bleeding? The problem with this line of argument is the limits of Professor Behe’s imagination (And, apparently, his intellect). A number of articles have offered possible, even probable, usages of these and many other processes and structures in the body as they evolved (Including evidence for these past uses). For example, there are a number of cells in organisms which respond to the stimulus of light. It is quite possible that these cells became centralized and associated within the organism conferring an evolutionary advantage by allowing, for example, photosynthetic organisms to move to areas with higher intensities of light. It is difficult for all of us to imagine evolution on a macroscopic scale. How is it possible for “random” genetic mutations to produce phenotypical advantages that make one organism better suited to life in a certain environment? The problem is that the human lifespan is rather short and we tend to view all things through the lens of our own history. Over millions of years it has been shown (and even observed) that genetic mutations do lead to additive changes in organisms which allow populations to adapt to a changing environment. I know it is difficult to imagine this occurring. It is quite often the case in science that the explanations for phenomena are counter-intuitive. In fact, many initial “common sense” hypothesis turn out to be incorrect. I am reminded of quantum mechanics. I have yet to understand how something could be in two states at one time or randomly “pop” through a wall and appear on the other side. Fortunately, I am not alone in this difficulty.

Yet another canard employed by pseudo-scientific creationists to “disprove” evolution, or in reality to necessitate a creator, is the “Thermodynamic proof of Design”. This is an especially embarrassing misuse of science as it is so obviously misguided. Certain creationists postulate that as the 2^nd law of thermodynamics (explained in detail in this link but, in a bit of simplification, states that a system tends towards an increasing state of disorder. That “disorder” is called entropy and given a value in energy. A more positive value means less order, a more negative value means more order.). From this law creationists postulate that, since life requires so much organization that a higher power must be working against the 2^nd law to “create” and “design” these living beings.

The thermodynamic proof of “Design” is, of course, a gross misunderstanding of very basic physics. For example, I was in the supermarket a few weeks ago (A rarity, I buy almost every meal. I believe that most things in life should be done by professionals, including cooking) and as I walked by a very ordered pyramid of oranges collapsed and fell to the floor. As rolled to a stop on the floor they formed an almost perfect star shaped pattern. Does that pattern indicate that some invisible power wanted a star shaped pile of oranges on the floor? No. But, you ask, doesn’t this new shape of oranges violate the second law? No. You see what is often not mentioned by the creationists is that the 2^nd law specifies that the overall order of any system tends to decrease with time. If you don’t consider that previously the oranges were neatly stacked you might believe that a “designer” was involved. (I know, this begs the question of “what caused the oranges to fall”. To that I would ask that if you believe that every single thing requires a cause, what caused God? The prime mover argument is old indeed and fraught with errors. I would suggest that we should all consider the possibility of the universe as a vacuum fluctuation, rather than require an infinite regress. And please don’t offer the anthropic argument of design as a valid proof.). The same goes with the argument concerning life, while the overall order of organisms is indeed increasing (By using massive amounts of energy I might add. A former professor of mine once defined life as “The battle against equilibrium”, or the state reached by organisms when they run out of energy), the overall disorder of the universe is increasing (We get our energy from the sun, which burns brightly thereby giving off energy and heat, increasing the disorder of the universe. Now, multiply that by trillions of stars. You get my drift.). Thus, by a slight of hand some creationists offer what is really a risible argument for design.

