I woke up this morning what I'd like to call "music horny." I desperately needed and was instantly satisfied by pretty much any music that hit my hear. It was a marvelous trainride, listening to "Big Spender," "Big Ten Inch Record," "Big Yellow Taxi," and "When I Kissed the Teacher" (guess when I went out of order). All were exceedingly satisfying. Even the mediocre oldies playing at Barnes and Noble got me excited. I was ready to rock, and rock I did. The emotion left for a while but now has returned. I just finished belting out Miller's Son (best Sondheim everrrrrrr) by the piano. The only problem is I have a wannabe migraine from trying to match the orientation of scans of near-symmetrical art with the originals. Ouch. At least it's fading.
So let's talk (Sc)Alito. Actually, let's dive right in and talk abortion. Lots of democrats are pissed as hell, because this guy's clearly pro-life (or at least very pro-states rights). But I'm not sure that I understand the rationale for the vast majority of pro-choicers. Pro-lifers are easy: life begins at conception; a human life is infinitely valuable; killing it is super-wrong. Great! Simple. Logical. In my opinion, utterly mistaken, but at least it's consistent. A lot of pro-choicers, on the other hand, aren't completely areligious. Many of them believe in the soul. When does the soul enter, then? Is that what defines a person? If so, who is the law to dictate when that happens? Shouldn't we just be safe and never abort anyone?
I, however, am completely radical in my thinking. I believe that a person is entirely defined by his or her nervous system. I believe a person without thoughts or feelings, who's never had any thoughts or feelings, is no person at all. Take it farther? Sure! People incapable of human emotions are less human than those who are. I've said it before, and it's exactly why I'll never be elected to any office...ever. Severely autistic people? People with other serious emotional incapabilities? Yup. Worth less than other people. I haven't been hit by a bolt of lightening yet. But if you were stranded and had to kill an cannibalize someone, and one member of your group didn't feel fear or dread or sadness...wouldn't you eat that person? I know I would. Why? Because it's not a full person.
So, yes, I believe that a fetus, until it develops a nervous system, is totally worthless. Until it has all of it's functions, it's worth less than any person, and for a while it's worth less than many animals. I know there's one major intellectual who argues for legalizing infanticide. I don't know enough about development to weigh in on this one, but I wouldn't say just from the physical form of a baby that he's wrong. But given how quickly young children pick up language and how responsive they are to others, he probably is.
So I'm a little out there...saying that all human lives are not of equal and infinite worth. Unless other pro-choicers are with me, I'm curious as to their justifications. When does a fetus become human? Is it instant or transitional? Where does the law get to come in and potentially kill people, potentially stop women from helping themselves while doing no harm to others?
EDIT [9:37 pm]: I just want to clarify that relationships with other people are an aspect of being human, and probably the only aspect where the "burden" doesn't fall on ther person in question. If someone loves someone as a person, that is a huge mark in favor of that being being human. The longer and more substantial these relationships are, the larger that mark is. This is a big reason, in my opinion, why severely disabled (and I do mean severely...I'm not talking about any folks with minor disability or autism...they have more than enough there to achieve maximum humanity) people are still much more valuable than animals or fetuses. Just by virtue of being viewed as human by others, they gain a lot of human value. OK...I'll have more foot for my mouth later and in response to any comments, I'm sure.
Monday, October 31, 2005
Saturday, October 29, 2005
SCOTUS? You don't even...
But first a correction: It was subtly brought to my attention that I may have sounded just a little bit like a pompous ass in my last post. I just want to call out the bit, " I can space out and fantasize and think until the cows come home." There really should have been a very, very strong emphasis placed on "fantasize" there.
Need I say more?
Probably not, but I'll go on for just a little bit longer. I did have a period toward the end of high school where my question of the period was, "When you're not thinking about anything else, what do you think about?" I utterly disbelieved that everyone else in the world wasn't just thinking up sexual situations sitting on airplanes or walking between classes or brushing teeth. But I seemed to be wrong: very few people do that. And what amazed me more was that people didn't have another reasonable answer like: "I think about being rich and famous!" or "I dwell on gossip" or "I think of lovely non-sexual stories" or even "I ponder the mysteries of the universe." Nobody seemed to have an answer for what they thought about when they weren't doing work or watching TV or talking to friends. Weird. If anyone has any input as to your default mindset(s), please give it!
Now on to the court. I know all the indictment hogs were excited this week, because the indictments were the news. But let's not forget that Harriet Miers resignation will have FAR more impact and import than the (admittedly totally fun) indicting. Not that she would have necessarily been confirmed, anyway. But let's keep our eyes on the prize. Who will be the next justice? The buzz is on (Sc)Alito and Luttig (whom, I'll be honest, I had never heard of before this process). But for the past two nominations the buzz has been so completely wrong it's funny. ha. Is there a shot in the dark candidate coming through? Does the white house just want to get this over with (and pick another totally qualified, unquestionably conservative white male) or do they want to keep trying for a woman or minority? Is it to their benefit or detriment to keep this going on for a long time? Well, probably not their benefit...but it might not hurt them in the long run to just keep nominating until they get what they're looking for. Or Sandra Day O'Connor actually dies, or something. That would suck for all involved.
Need I say more?
Probably not, but I'll go on for just a little bit longer. I did have a period toward the end of high school where my question of the period was, "When you're not thinking about anything else, what do you think about?" I utterly disbelieved that everyone else in the world wasn't just thinking up sexual situations sitting on airplanes or walking between classes or brushing teeth. But I seemed to be wrong: very few people do that. And what amazed me more was that people didn't have another reasonable answer like: "I think about being rich and famous!" or "I dwell on gossip" or "I think of lovely non-sexual stories" or even "I ponder the mysteries of the universe." Nobody seemed to have an answer for what they thought about when they weren't doing work or watching TV or talking to friends. Weird. If anyone has any input as to your default mindset(s), please give it!
