The F-bomb

Thank you George Carlin for the 7 dirty words you can’t say on television (or radio) (1). His comedy bit defined for all of us the bleeped words now so familiar. Yesterday the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) lost a court case that challenged the rules as vague and unequally applied, and claimed that because the rules related to the magnificent 7 are arbitrarily applied, a chilling effect (legal term for inhibiting free speech) on broadcast media is apparent (2).
About time, too. I grew up with the F word. F this and F that and where is the F-ing thing. It is all over the media, rules or not, and all over literature. No, not in Harper Lee’s book, but keep looking and you will find it well represented. This morning, Morning Edition (NPR radio) had a sound bite from someone who stated unequivocally that the F word is obscene and offensive. I don’t agree.
But if you do agree, then why do you say “fricken” this or “fricken” that? Or maybe “F” this or “F” that? We all know you mean the f-bomb, so why not say it out loud? If the word “fuck” is obscene or offensive, then “fricken”, which stands in for it is equally obscene and offensive. If you would not agree that fricken is offensive, then you acknowledge that fuck isn’t either. The use of “fricken” or some other f-substitute is just a sidestep, but the intent is to conjure up the real F word.
Years ago, I mean many years ago, when I was about 10 or 12, I got in trouble for saying “Jesus Christ! “ about something. Not long after, I heard an older boy shout “Judas Priest!”, meaning “Jesus Christ!” I tried that at home and got only a mild response, and quickly leaned a lesson: If you say what you mean and mean what you say you can get into trouble, but if you allude to what you mean and obfuscate slightly, you skate by. Now THAT I think is obscene and offensive. When I hear you say “frick it” and we both know you mean “fuck it” I find that offensive.
On closing let me recommend a little ditty by Kevin Bloody Wilson that illustrates the point in song. It is about the “C” word, but equally relevant. Warning: He uses both the “C” word AND the “F” word, so if you offend easily, you better not click on the link. Have a fricken flippin friggin wonderful day.
Kevin Bloody Wilson singing “You can’t say C*** in Canada”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBWAjn2a3rA

1.WARNING: The 7 words are used often in this video; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_Nrp7cj_tM
2. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/07/13/128490248/fcc-indecency-rules-unconstitutional-appeals-court
Image: mybiggestcomplaint.com/.../2007/08/f-bomb.jpg

Dead Possum

NPR again. A small essay I cannot find that included the idea that communication between spouses is sometimes less than direct. The example was a wife telling her husband that "There is a dead gopher in the yard". This really asks or tells the husband to go outside and get rid of the dead animal.

How often have we all made those kind of observations that said one thing but carried much more implied content? Things like " Its really hot in here, isn't it?" or "The car is making a funny noise again" or " Wow, the grass sure grows fast this time of year, doesn't it?". All have deeper content and probably are said to prompt some action.

Now the question is why bother to hide a request or order in a seemingly innocent observation? I would like to think the reason is a natural tendency in good relationships to be less bossy and confrontational and more cooperative. Rather than saying "Get your fat ass up off the couch and bury the dead gopher that is in the yard", saying "There is a dead gopher in the yard" gives some room for the couch potato to be sort of self motivated. Good strategy for getting along.

So now in our family we have the "dead possum" (lots of them around and few gophers) question. Someone says "The grass is getting long, isn't it?" and the partner asks "Dead possum?" meaning do you want me to cut it, or is that just an observation? This opens the dialogue to further discussion which results in the grass getting cut eventually. Much more civilized than the alternative, don't you think?

Image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/turtlemom_nancy/4321862269/