Creationist arguments based on what seems like science have become more sophisticated but no less incorrect (Do not mistake credentials, especially a Ph.D., as proof of scientific integrity. There are many trained “scientists” who sacrifice their devotion to the rigor of the scientific method in order to pander to their own ideology). Of the most recent “proofs” William Dembski’s mathematical argument for creationism based on information theory is the most likely to confuse the public. I will not spend the time or space here refuting his theory as it has been done in great detail elsewhere. Suffice it to say that creationist theory simply attempts to attack the foundations of evolution (quite unsuccessfully) while offering no legitimate alternative (Other than the implied supernatural “designer”). The danger here is that these authors will be (and often are) cited by the scientifically illiterate as mainline scientists who represent some sort of highly populated cabal opposing evolution on factual grounds. The public (Especially religiously oriented, and intellectually stunted school boards) are beginning to frame this as a real question in science. I am sure I could find an M.D. (Hopefully not many) who believes that voodoo is a valid method of treating cancer. If I trotted this “expert” out would we call for a re-examination of cancer therapy and state that a voodoo versus biochemical controversy was raging in medicine? I would hope not but this is exactly what seems to be occurring in the sciences. The only remedy for this affliction is to ensure that the American public is well versed in science, the very thing that is now in jeopardy should we allow the creationists access to our classrooms. I will devote another article to the potential consequences of giving creationists equal time and thus the air of legitimacy they crave.

2005-04-04T09:14:00.000-04:00

Pope John Paul II 1920 - 2005

Pope John Paul II

2005-04-02T17:36:00.000-05:00

I suppose I should say that today was like any other day to me, that the passing of the pope had little effect on my life. After all, I have no special affection for organized religion. I am sure there will be many people who, in their zeal point out how they are “above the fray” as non-believers (Or “brights” as some of my more distinguished agnostic/atheist brethren prefer to call themselves.) will rush to point out the flaws in John Paul’s papacy. You will not find me among them.

In the past the papacy was just as much a political post as a religious honor but, as the power of the Roman Catholic Church receded, the church made its influence felt via less direct means. I suppose that the focus on religious authority as the major sphere of influence for the church necessitated a return to a position of greater moral standing in the papacy. Gone were the days when the pope could live profligately while demanding the obeisance of kings, clergy, and laymen alike. The men who occupied the papacy in the latter half of the 20^th century best represented this realization of the limits of power and the necessity of fealty to moral ideals but none more so that John Paul II.

The recently deceased pope represented the courage of conviction that so many politicians were unable, or unwilling to display. Was it his heritage? As a Pole he understood better than most the evils of communism and the hunger of the human spirit for freedom. Perhaps it was his faith? The pope lived through two world wars, witnessed the destruction of Europe and an attempt by men to eradicate an entire race of people yet continued to hold a faith in humanity equaled only by his faith in God. He refused to lower his expectations for those he truly considered to be his children. Or was it his strength? I remember few men who were willing to kneel at the sacred wall of their historical opponents and beg for forgiveness. The pontiff acknowledged the past sins of the church and asked nothing more than for the world to hear his confession.

Many horrors have occurred within the church recently but I feel no need to address them here. They are familiar to us all and time will determine the effect they will have on the Church as an institution. I think it is a day to remember a great man, irrespective of his religion. The pope left us in a world better than that which he found. I left my house today to the sound of church bells ringing. As I walked through the rain I realized it wasn’t just the catholic churches marking his death, the bells were ringing everywhere. I found myself overwhelmed by the thought that a man had died who saw in me what I could not see in myself, a person who loved me not because I was a Catholic, but because he felt I was a gift. I remain faithless but I see in John Paul II many of those qualities to which we should all aspire. Thank you, John. Thank you for what you have given to us all.

The passions of motorists will not conform to the dicates of reason and justice without constraint.

2005-04-01T15:54:00.000-05:00

After responding as nicely as possible at the scene of the accident (vide infra) I went on my merry way. That, apparently, was a BIG MISTAKE. I found out later that the female who had struck my car (from behind, while I was parked, and hit my back quarter panel BEFORE she knocked my door off to boot) had filed a claim with my insurance company. I am completely shocked. How could she POSSIBLY think that I could have been at fault? I have no idea but the fact that a claim was filed against me, even though it is completely frivolous, will undoubtedly raise my insurance rates. I am absolutely livid but not surprised.