Now on to the court. I know all the indictment hogs were excited this week, because the indictments were the news. But let's not forget that Harriet Miers resignation will have FAR more impact and import than the (admittedly totally fun) indicting. Not that she would have necessarily been confirmed, anyway. But let's keep our eyes on the prize. Who will be the next justice? The buzz is on (Sc)Alito and Luttig (whom, I'll be honest, I had never heard of before this process). But for the past two nominations the buzz has been so completely wrong it's funny. ha. Is there a shot in the dark candidate coming through? Does the white house just want to get this over with (and pick another totally qualified, unquestionably conservative white male) or do they want to keep trying for a woman or minority? Is it to their benefit or detriment to keep this going on for a long time? Well, probably not their benefit...but it might not hurt them in the long run to just keep nominating until they get what they're looking for. Or Sandra Day O'Connor actually dies, or something. That would suck for all involved.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Dueling Virtues
God, I've been using that word a lot lately: virtue. I don't even LIKE the word virtue. It's just seemed appropriate in a few contexts as of late.
So here are the dueling virtues: 1) The inability to be bored. This is evidence of a lively imagination and a creative mind. If you're truly bored (when you're generally comfortable), you're not entertaining yourself. Why would you be incapable of entertaining yourself? It sounds like you're a dull, dull person. Boo, you. 2) The inability to be happy without DOING something. This is evidence of energy, motivation and a hunger for productivity. If you can be satisfied without being productive, you're a lazy, unambitious person. Boo, you.
Can these virtues coexist? I'm definitely in the former category. If I'm physically comfortable, I can space out and fantasize and think until the cows come home (Note: A Wisconsin-born waiter on the upper west side once informed me that the cows come home around 5 pm. I suppose I don't seem so impressive anymore). My mind is a limitless resource of fun! Unfortunately for me, this also means I can spend an entire summer (or longer) pretty much doing nothing and be totally cool with that. Sure, when I actually started accomplishing goals and producing articles I felt a certain goodness I hadn't felt since I wrote my chorale to "How Doth the Little Crocodile" for music 210. But I didn't feel the conspicuous absence of that joy when it wasn't there. A couple weeks ago, Chayes told me she could never spend a summer just hanging out, reading, chilling with friends. She'd jump out of her skin! I admire and envy her need to be productive, but I have that little smile in the back of my head (I should get a biopsy on that...) because I can entertain myself longer than others. I don't know if the virtues are precise opposites, but they may be close enough that each person can have only one.
On a completely different note: the 4th floor is scary. The photography studio had an open call for models today, and every time I rode the elevator, the doors opened to reveal about 30 tall, gorgeous women anxiously milling about. When I rode up the elevator, the woman next to me (very-good-looking-but-not-too-sweet-faced 6-foot black woman) asked me "Four?" assuming that was where I was going. I probably should have taken the compliment instead of looking at her like she was crazy and saying "Uh, seven." Yeah, lady; maybe I'll write dialogue for people who look like you.
And on a sadder note (D?), my great aunt died last night. I spoke to my grandmother about a half hour ago, and she didn't sound too great. It's really hard for her. Bah. I don't like to see/hear Griz so sad.
So here are the dueling virtues: 1) The inability to be bored. This is evidence of a lively imagination and a creative mind. If you're truly bored (when you're generally comfortable), you're not entertaining yourself. Why would you be incapable of entertaining yourself? It sounds like you're a dull, dull person. Boo, you. 2) The inability to be happy without DOING something. This is evidence of energy, motivation and a hunger for productivity. If you can be satisfied without being productive, you're a lazy, unambitious person. Boo, you.
Can these virtues coexist? I'm definitely in the former category. If I'm physically comfortable, I can space out and fantasize and think until the cows come home (Note: A Wisconsin-born waiter on the upper west side once informed me that the cows come home around 5 pm. I suppose I don't seem so impressive anymore). My mind is a limitless resource of fun! Unfortunately for me, this also means I can spend an entire summer (or longer) pretty much doing nothing and be totally cool with that. Sure, when I actually started accomplishing goals and producing articles I felt a certain goodness I hadn't felt since I wrote my chorale to "How Doth the Little Crocodile" for music 210. But I didn't feel the conspicuous absence of that joy when it wasn't there. A couple weeks ago, Chayes told me she could never spend a summer just hanging out, reading, chilling with friends. She'd jump out of her skin! I admire and envy her need to be productive, but I have that little smile in the back of my head (I should get a biopsy on that...) because I can entertain myself longer than others. I don't know if the virtues are precise opposites, but they may be close enough that each person can have only one.
On a completely different note: the 4th floor is scary. The photography studio had an open call for models today, and every time I rode the elevator, the doors opened to reveal about 30 tall, gorgeous women anxiously milling about. When I rode up the elevator, the woman next to me (very-good-looking-but-not-too-sweet-faced 6-foot black woman) asked me "Four?" assuming that was where I was going. I probably should have taken the compliment instead of looking at her like she was crazy and saying "Uh, seven." Yeah, lady; maybe I'll write dialogue for people who look like you.
And on a sadder note (D?), my great aunt died last night. I spoke to my grandmother about a half hour ago, and she didn't sound too great. It's really hard for her. Bah. I don't like to see/hear Griz so sad.
Sunday, October 23, 2005
Unusual Attempt: An Opinion
OK, folks, I don't do this often. And when I do, I usually change my mind within the course of about six months, so be prepared for that. I am going to come down on one side of a debate.