A Tale of Unlikely Friends

Owl and Tortoise met one morning at a pond, each there for a drink. Owl said he had been thinking about all the ways he and Tortoise were different. "I can fly and am very fast while you walk very slowly. I eat animals while you eat fruit and mushrooms. I have feathers while you have a hard shell, and I can hunt at night while you hunt in the daylight. Given the differences I think it is amazing that we are friends.” Tortoise thought a moment and said “I too have been thinking about our friendship and the ways we are the same: we both have few enemies, I because of my shell that protects me and you because you are a top predator. We both live long lives, though I am much older than you, and are considered wise by our animal friends, and we are both spirit guides for men. Given the similarities. our friendship was inevitable, don’t you think? And you know, Owl, that we are distant relatives, don’t you? We both are egg layers, and descended from ancient dinosaurs.”
Owl thought about what Tortoise had said and replied “You are right! I see now that the differences are really trivial while our similarities are important and deep. I know now which one of us is the wiser, too and clearly it is you.”
Tortoise thought about what Owl said and replied “No Owl, we are both wise, but in different ways. I am not the wiser, and the proof is that you are willing to see another’s viewpoint and learn from it. Only a wise and humble soul can recognize wisdom in others, and accept that others can be equally wise. I think our friendship is based on respect for each other, and respect for the world around us. Thank you for being my friend, Owl. I value that greatly.”
Then, as the sun rose above the horizon, Owl flew up to his tree, and Tortoise walked off to find breakfast, both content in their friendship, and both with a renewed feeling of respect.
Image: khazarsgathering2012.com/Images/galapagos-tor...

(For another tale of the same unlikely friends, go to this website khazarsgathering2012.com/pomseeds2.html and scroll down to the story. I do not endorse the philosophy of the site, but find it very interesting. Indeed, the story of the owl and tortoise there is very good.)

Leaving the Chaos Laboratory

For many of us, our office is a sanctuary and fortress, and a place to gather. Work? Sometimes that too. But if you are an academic and all your office is used for is work, you are missing the whole point. Every particle of junk in my office has a story, or could tell one if pushed. For the last 25 years my office, although 3 different rooms, held the bits and pieces of me in my academic life. Old tests and papers, old grade books, textbooks, novels, slides, dried specimens, flags of students countries, tea towels from places I visited, artwork (mine and others) and much more. If one listens carefully the echoes of laughter, crying, and quiet discourse can be heard.
When I retired “Emeritus” a benefit was keeping an office as long as the space wasn’t needed for new faculty. It was more than an office then. It was a lifeline to the past, a past that simply wouldn’t let go. I am still working on campus 2 years later, and the office is little used. Others have a greater need, so I will move into a smaller shared space and yield the “Chaos Laboratory” to another. Here is what I hope the next occupant will experience in the old Chaos Laboratory:
Fun with colleagues and students
Creative time to innovate teaching ideas
Serious discussions about everything in the world, not just the narrow academic view of the new occupant
Quiet moments of contemplation
Serious sessions with students, helping them to clarify their life goals, and listening to their stories and problems
Student’s children climbing into a willing lap when they come with their parents to talk.
A door always open
A mind always open to new ideas and paradigms
Above all, listening.
I wish the new occupant of my old digs the best, and hope their tenure is as long, fun and fulfilling as mine has been. As for me, I have a new project. Somewhere on campus there is a space waiting to become the next “Chaos Laboratory”. I am hoping that when I finish boxing up the accumulata of the years, I will uncover some forgotten gem.

Maybe a Higgs Boson.

Image 1 drewfrancis.wordpress.com/2008/10/

Finding your inner fish!!!

My students of yore (that is a lot of students) will recall the discussions we had on Evolution. (Hisss. Did he actually say “Evolution” out loud? ) Yes by jiminy, I did. Evolution is settled science. No arguments at all over “If” or “maybe” or “possibly” or “speculative”. No, now the refinements of how, where and when come into play. Denying evolution is like denying sunrise. Even a blind person can feel the sun rise. Even a rock reacts to the sunrise.
So you guys remember the Tiktaalik right? And then we discussed the importance of the structures found in that animal that resulted in the evolution of quadrupeds that include us and everything else with 4 limbs. Here is a book to read that delves into the connections in more detail and makes connections that I could not. Why you ask? This guy knows more about Tiktaalik than anyone. He found it and has studied it since.
The next time you are quoting Search, or arguing with some ignorant soul denying evolution, just end it by telling the cretin to “get in touch with your inner fish, and watch out for hemorrhoids. (Theory is the vessels around the anus of a fish, our ancestor, were not evolved to be sat upon or vertical for long periods of time: therefore they swell and hurt.)
I love my inner fish. Don’t you wish everyone did? You can have fun looking for your inner yeast, too.
(And by the way, there is no point in arguing with anyone about the truth of Evolution Theory unless you like to argue about things like "there is no sun" or " air is really gasoline" or some other such nonsense. There is nothing to argue about. Truth is truth, and evolution is the truth. Period, or as my English family would say "Full Stop". )
NPR source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127937070&sc=nl&cc=nh-20100705
Image and book review: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/feb/10/shopping.scienceandnature