The far-left is continually fretting about how insurance rates are so high and how the “ultra-mega-super corporations” are making millions on the backs of the poor (Let me say here, I have no love for insurance companies) but given the chance to make a fraudulent claim they are right there! Gosh, how could insurance be so high? It’s a freaking’ mystery to me. The claims/deductibles must be set by some pale, white, protestant male in a dark backroom someplace where he makes sure they are just high enough to be out of reach of all those po’ folk. It couldn’t possibly be the fact that it’s a business and they have to attract public capital which requires a little something called profit. And by the way, profit is hard to come by when people are filing claims, going to chiropractors, and claiming soft-tissue injury for absolutely no reason.

How about a little common sense legislation here? Is there no middle ground? Can’t a Republican say “Teflon coated bullets really aren’t necessary” or a Democrat state “Perhaps caps on judgments in certain civil cases really aren’t a bad idea”. Of course not, because every politician, every bien pensant party member, just knows that giving in an inch will cause the whole mountain to crumble. It’s unfortunate that they have become so entrenched in their ideology that there is no room for reasonable compromise. Unfortunately the somewhat simplistic “slippery slope” argument has become overused in politics today. If the democrats would allow, for example, a suspect to be charged with two felony murders when a women is killed along with her unborn child would it truly undermine abortion rights legislation? I am sure the republicans would point a finger and say “Look, they’re saying it’s a human then, but not earlier!”. Of course by that same slippery slope argument the very fact that the 26^th amendment reduced the voting age to 18 in 1971 would have us rolling in 3 year olds in strollers to punch the ballot today. There are nuances folks, there are mediums but they are apparently invisible to most people and all politicians.

Oh, and just in case you are wondering where I got the title check here. I’m a big fan of Alexander Hamilton.

Accidents Suck but Insurance Companies Blow.

2005-04-01T14:04:00.000-05:00

So, I had innocently parked my car, unbuckled my seatbelt, and had my leg out of the door when something caught the corner of my eye. The flash in my peripheral vision turned out to be a 1988 Toyota Corolla barreling down the street about to take out the left side of my car. Fortunately, I swung my leg back in the car in time as I saw my door being ripped from its hinges and almost thrown onto the street. As the city I live in is filled with miscreants I looked up expecting to see the car proceeding down the street at a faster rate, leaving the scene of the accident. I was pleasantly surprised when the driver slowed down, pulled over, and began to walk towards me. It was at this point that I noticed her car was covered in “Dennis Kucinich 2004” stickers and a few others that more or less condemned meat eaters, war mongers (Code for all Republicans), bigots (Anyone who doesn’t agree with ultra-left viewpoints), and environmental softies (People who don’t agree that an owls life is worth more than the livelihood of 1000’s of people). So, half expecting her to tell me that she doesn’t believe in corporately imposed “insurance” and therefore was willing to barter for the damages in wampum, and half expecting her to berate me for not driving a hybrid vehicle [She would if she could afford one of course. After all, with ultra-leftists sacrifices should be made, but just by those they consider “rich” (You make more than 50K a year)], I approached cautiously.

She immediately (fortunately) admitted culpability but told me that she, unfortunately, did not have her insurance information handy (shocker). At this point I should have called the police and gotten them involved but that would have required more time than I was willing to devote to this event. I copied her information, gave her mine, and left the scene. I must tell you that it is kind of exciting driving around in a semi-doorless vehicle in the city. It is a sort of urban “Dukes of Hazzard”. If there was a “Boar’s Nest” in the area I would have stopped by, slid across my hood, and went in to find Daisy. Of course, in this city the closest equivalent is a crack house (of which there are many) so I decided that, rather than getting shot, I’d just go to the body shop.

Body shop owners are notoriously shady but unlike mechanics, they are shady and on your side. They have become experts by necessity in “negotiating” with insurance companies (I hate them but then, who doesn’t?) to get you the maximum amount for your trouble. I chose a body shop run by a Russian immigrant named “Mike”. I figure if you are going to have someone fighting for you it might as well be a huge Russian guy who sounds as if he can be more than intimidating when he needs to be (Plus, if only half of those stories you hear about the Russian Mafia are true it’s generally a bad idea to go up against a Russian). He told me that the left side of my car would need to be replaced and painted. The door hinges were knocked out of alignment so they need to do some frame work (The kiss of death for a car). I wouldn’t mind a new paint job, or a new car. Of course, the way things have been going I’d settle for a big wheel with a motor. I’ve learned not to expect too much.