The debate is this: Society has a set of values, what it believes makes a person a good and worthwhile person. These values are largely established by the white, straight, protestant, American-born men who make up the ruling cultural class of the country. I don't mean to point them out as oppressors, just as the value-setters. All the minorities (or in the case of women, just others) are, in the ideal situation, judged on the basis of their merits. Merits, as the white, straight, protestant, American-born men define them. Many people say that all the minorities, etc, are just as good at everything as the WSPAMs are, they just haven't been given as much of an opportunity to succeed. Different people seem to generally say that the others could be just as good as the WSPAMs are, but shouldn't have to be because the WSPAM values are not inherently better than the others' values. I'd like to come down on that side of the debate but push it even further. The others very well may NOT be able to be as good at the things the WSPAMs value as the WSPAMs themselves are, AND that's fine, because they shouldn't have to be.
Heaven (aka my workplace) will smite me for this, but let's talk women in science. I see no reason why the idea that the general bell curve for men has a different shape, if the same origin, as the bell curve for women. OK, I don't actually know much about how accepted the bell curve is these days. I'm pretty sure some people contest it heavily, but just the idea that more men than women might be EXTREMELY brilliant and EXTREMELY dumb seems plausible enough. And I think it's somewhat well documented that men have slightly but significantly better spacial visualization skills than women do. Of course all of this doesn't mean that the greatest scientist of all time couldn't be a woman, it just means it's less likely to be. And if women aren't making as large a contribution to science? OK! Science is very valuable (no kidding), but is it benefited by having equal contribution from all groups? Let the talented people do their thing. That's all we can ask.
And Louise Story wrote that (admittedly god-awful) piece that ran on the cover of the New York Times about more highly educated women wanting to stay home and raise kids. Criticism was showered upon her, and while much of it was valid—the survey does sound pretty crappy—it's pretty clear it wouldn't be criticized like it was if people wanted to accept its conclusion. I'd like to propose that it would be FINE for more women to stay home and raise their kids. Why? Because the value that success in a field makes a person successful holds no more weight than the value that a rewarding family life and shaping members of the next generation makes a person successful. So many people seem ingrained with the particular value that strength and money-making and expertise etc, etc are the most important things, that they seem insulted when people suggest that a whole class is less likely to do that. Any woman who really wants to win in a field and make money will do so. But I think it's likely that there is something in women's nature that makes them (us, I suppose) more likely to want to put more effort into raising kids. I think that's fine. I think that's good. I think people should be looking at this story and not see misplaced funding from universities, but rather see people pursuing one of the most honorable careers in existence, and one that will most affect the future world.
The debate is this: Society has a set of values, what it believes makes a person a good and worthwhile person. These values are largely established by the white, straight, protestant, American-born men who make up the ruling cultural class of the country. I don't mean to point them out as oppressors, just as the value-setters. All the minorities (or in the case of women, just others) are, in the ideal situation, judged on the basis of their merits. Merits, as the white, straight, protestant, American-born men define them. Many people say that all the minorities, etc, are just as good at everything as the WSPAMs are, they just haven't been given as much of an opportunity to succeed. Different people seem to generally say that the others could be just as good as the WSPAMs are, but shouldn't have to be because the WSPAM values are not inherently better than the others' values. I'd like to come down on that side of the debate but push it even further. The others very well may NOT be able to be as good at the things the WSPAMs value as the WSPAMs themselves are, AND that's fine, because they shouldn't have to be.
Heaven (aka my workplace) will smite me for this, but let's talk women in science. I see no reason why the idea that the general bell curve for men has a different shape, if the same origin, as the bell curve for women. OK, I don't actually know much about how accepted the bell curve is these days. I'm pretty sure some people contest it heavily, but just the idea that more men than women might be EXTREMELY brilliant and EXTREMELY dumb seems plausible enough. And I think it's somewhat well documented that men have slightly but significantly better spacial visualization skills than women do. Of course all of this doesn't mean that the greatest scientist of all time couldn't be a woman, it just means it's less likely to be. And if women aren't making as large a contribution to science? OK! Science is very valuable (no kidding), but is it benefited by having equal contribution from all groups? Let the talented people do their thing. That's all we can ask.
And Louise Story wrote that (admittedly god-awful) piece that ran on the cover of the New York Times about more highly educated women wanting to stay home and raise kids. Criticism was showered upon her, and while much of it was valid—the survey does sound pretty crappy—it's pretty clear it wouldn't be criticized like it was if people wanted to accept its conclusion. I'd like to propose that it would be FINE for more women to stay home and raise their kids. Why? Because the value that success in a field makes a person successful holds no more weight than the value that a rewarding family life and shaping members of the next generation makes a person successful. So many people seem ingrained with the particular value that strength and money-making and expertise etc, etc are the most important things, that they seem insulted when people suggest that a whole class is less likely to do that. Any woman who really wants to win in a field and make money will do so. But I think it's likely that there is something in women's nature that makes them (us, I suppose) more likely to want to put more effort into raising kids. I think that's fine. I think that's good. I think people should be looking at this story and not see misplaced funding from universities, but rather see people pursuing one of the most honorable careers in existence, and one that will most affect the future world.
Friday, October 21, 2005
I Have Nothing To Hide Except the Truth
Yeah, the timestamp is right. I'm starting this all of 45 seconds after I finished my last post.
So, just surfed and realized I'm on my boss's blogroll, which also features several other people from the office. I'll tell you what I'm not going to do. I'm not going to look over all of the posts that are still probably on this blog's homepage to see exactly what I've said about work before. I think I've said mostly good things...but certainly not delicately worded things. I'm not a woman of delicate words! I'm also not sure whether I should be embarrassed by how much of a diary this blog is as opposed to world commentary. I have a fair bit of philosophy scattered about, but most of that's before I started working anyway. So how about I at least throw a little bit of thought on this post, eh? Then I'll comment on the world at large. And the world at small.