July 5th: Time for Reflection

The battle of Carthage 238ce was won decisively by Rome (1). In the film “The Gladiator”, a mock battle staged in the coliseum had a different result: the rebels won. That was fiction. Our rebellion is fact, and we won against a massively superior force: the British Empire.
The reasons for rebellion are usually complex, and sound bites and simple statements like “we fought for our freedom” or “we fought because they taxed us unfairly” don’t touch the long mix of reasons. The Americans did fight for their freedom, and were taxed unfairly, and were badly treated in trade, and were enslaved on the seas, and, well, the list goes on. But fight we did, and win we did. Over the years, the Constitution, that document that neocons and other conservative types insist should be interpreted only as the Founder wrote, has been amended many times. Tweaked. Interpreted both by vote (the amendments) and by precedent (court decisions). The Constitution has proved to be an invaluable guide to the more than 200 years of governance for America. It was written on paper, not stone.
I heard one of the Senators during the Kagan hearings say that Americans have never had less freedom than now, and he believed it continues to erode. He implied, as best I can remember, that some Supreme Court decisions had helped the slide into servitude.
If this is true, then what can we do about it? Buy more guns? Vote Libertarian (2)? Form militias and fight the government? No doubt both major political parties have curtailed some liberties. The Republicans want to take away a woman’s rights of personal body decisions (abortion), selectively remove habeas corpus (slippery slope?), listen to all your phone conservations without a court order and give mega corporations status as persons for 2nd amendment rights of free speech. This from the party that wants more freedoms and less government control. The Democrats want more regulation of financial giants, oil companies, air and water quality and healthcare, and want less freedom to purchase certain kinds of guns.
Both parties claim to be for more freedoms while at the same time curtailing freedoms in many areas. The battle cry of the year may be “throw the bums out!” The incumbents from both parties have gotten us here over the last 75 years or so. Time to start over? Maybe so, but it ain’t gonna happen, as is often heard in the South.
See, I think our guys (Democrats) are doing a better job than the other guys (Republicans) and the other guys think the same about us. So I won’t throw out bums of my party but would love to see some Republicans bite the dust. They feel the same way, and would love to see the Democrats bite the dust while their numbers grow. Oh yeah, and all the while Rome BURNS.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carthage_(238)
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_States)
Image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/froodmat/16722536/in/photostream/

Much Maligned Portuguese Drivers

I had a great deal of fun driving 1500 miles in Portugal the last couple of weeks. Tales of “dangerous drivers” were told when folks heard we were going there. I loved the drivers. Sure, they drove fast and got really close before passing (overtaking), and cut in quickly. They really knew what they were doing. In the time I drove there was maybe only one or two close calls, but close may just mean a driver with really good instincts and reflexes. They know lane discipline. Many drive very fast but they don’t weave around. They get on your tail until you move over. All I really had to do was keep in the lane where my speed was expected, that would be mostly the inside lane, and let the speed demons fly by.
We spent quite a bit of time on “wiggley” and narrow mountain roads. Here, defensive driving is the key to survival. The middle of the road is the favored “lane” for native car and truck drivers. With a little care, and anticipating someone in the middle of the road on every curve, we got where we were going with a minimum of “squeaks” from the passengers.
I had a ball!!! Can’t wait to get back to Italy and try those guys again. In 5 minutes of looking I couldn’t find a single photo of an accident in Portugal, so the tragic results of one in Holland must suffice. It really is tragic: hundreds of cases of Grolsch beer on the road, most smashed.
Image: http://www.johnmariani.com/archive/2005/050828/index.html