Things that are good ideas when you're drunk. #1 Buying that $150 round of drinks.

2005-03-30T12:04:00.001-05:00

Exactly what is it in alcohol that transforms me from a normal, everyday graduate student to the richest man on the planet? Seriously, I can’t figure this out. I wouldn’t go to McDonalds and order 20 cheeseburgers and just start handing them out but I have no problem going to the bar, buying 10 shots and divvying them up among total strangers. I actually feel my wallet getting heavier with each drink veritably shouting “Release me from this pocket! Put my plastic contents on the bar and sign away!”. Unfortunately I too often heed this call. It must be something to do with the occurrences that I associate with drinking. I can’t remember the last time I went out to a bar, didn’t get drunk, and had an absolutely wonderful time (BTW: “Wonderful time” is code for “bringing home an attractive woman” but could just as equally mean having a great time with the guys.). I suppose it is a Pavlovian conditioning of sorts. I have come to learn that more shots, more drinking, eventually equals some reward which in turn reinforces the behavior.

Now, don’t take this to mean that I’m a total alcoholic. I drink, at most, one night a week and even then I try to avoid getting too “nice”. I think in my old age I am beginning to appreciate getting up on the weekend and not feeling like someone stuffed my mouth with salt during the night then sat on my head. Does this mean I’m ready for a committed relationship? Probably not. I think it just means that I’m tired of going out here as I no longer find the people interesting enough to sacrifice my morning to nausea and headaches. In any case, I’m going to start leaving my credit cards at home.

Things that are good ideas when you're drunk. #2 Making out in a Club

2005-03-29T17:18:00.000-05:00

The power of alcohol to affect my decision making process still amazes me (and I’ve been drinking for quite some time). I went to NYC to visit my best friend TJ and met my ex-girlfriend for dinner. We went back to TJ’s place where we met some of her friends, had some drinks, and headed out on the town. I think we all were having a good time.

What is it about people that when things are going well we always have to push further? If one drink is good two must be better, if an hour on the phone is great, three must be the best, if talking to my ex is good than making out with her on the floor of Lotus must be the awesome. Was I drunk at this point? Yes. Did I know exactly what I was doing? Absolutely. Apparently sometime around 3 a.m. sprawling out on a couch in the VIP section of a club became a work of genius. (Actually, I’m sober now but I still think that was a good idea) There is more to this story that you people will never hear mainly because I have no idea who you are but also because it’s quite possible that I’ll run for office one day and if the Wesson oil/ Saran wrap finish to the evening gets out I’m screwed.

Gay Marriage

2005-03-28T23:12:00.000-05:00

It seems to me that homosexual couples should have the right to marry but the social consequences of all such endowments of “rights” should be considered (Marriage is a social construct and I therefore have trouble conferring the word “right” upon it). The obvious corollary question would be, should the “social consequences” have been considered when extending the right of African-American children to attend segregated public schools? I would argue that education is not a social construct but a fundamental right and it is therefore not an appropriate analogy but would submit that the process of desegregation should have been much better researched in terms of the consequences to the African-American students. This is not to say that the desegregation should have been delayed in order to make time for the correct policies to be fashioned; indeed the fact that our schools were ever segregated is a yet another black-eye in the history of racism in our country. It does seem though that in the rush to make the “responsible” choice on gay marriage the social consequences which may ensue should be considered and the appropriate policy changes effected.