Thought: I don't identify with one of the greatest theatrical character cliches, and I'm wondering if anyone does. This character is the one (more often than not, or at least a plurality of the time, a middle-aged woman) who needs everything to be perfect. Usually this hides some greater fear and then things end up not perfect and everything comes tumbling out because she's so damn DEEP her emotions can only be expressed in needing to make something perfect.
Does ANYONE identify with this woman? Please, tell me if you do! Also, tell me if you identify with the characters who express their emotions through other physical activities...not, like, rubbing the dishes really hard because their angry, but the ones who have to sew or cook or (in the greatest cliche) clean just to keep sane. These are theatrical cliches that are so tried and true that nobody looks down on them. Everyone praises them again and again. But I just fail to find these people real. Do you find them real? Or is this sort of thing just a very convenient and effective way to let emotions come through in a theatrical setting? Is this no longer a cliche but rather a trope?
I'm a big fan of tropes, and I always love to throw them in the face of cliche-criticizers. (Please note that I am not criticizing these characters because they're cliches, but rather because I don't find them effective or poignant and they make up such a huge body of theater. Plus everyone else likes them.) The low-born girl who wants to be a princess? Totally a trope. Someone slipping on a banana? Totally a trope. Extrapolate. When I saw The Beach with my mom, she thought it was a Lottery ripoff. I disagree. I think that story's gone from brilliant original to uncriticizable trope in 55 years flat. We now take these things not to have merit in themselves, but to be wonderful starting points that put us in a mindset that will direct the way we perceive th rest of the work. I love these things.
That was it for the observation. Really, please tell me how you react to these "can't stop cleaning, lest I face how I feel"-"must be perfect or my world will go to hell" characters.
World at Large: It precesses and nutates. What a crazy world! Oh, and Harrient Miers hasn't got a snowball's chance in the Amish country (too obscure?). They sent back her questionnaire with a big "Redo" on it. I haven't had that happen to me since 6th grade, and that was just because my handwriting was illegible. The Daily Show had a pretty funny spoof about that last night ("Maybe she shouldn't have answered question 6, in what states are you certified to practice law?, with 'Leahy is gea-hy!'") The conspiracy theorist in me says that this whole nomination was a Karl Rove plot to have one nominee get struck down so Bush would have a much easier time sneaking an arch-conservative in for round two. I mean, it would work! I think. And if I were Karl Rove, that's what I'd do. I'd do a lot of other things, too. And then I'd go to the innermost circle of hell. Yup.
World at Small: I've been redoing Paul Cameron's research. In case you didn't click the link, Paul Cameron is this hardcore anti-gay researcher who was kicked out of the American Psychological Association. If you've ever heard the statistic "gay parents are 11 times more likely than straight parents to abuse their children," that's his handiwork. So, anyway, I spoke to him for an hour last week, and I've spent a good portion of this week trying to figure out how I can analyze the data he analyzed for his most recent study. So I did a bunch of that today and found some interesting stuff. I would tell you more, but I want to keep your breath bated so you'll read the article when it comes out.
And for those of you who've been wondering (Chris A, George B and any others), the site hasn't launched yet. I'll keep you updated, I promise.
So, just surfed and realized I'm on my boss's blogroll, which also features several other people from the office. I'll tell you what I'm not going to do. I'm not going to look over all of the posts that are still probably on this blog's homepage to see exactly what I've said about work before. I think I've said mostly good things...but certainly not delicately worded things. I'm not a woman of delicate words! I'm also not sure whether I should be embarrassed by how much of a diary this blog is as opposed to world commentary. I have a fair bit of philosophy scattered about, but most of that's before I started working anyway. So how about I at least throw a little bit of thought on this post, eh? Then I'll comment on the world at large. And the world at small.
Thought: I don't identify with one of the greatest theatrical character cliches, and I'm wondering if anyone does. This character is the one (more often than not, or at least a plurality of the time, a middle-aged woman) who needs everything to be perfect. Usually this hides some greater fear and then things end up not perfect and everything comes tumbling out because she's so damn DEEP her emotions can only be expressed in needing to make something perfect.
Does ANYONE identify with this woman? Please, tell me if you do! Also, tell me if you identify with the characters who express their emotions through other physical activities...not, like, rubbing the dishes really hard because their angry, but the ones who have to sew or cook or (in the greatest cliche) clean just to keep sane. These are theatrical cliches that are so tried and true that nobody looks down on them. Everyone praises them again and again. But I just fail to find these people real. Do you find them real? Or is this sort of thing just a very convenient and effective way to let emotions come through in a theatrical setting? Is this no longer a cliche but rather a trope?
I'm a big fan of tropes, and I always love to throw them in the face of cliche-criticizers. (Please note that I am not criticizing these characters because they're cliches, but rather because I don't find them effective or poignant and they make up such a huge body of theater. Plus everyone else likes them.) The low-born girl who wants to be a princess? Totally a trope. Someone slipping on a banana? Totally a trope. Extrapolate. When I saw The Beach with my mom, she thought it was a Lottery ripoff. I disagree. I think that story's gone from brilliant original to uncriticizable trope in 55 years flat. We now take these things not to have merit in themselves, but to be wonderful starting points that put us in a mindset that will direct the way we perceive th rest of the work. I love these things.
That was it for the observation. Really, please tell me how you react to these "can't stop cleaning, lest I face how I feel"-"must be perfect or my world will go to hell" characters.
World at Large: It precesses and nutates. What a crazy world! Oh, and Harrient Miers hasn't got a snowball's chance in the Amish country (too obscure?). They sent back her questionnaire with a big "Redo" on it. I haven't had that happen to me since 6th grade, and that was just because my handwriting was illegible. The Daily Show had a pretty funny spoof about that last night ("Maybe she shouldn't have answered question 6, in what states are you certified to practice law?, with 'Leahy is gea-hy!'") The conspiracy theorist in me says that this whole nomination was a Karl Rove plot to have one nominee get struck down so Bush would have a much easier time sneaking an arch-conservative in for round two. I mean, it would work! I think. And if I were Karl Rove, that's what I'd do. I'd do a lot of other things, too. And then I'd go to the innermost circle of hell. Yup.