The Disease of Being Different

“Pediatric endocrinologist Maria New—of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine and Florida International University—isn't just trying to prevent lesbianism by treating pregnant women with an experimental hormone. She's also trying to prevent the births of girls who display an "abnormal" disinterest in babies, don't want to play with girls' toys or become mothers, and whose "career preferences" are deemed too "masculine."” (1) And so begins the description of an article that chronicles an idea so repugnant that one wonders if it is serious or another “Snouter” hoax (2). It is serious. Unfortunately.
In a sincere, I hope, attempt to treat a fetal genital defect, the claim is that the “cure” for lesbians from their terrible tendency to live has been discovered. The consideration of embryonic “treatment” such as this goes way beyond the bounds of experimental medicine and enters the terrible world of Nazi medicine. What the hell are the people thinking (thinking?) that take this nonsense seriously. This “theory” (I hesitate to elevate the ideas even to a small “t” theory) supposes that all lesbians start life with some androgenic “abnormality” that should be treated. Hitler thought brown eyes were evidence of genetic abnormality. Could it possibly be that a wide range of embryonic androgens is NORMAL? And that the expression of several genes produces a NORMAL range of expression? Could it be that the range of human sexuality is NORMAL, like the range of height? Could it be that being strictly heterosexual is ABNORMAL? I don’t know or care. I do care that the battle to get rid of designating gay or lesbian or bisexual or asexual people DISEASED is just now being won, and along comes this crap. Being different is NOT a disease. It’s a blessing. Celebrate diversity, don’t modulate it to extinction. I have all kinds of friends from all kinds of communities. I love them all. They are all different. So am I.
1. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/06/29/doctor-treating-pregnant-women-with-experimental-drug-to-prevent-lesbianism
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhinogradentia
Image: http://www.women24.com/LoveAndSex/Gay/Homophobia-is-damaging-lives-20090401

Just Whistling Dixie?

Two observations that are possibly related: One: I was looking at laptop specs yesterday and noticed the following: “easily upgraded to 500 gigabytes to give plenty of room for photos, music and videos” or something close to that. This computer has a 40 gig hard drive and has 18 gigs free. Two: huge numbers of people have some kind of portable device plugged into their ears for many hours a day so they can listen to “my music” whenever they want to.
When is the last time you heard someone whistling? Rephrase that: when is the last time you heard someone young whistling?
My life has a soundtrack. Music is nearly always in the background of my thoughts, and I often whistle favorite tunes. Many of my friends from long ago whistled. My father and grandfather were whistlers. Whistling keeps me company, just, I suppose, as “my music” keeps techie people company. So those critical thoughts I think from time to time when I see half the people on a subway train with iPods are misplaced. They are just listening to the soundtrack of their thoughts, like me.


Ahhh, but there is a difference. My soundtrack doesn’t need batteries. And I have to wonder about the creative force that thinking music and making music must require. Musings of an old fart, or keen observation of a creative mind? What do you think I think?

Whistling Dixie def. :http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/whistle_Dixie
Whistler: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNtMpPFM7M0
Image: http://www.picturesof.net/pages/090612-183133-718048.html

Do You Want to Live FOREVER?

Living Forever? Ask Aubrey de Grey.
Just got home from healthy shopping (yes, I want to live as long as possible, too) and heard a discussion that alluded to the theories of Aubrey de Grey (1) on the expansion of life to 1000 years or more. Not as an old fart, but rejuvenated to age of about 30, there to stay indefinitely. de Grey has a Ph.D. (not earned) for his work. He has his own foundation, first named the Methuselah Foundation, and now Sens (for Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence) where he is employed as the director and researcher into aging.
The support for Sens is very rich people who hope to live a very long time. The rest of us? We get the ‘trickle down” benefits. The really poor people? They get to take away the garbage, eat bugs and a bit of rice and kill each other in ethnic and religious conflict, like they do now. Talk about a Utopian world. An over class that lives forever and an underclass that does all the work. And way too many people for sustainability of good old earth.
Now don’t get me wrong here. I would love a few more decades of active life. Maybe even 3 more. Medicine is going that direction now, and I may be able to catch a ride. The world cannot support an entire population that lives forever. Nonsense.
So let’s keep medicine going on helping treat chronic diseases of the aging population while at the same time finding cures or preventions for all the rest of the diseases that kill us. Ooops. That leads to more population, doesn’t it? Bugger.

1. http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-vision_reflections/eternal_3237.jsp

Image: fr.toonpool.com/cartoons/methuselah%20anachro...