For example, African-American students at the time of segregation were well behind their similarly aged white counterparts due to the insufficient quality of education provided by the “black” schools. It would have been advantageous if the schools had put in place an accelerated program over the summers to allow the black students to “catch up” academically to fellow classmates. This would have addressed the stigma attached to those students when they were found to perform at a level below that of their classmates due to the past injustice (Which was then attributed to the notion of their “genetic inferiority”). I would argue that marriage has always been defined to maximize the likelihood of producing socially viable citizens (i.e. raising children. Of course, there are already heterosexual couples who decide to remain childless, but they are still a small, but growing, minority). I do not disagree in principle with altering this definition but it must be done with care. For example, if the majority of homosexuals do not have children how will it affect the stability of their marriages? Will high divorce rates of childless homosexual couples result (as in their heterosexual counterparts) and if so, how will this change societies view on the viability of long-term homosexual relationships? Adoption is a viable alternative (and advisable as there are many loving, financially secure homosexual couples) to the normal process of procreation (I am deliberately ignoring in vitro fertilization procedures as they are prohibitively expensive and it is doubtful that they would be widespread among homosexual couples). The addition of children to the family may help to better fashion the homosexual household into the heterosexual equivalent (Not that it must be their “equivalent” but it seems that family structure is best supported, and solidified, by the presence of a necessity other than mutual support namely, raising children).

Perhaps adoption laws should be revisited concomitantly to the efforts to allow gay marriage? It may even be advisable to strengthen existing divorce laws to buttress marriages which may not be held together by the “glue” of children. My point is that although it does seem to me that gays should have the “right” to marry it does not follow that we should ignore the social consequences of that endowment or simply assume that they will all be positive.

Morality, Religion, and Society.

2005-03-27T20:52:00.000-05:00

I have recently been troubled by the question of moral relativism. As humans we naturally strive to discern “universal truths” on which we may base our behavior. But as we attempt to define these a priori tenets we find that we must often become so specific in our assessment that the “laws” derived from these truths become meaningless (For example, taking life is wrong, except if it is in self-defense, defense of another, in a just war, euthanasia, etc..). I would like to believe that through the process of rational thought we can arrive at moral standards which can be agreed upon by everyone. Unfortunately I do not believe that the process of "logic" or "rationality" consistently results in situations in which two people, when confronted with the same problem, would either come to the same conclusion or would be rationally errant. I often find a great deal of difficulty in rebutting Peter Singer's argument that infanticide is an ethically acceptable practice as his logical mode of deduction is formidable. Perhaps it is the case that a logically coherent answer does exist in all of these situations yet we are somehow unable to "grasp" that solution? That answer would certainly preserve the process of rationality for determining ethical or moral dilemmas but it somehow does not sufficiently address the very real problem of oppositional yet rationally supported views present in certain dialectics. Can we fundamentally solve moral problems by moving past preconceptions and visceral reactions via reason or does morality itself change?

Can morality evolve or is it only possible for our understanding of morality to change? The former proposition would have us teetering on the dangerous ground of relativism while the latter may strap us into the rigid bounds of the past where logical argument dictated, for example, that newborn female babies be thrown in a heap outside of town. More importantly, is the answer somewhere in between and how would we know when an action was morally acceptable if it might not remain so in perpetuity? For example, should marriage rights be endowed to gay couples? There are nuanced arguments on both sides of this debate but an interesting (although somewhat sophistic) argument relates the evolving extension of rights to African-Americans in many societies to homosexual marriage. We can all agree that it was always immoral to deprive a person of individual rights based on their race or gender. This implies that our understanding of morality in the past was simply inadequate and logical arguments put forth in defense of such policies were fallacious. Could this be the case with gay marriage, abortion, assisted suicide, infanticide, or the death penalty? How will we differentiate between a "better understanding" of moral argument versus an "evolution"? I suppose the answer would be to review the logical arguments upon which the previous decisions were made but I am unsure that even with a completely rational review we could find time and context independent errors which would vindicate our new, more enlightened, view point.