World at Small: I've been redoing Paul Cameron's research. In case you didn't click the link, Paul Cameron is this hardcore anti-gay researcher who was kicked out of the American Psychological Association. If you've ever heard the statistic "gay parents are 11 times more likely than straight parents to abuse their children," that's his handiwork. So, anyway, I spoke to him for an hour last week, and I've spent a good portion of this week trying to figure out how I can analyze the data he analyzed for his most recent study. So I did a bunch of that today and found some interesting stuff. I would tell you more, but I want to keep your breath bated so you'll read the article when it comes out.
And for those of you who've been wondering (Chris A, George B and any others), the site hasn't launched yet. I'll keep you updated, I promise.
Quick Anecdote
I was on the 1 today, heading up to Columbia, and the woman sitting next to me was clearly studying to take her citizenship test. She was reading a small book that had different questions about US history and government in English, phonetic spelling of the English and then Spanish. I was looking over her shoulder, perhaps rudely reading the questions. After a few minutes she closed the book and revealed the title on the cover: Poetry For The Soul. OK, she had one book inside another, but the hilarity and profundity that washed over me in that moment. Well, you can only imagine.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
From the Trenches
Work's been a bit slow today—I'm mostly just waiting to hear back from researchers—so I thought I'd take a moment to write to you, darlings of my readership. It's Yom Kippur, so I'm fasting, and bloody hell am I hungry. I don't know why I do this...really I don't. I'm so generally unobservant, it's absurd. I know, it's a fairly simple way for me to give a nod to my ancestry without formally disrupting my life. I do the same thing by eating crap for a week during passover. At least that doesn't make me feel half-dead (although it does leave me craving pasta). Ooh, did I say pasta? I could totally use some Pollo e Pasta Veneziana right about now. Or some Chinese food. Anything saucy and spicey.
Alexandria laughed at me a couple of years ago when she saw me fasting. I was doing exactly what I'm doing now: whining my hungry little head off. Apparently in Catholicism (gee, what a surprise) you're not supposed to kvetch when you fast. You just hold it in and don't let anyone see your suffering. Well, good for you, Catholics. I don't think you're SUPPOSED to bitch and moan in Judaism either, but apparently the motivation for fasting is so you can concentrate on your prayers and studies. What kind of silly method is that? If you want me to concentrate, you put a tube of Ritz or Pringles and a bottle of Coke in front of me. That way, my needs are constantly satisfied and I can move onto the next level of the pyramid. This way, I'm totally unproductive and grumpy. I feel like I'm about to fall asleep (woooo, seeing auras) and I've been totally incoherent on the phone with scientists and taken crappy notes. Well, less than two hours until break fast at the Roths. Then all will be well.
The study I started researching today is pretty cool, though. Researchers took a group of 18 straight men and 18 straight women. They sat each person alone in a room with a comfortable chair, and showed them 7 two-minute segments of porn. There was an oral and penetrative scene of heterosexual sex, gay male sex and lesbian sex. That makes six. The seventh scene was two minutes of bonobo sex. Hot, hetero, monkey-on-monkey action. The researchers measured physical arousal with the usual methods (penis circumfrence, vaginal pulses), and allowed the subjects to report subjective arousal as they watched the porn. So, the men behaved as men do: they said they only got off on women, and their bodies concurred. Men had no arousal in response to the monkeys, insignificant arousal in response to the gay male scenes and substantial arousal in response to the straight and lesbian scenes. The women reported the opposite: they said they were aroused only by the straight scenes. Their bodies told of a slightly different picture. In fact the women were equally aroused by all the human scenes and, most bizarrely, were aroused less so but still significantly by the bonobo scenes. Yup. They totally got off on the monkeys. I mean, it's also pretty interesting to note that straight women were equally aroused by both sexes engaging in sexual activity. In previous studies, the author noted, she found that lesbians were equally aroused by lesbian porn and gay male porn. So it's not just that straight women are too scared to verbalize their lesbian tendencies. The researcher thinks that women are just turned on by any activity they recognize as sex. You know, from my ever-valuable "field-observations," I'd have to agree.
Alexandria laughed at me a couple of years ago when she saw me fasting. I was doing exactly what I'm doing now: whining my hungry little head off. Apparently in Catholicism (gee, what a surprise) you're not supposed to kvetch when you fast. You just hold it in and don't let anyone see your suffering. Well, good for you, Catholics. I don't think you're SUPPOSED to bitch and moan in Judaism either, but apparently the motivation for fasting is so you can concentrate on your prayers and studies. What kind of silly method is that? If you want me to concentrate, you put a tube of Ritz or Pringles and a bottle of Coke in front of me. That way, my needs are constantly satisfied and I can move onto the next level of the pyramid. This way, I'm totally unproductive and grumpy. I feel like I'm about to fall asleep (woooo, seeing auras) and I've been totally incoherent on the phone with scientists and taken crappy notes. Well, less than two hours until break fast at the Roths. Then all will be well.