This question is particularly relevant to the area of religion as it provides a somewhat unyielding guide to moral behavior. Religion, however, is not immune to the apparent vicissitudes of moral theory (e.g. The Reformation, the Crusades, and many of the actions of the papacy from the 500 - 1500 were justified on religious, if not scriptural, bounds.) although its teachings are commonly identified as continually "better understandings" of the moral truths offered by God in the revealed text. I do believe the teachings found in the bible, in particular the Beatitudes; provide the necessary context for moral decision-making (And believe that these same moral propositions could be arrived at independent of religious belief). The church also serves as a repository of moral thought on which the general population, being generally unversed in the nuances of morality, may rely. In the instance in which moral theory is left to individual rational thought we may suffer the belief among some that their actions, for the moment, are indeed moral. The church offers a guided, albeit sometimes imperfect, interpretation of moral authority which resists change for the reason that all of its actions must be necessarily deliberate. I suppose it is a choice between the tyrannies of authority versus the tyrannies of the individual. Although there are many actions based on the tenets of religion which I disdain, I personally would prefer that the majority obtain moral guidance from an individual such as the pope than base their actions on what they believe to be "rational" behavior. Is it possible for a person to be ethical or moral in the absence of religious belief? I believe it is but it is a difficult path which requires a high degree of knowledge and which, ultimately, rests on what may be fundamentally ephemeral tenets.

So, I still question, are morals relative? I don’t have a good answer to that question now but I encourage all of you to think about the implications. I would submit that there are certainly some actions which are universally immoral but they are much fewer in number than most would believe.

Post Script:

I realize the proposition of religion as a useful moral basis for a functioning society may smack of Marx’s theory of religion as “the opiate of the masses” or, even worse, of Plato’s tripartite society. I honestly believe that a moral theory based upon an evolved Christianity is preferable to leaving the complexities of moral reasoning to an individual ill-equipped to make the enlightened choice. By making this argument I admit that there will be endless attempts to impose upon society religious tenets (e.g. anti-abortion, anti-contraception, etc..) promoted by these very people. These fights will be real and potentially costly but I remain faithful that our legislators and judiciary will see through those arguments and make decisions based not upon religious zealotry, but on the good of society as a whole. We must also consider that simply because some of these arguments are made from a religious viewpoint (The Pope’s concern about the “culture of death” comes to mind) they are not ipso facto fallacious.

Misogynistic behavior

2005-03-25T18:24:00.000-05:00

I am sure most of you will be much more surprised by this story than I am (unfortunately).

A female in my lab (an extremely hard worker, and bright to boot) was called down to my advisor's office where he asked her if she would like to attend one of the larger conferences given in our particular corner of science. One might think this would be a good thing but of course he managed to take a potentially positive event and turn it into a horrible, vile train wreck. He "generously" offered to pay for her stay in a dorm in the area (A whole $49 per night. He won't kick in the extra $8 for a hotel she located) but then refused to pay for her attendance (Not more than $200. To put it into perspective when he goes to conferences it is nothing but the best.). He suggested that she pay the attendance fee, and then refused to reimburse her for travel (He once had me attend a conference then, when I submitted my travel expenses, refused to pay the $54 because he had agreed to pay only for flights which, ironically, cost $90 and were available online for 10 minutes). When she balked at paying he said, "That's just a haircut and a pair of shoes to you." Am I crazy or does that seem a bit untoward for a professor to be saying to a female graduate student (Who is by no means profligate in her personal spending, not that it should matter)? It would be excusable if he had not treated other female students in the same fashion.

Go to the Deans you say! Write a letter to the editor of the student paper! Contact your local congressperson! All sound great, in theory. The reality of graduate school is that the professor (especially a tenured professor) holds ALL of the cards. If you disagree with what may be obviously immoral, unethical, or downright illegal behavior there is really little recourse. Should you decide to go to someone you have flushed your time spent in school down the drain. If you have invested 4 years of your life in a program with the end "just" around the corner you learn to grin and bare much more than you should. The reality is that there are no options. There is no recourse. You are owned, branded, even controlled by your advisor and unless you are willing to throw it all away (No, you can't go to someone and realistically expect to stay in the group) you must persevere.