The study I started researching today is pretty cool, though. Researchers took a group of 18 straight men and 18 straight women. They sat each person alone in a room with a comfortable chair, and showed them 7 two-minute segments of porn. There was an oral and penetrative scene of heterosexual sex, gay male sex and lesbian sex. That makes six. The seventh scene was two minutes of bonobo sex. Hot, hetero, monkey-on-monkey action. The researchers measured physical arousal with the usual methods (penis circumfrence, vaginal pulses), and allowed the subjects to report subjective arousal as they watched the porn. So, the men behaved as men do: they said they only got off on women, and their bodies concurred. Men had no arousal in response to the monkeys, insignificant arousal in response to the gay male scenes and substantial arousal in response to the straight and lesbian scenes. The women reported the opposite: they said they were aroused only by the straight scenes. Their bodies told of a slightly different picture. In fact the women were equally aroused by all the human scenes and, most bizarrely, were aroused less so but still significantly by the bonobo scenes. Yup. They totally got off on the monkeys. I mean, it's also pretty interesting to note that straight women were equally aroused by both sexes engaging in sexual activity. In previous studies, the author noted, she found that lesbians were equally aroused by lesbian porn and gay male porn. So it's not just that straight women are too scared to verbalize their lesbian tendencies. The researcher thinks that women are just turned on by any activity they recognize as sex. You know, from my ever-valuable "field-observations," I'd have to agree.
Sunday, October 09, 2005
No Show
Well, Friday has come and gone and still no soft launch. The website exists...there's a logo there to prove it, but the schmucks at godaddy or wherever have not yet loaded our content. Bitches, them all. Did I mention that this week I seriously improved my mad html skillz? Now I can do crazy things like Gμν=8πTμν without buttons. Yup, that was done by hand. Strange that the underline doesn't align, though. Anyway...
I've realized that by working I'm now just generally thinking less deeply than I once was. Science is great, but so little of it is philosophy. I mean, there's plenty of philosophy of science—no denying that—but your day to day discoveries? Just hypothesize and grind. And even when something is conceptually and not just pragmatically interesting—like this article I'm writing for Tuesday on how strange quarks dipping in and out of existence may account for 5% of a proton's magnetism—does that really, really provide much food for thought? Some, sure, but it doesn't BEG for you to ponder it. Furthermore, I'm not getting paid to think about this stuff. (I mean, I'm not really getting paid at all, but my travel stipend isn't for this stuff.) My job is just to research, understand, and present.
Is there any place I can find a job to actually ponder? I mean, I could get my Ph.D. in philosophy, I suppose, but you have to be GREAT to make a dent there, and I'd have to study a lot of philosophy I'm either totally frustrated by (helloooo, ethics) or don't really care about (helloooo, politics). I know going to law school seems like a strange idea after I just said that political philosophy is the last thing in the world (of philosophy) I want to study. Still, there might be a lot to think about there. Perhaps there's an advantage to studying something that's totally man-made and is admittedly man-made. Perhaps attempting to be, in some way, a purest in that environment could be really productive. More likely, it will just lead to tons of contradictions, as it does in every other field.
I find myself in an ethics bind (not an ethical bind, a bind about the study of ethics). I think that ethics are man-made. I don't think there's any objective code of ethics sitting out there beyond us. Ethics is fully human, invented by people, for people. I know we have a natural instinct to be ethical, but I don't think that points to any greater ethic outside of us. So I think that ethics is fundamentally descriptive of this feeling; not prescriptive from above/within/whatever. Point one. Point two: I have a personal feeling of what's right and wrong. We'll let it be, for now, that this may or may not be a consistent system, and if it is consistent, it may not be based on a coherent set of first principles. We'll just say that I think I generally know what people should do and why they should do it. Under what right do I have to impose this on other people? I know I spent a post blabbering about this before. But still. I care. My theories are generally based on utilitarian principles...perhaps not completely, but I generally think increasing others' well-being is a good thing and decreasing it is a bad thing.
Is point two even consistent with point one? Can I admit that I think ethics is descriptive and still believe that it has something to it? I don't think this human impulse reveals some greater truth. I just want people to be happy. Does this desire carry any weight if I believe it's internal?
Side/end note: Some people think that nobody's really good because when people do things for others, they're doing it for selfish reasons. I call someone who gains self-satisfaction by doing good things for other people "a good person." People who don't get off doing good for others are less good people. People who get off doing things that hurt other people are sadists. I think sadists who engage in healthy sadistic sex are kinda weird. (No, no, more than that.) This "health" implies they have a masochist with them who enjoys the pain. If I were a sadist (deidle deedle deidle...), I think I'd only want to watch people who didn't like to be in pain. I mean, are the screams enough if the other person is on the verge of orgasm? I'd be like, "No, don't cum! Writhe in agony! You hate this!" Kudos to the imagination of the folks who engage in consensual sadism...but aren't they always left unsatisfied?
Oh, the associations never cease...
I've realized that by working I'm now just generally thinking less deeply than I once was. Science is great, but so little of it is philosophy. I mean, there's plenty of philosophy of science—no denying that—but your day to day discoveries? Just hypothesize and grind. And even when something is conceptually and not just pragmatically interesting—like this article I'm writing for Tuesday on how strange quarks dipping in and out of existence may account for 5% of a proton's magnetism—does that really, really provide much food for thought? Some, sure, but it doesn't BEG for you to ponder it. Furthermore, I'm not getting paid to think about this stuff. (I mean, I'm not really getting paid at all, but my travel stipend isn't for this stuff.) My job is just to research, understand, and present.
Is there any place I can find a job to actually ponder? I mean, I could get my Ph.D. in philosophy, I suppose, but you have to be GREAT to make a dent there, and I'd have to study a lot of philosophy I'm either totally frustrated by (helloooo, ethics) or don't really care about (helloooo, politics). I know going to law school seems like a strange idea after I just said that political philosophy is the last thing in the world (of philosophy) I want to study. Still, there might be a lot to think about there. Perhaps there's an advantage to studying something that's totally man-made and is admittedly man-made. Perhaps attempting to be, in some way, a purest in that environment could be really productive. More likely, it will just lead to tons of contradictions, as it does in every other field.
I find myself in an ethics bind (not an ethical bind, a bind about the study of ethics). I think that ethics are man-made. I don't think there's any objective code of ethics sitting out there beyond us. Ethics is fully human, invented by people, for people. I know we have a natural instinct to be ethical, but I don't think that points to any greater ethic outside of us. So I think that ethics is fundamentally descriptive of this feeling; not prescriptive from above/within/whatever. Point one. Point two: I have a personal feeling of what's right and wrong. We'll let it be, for now, that this may or may not be a consistent system, and if it is consistent, it may not be based on a coherent set of first principles. We'll just say that I think I generally know what people should do and why they should do it. Under what right do I have to impose this on other people? I know I spent a post blabbering about this before. But still. I care. My theories are generally based on utilitarian principles...perhaps not completely, but I generally think increasing others' well-being is a good thing and decreasing it is a bad thing.
Is point two even consistent with point one? Can I admit that I think ethics is descriptive and still believe that it has something to it? I don't think this human impulse reveals some greater truth. I just want people to be happy. Does this desire carry any weight if I believe it's internal?
Side/end note: Some people think that nobody's really good because when people do things for others, they're doing it for selfish reasons. I call someone who gains self-satisfaction by doing good things for other people "a good person." People who don't get off doing good for others are less good people. People who get off doing things that hurt other people are sadists. I think sadists who engage in healthy sadistic sex are kinda weird. (No, no, more than that.) This "health" implies they have a masochist with them who enjoys the pain. If I were a sadist (deidle deedle deidle...), I think I'd only want to watch people who didn't like to be in pain. I mean, are the screams enough if the other person is on the verge of orgasm? I'd be like, "No, don't cum! Writhe in agony! You hate this!" Kudos to the imagination of the folks who engage in consensual sadism...but aren't they always left unsatisfied?
Oh, the associations never cease...
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Flaccid Ejaculation?
It's coming on Friday...the soft launch!
My four articles are edited and ready to run. Today I gathered images for our photography section and found out about getting rights for them. Tomorrow we create a soft launch invitation list...will YOU be on the list? If you're reading this, you're almost certainly on the list of people I will try to give access to, although it's possible the list will be more limited than I'm expecting. I mean, I plan on trying to get about 40 of my closest friends and relatives into our beta testing group.
There are also a few sciencey events that I'll be going to for the group...I'll watch the Igs tomorrow (hopefully with Adam), in case anyone wants me to report on them, then I'll go to this Sloan science film festival this weekend, and Monday I'll go to Frans de Waals talk on primates and personality. And I think tomorrow I'm going to buy this book on bioethics...it, for one, chronicles the development of a fetus in terms of the different capabilities it has at every point from conception to birth. I totally need that. Also, I've decided I really want to write a focus piece on all of those studies that claim that there's higher abuse in households with same sex parents...and the studies that specifically say there's not. I mean, of course I'm wildly biased on this one, but I don't think that means I can't do objective reporting. Like, painful, "tell me the precise methods you used every step of the way...yes, both of you" reporting. I can be irritatingly objective when I want to be.
OK, Daily Show time...but I'll talk about Dan Savage's new book soon. I just finished it and I'm kind of blown away.
My four articles are edited and ready to run. Today I gathered images for our photography section and found out about getting rights for them. Tomorrow we create a soft launch invitation list...will YOU be on the list? If you're reading this, you're almost certainly on the list of people I will try to give access to, although it's possible the list will be more limited than I'm expecting. I mean, I plan on trying to get about 40 of my closest friends and relatives into our beta testing group.
There are also a few sciencey events that I'll be going to for the group...I'll watch the Igs tomorrow (hopefully with Adam), in case anyone wants me to report on them, then I'll go to this Sloan science film festival this weekend, and Monday I'll go to Frans de Waals talk on primates and personality. And I think tomorrow I'm going to buy this book on bioethics...it, for one, chronicles the development of a fetus in terms of the different capabilities it has at every point from conception to birth. I totally need that. Also, I've decided I really want to write a focus piece on all of those studies that claim that there's higher abuse in households with same sex parents...and the studies that specifically say there's not. I mean, of course I'm wildly biased on this one, but I don't think that means I can't do objective reporting. Like, painful, "tell me the precise methods you used every step of the way...yes, both of you" reporting. I can be irritatingly objective when I want to be.
OK, Daily Show time...but I'll talk about Dan Savage's new book soon. I just finished it and I'm kind of blown away.
Saturday, October 01, 2005
Good Times, Great Oldies
Work has drastically improved since the beginning of last week. I've written three articles of increasing quality, in my estimation. I'm starting to remember what I liked about this in the first place: getting crash courses on little bits of science here and there. This week I've learned so much about the biological bases of alcoholism and addiction (Wednesday, genetics of addiction), why some diseases are a bitch to cure (Thursday, the open genome of bacteria), why it's so awkward when I hang out with Cat and Vaughan at the same time (Friday, mimicry as a social psychological phenomenon) and how to build the best sandcastle possible (researching for Monday, a revised model in granular physics). I'd be happy to tell you about any of them that you're interested in, but you'll also soon be able to see them on the site; we soft launch on Monday! Social stuff has also gotten easier...it's not like I have friends there, but I don't feel like I'm the weird chick on the outside anymore. I'm also happy to be sitting next to the two designers now...they're good guys.