There is a certain learned helplessness to it all. Graduate school places you in a situation in which there is a great deal you can do absolutely nothing about. I know, you were about to say that describes life in general and you are correct, to a point. If someone hates a job they can often start looking for a similar position elsewhere. That is not possible in the later years of graduate school. You simply must acquiesce to the whims of the professor (Academics like to describe themselves as something that reminds me of the “Benevolent Dictator” described in Plato’s “Republic”. They see themselves as the educated elite, unconcerned with the trappings of physical pleasure, able to see the true world instead of the shadows on the cave wall, and certainly capable of making decisions for the “masses”. Of course those decisions quite often reflect what's best for the advisor, not the student. I would also say their success in this practice is something similar to Plato’s students at his academy.). A graduate student eventually “learns” that they can have no impact on his or her advisor’s decision and quite often slumps into a depression, convinced of their own inability to effect change in their own life. This mode of thought can have disastrous consequences and even the most optimistic students (me included) can fall into the trap.

So if you should come upon a bitter or depressed graduate student you may want to consider cutting them a little slack. They are (hopefully) getting a great education but their situation is often difficult and their future is more uncertain than you might realize.

The gods of Airplane Seating Hate Me

2005-03-19T15:01:00.000-05:00

I have flown numerous times in my lifetime. In fact, over the past several years I have averaged at least 1-2 flights per month (Mostly to San Diego, the most beautiful place on earth. I am sure you are asking how I do this as a graduate student. That's my business my friend.). There are two problems I run into when I fly. The first is that I have yet to be seated next to a REMOTELY attractive female. How is this possible? I postulated that for some reason attractive women do not fly, or at least do not fly as often as the rest of the population. This may be possible and I don't have the analysis resources to tackle the question but it is still statistically unlikely that one would fly at least 30 times over a certain period and never have a beautiful woman seated in the same row. The second major problem is that not only am I not seated next to a smart, beautiful, funny female; I am almost always seated next to an obese man who thinks that he owns the arm rests because he has eaten 5 cheeseburgers a day for the past 20 years (For future reference, one person's elbows get the portion of the arm rest closest to the seat, the other person's forearms get portion farther from the seat.).

Would it be possible for airlines to require photos of travelers and then make them available to other passengers when they are making their reservations? It may help in security (It couldn’t hurt for the attendants to know what the passengers are supposed to look like.) but would definitely help when picking seats. We have all seen (or at least most of us) those little pictures of the plane with stick figures sitting in the seats to indicate availability. What if there was a picture of each individual instead of that stick figure? We would be forewarned that there was a man resembling Godzilla in seat 17C and perhaps, that there was an attractive female in seat 13A.

I can see the problems with this scheme. The beautiful girl (I am not mentioning good looking guys because I'm a guy and it's my blog. One would think that the cases would be fairly similar) would never, no matter how empty her flight was, have a row to herself and the guy who’s been making too many return trips to the bacon bar is rewarded with an empty seat next to him every time. This could be balanced by sending “requests” to the person you would like to sit next to which they would, in turn, approve, reject, or rank in order of preference (Or simply not reply. This option gives them plausible deniability should they be forced into a conversation with you in the waiting area.). That way the woman would have at least SOME control over her row-mate. Of course, as the plane filled and seats became scarce the ranking system would kick-in to fill the plane. Something like this already exists in a less structured fashion on Southwest. The “cattle” system allows passengers to pick their own seats. Unfortunately, that system doesn’t allow the person already sitting any control over who sits next to them (And lord knows I’m always in the “C”, or last group to get on the plane. Who wants to get to the airport 3 hours early to get an exit row?).

The real solution to this problem is to only fly to and from one of three cities, San Diego, Scottsdale, or LA (on the weekend flights to Vegas). The concentration of attractive women in those cities is so high you are almost guaranteed a great flight unless, of course, you’re me. United, USAir, Northwest, and Hooters airlines should take note, there is money to be made from superficial passengers (Which is the majority of the world even though most are loath to admit it) via this scheme.