This weekend I went up to New Haven. Last night was really, really nice. I trained in and met Jen at Woolsey hall for a performance of the Mahler 2. It's a pretty frickin' awesome piece. Inventive, yet listenable. Beautiful, yet not saccharine. Passionate, yet not slutty. Then I chatted with some people, walked with Jen for a bit and met Caleb at Koffee Too? On my way to K2 I called Vaughan to arrange lunch for tomorrow, he said he was busy, so I said "OK, later." I realized a few minutes later I probably should have explicitly asked him to call me. The Pounder (that's Caleb: Caleb = K-lb = K-pound = Pounder) and I took a walk over to the basement of the Becton center to explore, where Vaughan miraculously called me back. Caleb and I played music on a sculpture for a while then caught the last ten minutes of the new Charlie and the Chocolate Factory with Chinese subtitles in Davies Auditorium. We then met up with Caleb's friends, Nat and Kit, as well as Kit's roommates at Rudy's. This was, unforgivably, my first time at Rudy's, and I was very pleased with the place. The fries were awesome, as promised, and we found a quiet area to chill and play asshole. I'm not a card game fan, nor a drinking game fan, but the game was mindless enough and the attitude was chill enough that I had a really nice time. That, and I won the first two games. We left and played a bit of fusball in the Branford basement with Nat and Kit (me with Nat, Caleb and Kit...they kicked our asses). After the game Nat and Kit instantly fell into each others arms and started making out. Awkward sidelong glance between me and Caleb. I stopped keeping eye contact in those situations; I feel too guilty. Then we all parted and Caleb and I sat in our respective beds chatting for a while and then went to sleep at about 3 am.
Today was a little less magical...the computer crashed in the debate tournament, so Vaughan wouldn't talk to me at all, or even tell me he wouldn't be able to make our lunch. So Caleb and I killed a lot of time in less-comfortable-than-I-would-have-liked silence waiting to get in touch with him. I felt pretty bad for dragging Caleb around while he probably could have been making better use of his time (although he later said he probably would have just slept) and fairly pissed at Vaughan for not being considerate enough to step out for 30 seconds and give us a time frame. We got lunch at Ivy Noodle (I was famished, not having had a square meal in about 25 hours) and went back to Caleb's, where I read Dan Savage's new book and Caleb read for a bit then gleefully (he's got a very adorable glee) jumped into bed, cuddled up in the covers and napped. When he got up we crashed the debate venue and managed to catch Vaughan for a 30 minute chat. So the two of them met...a truly important step in the crashing of the worlds. Caleb afterwards commented that Vaughan was a lot like me. I mentioned that yeah, we had startingly similar interests, but he said it was more than that, we had a similar way of talking and everything. I had almost forgotten. I'll get V's reaction to Caleb soon. Afterwards, Caleb and I went back to his room, chatted for about 15 minutes and then parted ways. He went to the dining hall, and I went to grab a light dinner with Jen and Andrew Korn. Lovely conversation ensued and continued for my car ride home with Jen.
Now I am home, chilling, reading, enjoying a little bit of time to myself with my parents out for the weekend. It's been a while since I've had this kind of simple privacy. I miss it.
Thanks for reading if you made it to the end. Tomorrow: attempt to see the adult version of Spelling Bee with Greg.
This weekend I went up to New Haven. Last night was really, really nice. I trained in and met Jen at Woolsey hall for a performance of the Mahler 2. It's a pretty frickin' awesome piece. Inventive, yet listenable. Beautiful, yet not saccharine. Passionate, yet not slutty. Then I chatted with some people, walked with Jen for a bit and met Caleb at Koffee Too? On my way to K2 I called Vaughan to arrange lunch for tomorrow, he said he was busy, so I said "OK, later." I realized a few minutes later I probably should have explicitly asked him to call me. The Pounder (that's Caleb: Caleb = K-lb = K-pound = Pounder) and I took a walk over to the basement of the Becton center to explore, where Vaughan miraculously called me back. Caleb and I played music on a sculpture for a while then caught the last ten minutes of the new Charlie and the Chocolate Factory with Chinese subtitles in Davies Auditorium. We then met up with Caleb's friends, Nat and Kit, as well as Kit's roommates at Rudy's. This was, unforgivably, my first time at Rudy's, and I was very pleased with the place. The fries were awesome, as promised, and we found a quiet area to chill and play asshole. I'm not a card game fan, nor a drinking game fan, but the game was mindless enough and the attitude was chill enough that I had a really nice time. That, and I won the first two games. We left and played a bit of fusball in the Branford basement with Nat and Kit (me with Nat, Caleb and Kit...they kicked our asses). After the game Nat and Kit instantly fell into each others arms and started making out. Awkward sidelong glance between me and Caleb. I stopped keeping eye contact in those situations; I feel too guilty. Then we all parted and Caleb and I sat in our respective beds chatting for a while and then went to sleep at about 3 am.
Today was a little less magical...the computer crashed in the debate tournament, so Vaughan wouldn't talk to me at all, or even tell me he wouldn't be able to make our lunch. So Caleb and I killed a lot of time in less-comfortable-than-I-would-have-liked silence waiting to get in touch with him. I felt pretty bad for dragging Caleb around while he probably could have been making better use of his time (although he later said he probably would have just slept) and fairly pissed at Vaughan for not being considerate enough to step out for 30 seconds and give us a time frame. We got lunch at Ivy Noodle (I was famished, not having had a square meal in about 25 hours) and went back to Caleb's, where I read Dan Savage's new book and Caleb read for a bit then gleefully (he's got a very adorable glee) jumped into bed, cuddled up in the covers and napped. When he got up we crashed the debate venue and managed to catch Vaughan for a 30 minute chat. So the two of them met...a truly important step in the crashing of the worlds. Caleb afterwards commented that Vaughan was a lot like me. I mentioned that yeah, we had startingly similar interests, but he said it was more than that, we had a similar way of talking and everything. I had almost forgotten. I'll get V's reaction to Caleb soon. Afterwards, Caleb and I went back to his room, chatted for about 15 minutes and then parted ways. He went to the dining hall, and I went to grab a light dinner with Jen and Andrew Korn. Lovely conversation ensued and continued for my car ride home with Jen.
Now I am home, chilling, reading, enjoying a little bit of time to myself with my parents out for the weekend. It's been a while since I've had this kind of simple privacy. I miss it.
Thanks for reading if you made it to the end. Tomorrow: attempt to see the adult version of Spelling Bee with Greg.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)