What The Hell Am I Going to Do?

2005-03-14T11:10:00.000-05:00

I should begin by giving all of my faithful readers (At this point my mother and a few people who stumbled onto this page by accident. Sorry guys, there's no porn here.) a little background. I am a 30 year old Ph.D. candidate in chemistry at a major research university on the east coast. I have been here for 6 (count em', 6) years and am now faced with the possibility of actually getting out into the "real world" where supposedly all of this time and effort in graduate school will pay off in spades! That's what you believe, right? Many people believe that after getting a Ph.D. in chemistry at a great school I'd be beating off the employers trying to catch me before being out-bid for my vast breath and depth of talent. That is in no way, shape, or form the case.
The reality of graduate school in the sciences is that after spending some of the best years of your life betrothed to a despotic, megalomaniacal, passive-agressive dictator (Sometimes called a professor. We'll get into that later) you are usually pawned off to yet another professor to perform what is called a "Post-doc". This position involves one doing even more grunt work (Putting together experiments, albeit now supposedly completely independently. In reality, you set-up experiments and if they work, your advisor thought of them, if they don't, it was all you. In many ways it is similar to graduate school.) for a ridiculously low amount of money (~25K) for 2 or 3 years before you can even THINK about applying for actual positions. The "post-doc" was conceived for people who would like to be an academic professor (A perfect opportunity to inflict the pain imposed upon you onto others...) but, since everyone started doing them, it is almost impossible to get a job without one (Think of the MBA loop. Really, does an MBA provide the skills that 2 years in business could not? Almost definitely not but, guess what, everyone else has one so you now have to jump through the hoop as well.).
So here I am. I am going to graduate soon and I have to decide what I am going to do next. I can tell you this, bench-top science (That means working with wet chemicals in the lab for all of you non-science types) is OUT OF THE QUESTION. I usually get two responses when I tell people I am getting a Ph.D.. The first being "Wow, you must be really smart!", and the second "God, that sounds boring!". Both are correct. Of course, most people don't go to grad school for 6 years to find out that chemistry, in practice at least, is insanely monotonous (High school chemistry class was enough for most but, what the hell, I guess I’m a glutton for punishment) . Also, if you meet someone getting their Ph.D. don't automatically assume that they are intelligent. I've met some of the most unintelligent people (Socially and intellectually, a column I'll write later) in graduate school. I have to wonder what I have gotten out of all of this. I suppose my analytical skills have improved, I have made some great friends in the area, and the degree MAY help to open up some doors but was it all worth it? That is a question I can't (or refuse, for my own sanity) answer.
So, what is the next step? I have to admit, I wonder that myself. I am attempting to find a position in the business world. Something that will let me apply my knowledge of the theory and application of science (both still cool in my book) to schemes to make massive, massive, massive amounts of money. Fortunately, to most people, science is still a black box. Dark and mysterious it seems that you just throw a few things together and magic happens (The dark reality of graduate school is that this is often the case. Rational experimental design is quite often thrown out the window and the “try everything” approach applied. The results are then rationalized a posteriori. Was Feyerabend correct? I’d have to say no but he was more right than most people realize.). Fortunately, this perceived mystery of science increases my value as a degreed “expert” and allows me to translate the labyrinthine texts of my discipline for a fee. I can then determine how advances in science will affect the business environment. Did I have to go to grad school for that? Probably not. Will I even be happy surrounded by people mostly interested simply in making money for its own sake? I have no idea. I'd like to find that special something that makes me happy. Something that when I get out of bed in the morning I smile just thinking about. I have come to think that the "perfect job" is a fantasy and that if you are going to do something you might not love, you might as well get paid a boat-load for it. Is this selling out? Maybe, but don't worry, I won't give up looking for that one thing that makes me happy. If I find it, you will all be the first to know.