Good bye

Sometime soon my other blog, Triplethedad, will surpass this blog in viewership despite 1/3 the posts.  If the trends hold up, it will pass that milestone sometime today.  

This blog began as a personal experiment and chronicle of my life and as a means to keep in touch.  To the - primarily one - person who tagged along for the ride, I'm appreciative.  Triplethedad has become what this blog was always meant to be but never quite accomplished: a space to express what expertise I have and my view on the world.

I hope I never forget some of the stuff that came out of this blog, like Better Bryan X, the 100 Push Up challenge, and some of my writing posts.

Triplethedad isn't a world beater (yet).  Triplethedad does not get a lot of hits; it does not even get a bunch. But it is growing.  On Aug. 29 alone it received 111 visitors.  And at this point its a part-time job.  Not like a 15 hour per week part-time job, but a part-time job nonetheless.  It has what amounts to an editorial calender, weekly posts, occasional special features, an art department, a regularly, if not constantly, updated twitter feed, and my personal attention.

So goodbye.  I urge you to keep up with my at triplethedad.

The all too infrequent update

The all too infrequent update.

It is here.

What have I been up to?  Working.  Work usually slows this time of year but I haven’t seen any let up this year until this week really. 

Kids.  The usual.  Having a kid is hard work.  Having triplets is a little like trying to manage an Alaskan Gremlin farm in a rainstorm; during one of those periods where night lasts for weeks at a time.

Writing Wednesdays.  Or more appropriate, Editing Wednesdays, but no days start with “E.”  I think I have 5 sessions under my belt so I feel confident posting about it here.  Bonus: I feel good about the work I’m doing.  The editing goes well, if painstakingly slowly.  I’ve been editing/rewriting what I am only now realizing was a horribly unfinished product.  Like dynamited stone I started the project but needed to break out the chisel for the fine work.  Revisit.  Revise.  Remove.  Reorganize.  Shorten.  I’ve lightly redone the opening to One Bad Thing to remedy some “jumpiness” concerns from Renee.  Overall I’m happier with the semi-final product.  Whether it will ever constitute a finished product, I’m not sure.  Fiction isn’t my “work” writing style, or even the style I’m trained in, and I flounder just a bit for footholds.

I give you two options

You can read this cheery, more Christmasy story about the best hoodie every made (and made in the US!).  Bonus: the manufacturer may revolutionize the apparel industry with the help of the internet…

… or, depending on your mood …

you can read this one.  It is about false convictions and specifically murder convictions of husbands.  In at least one case the husband’s innocence shines through pretty clearly.  Less cheery.  Significantly less so.  Just in case you think false conviction rarely happens: Bonus read here.  A doozy of a tough case to figure out from California.

Gifts of Science

Got a science lover on your gift list? 

Try these 11 cheap and fun gifts.

Not much else to say today, really.

That is better

After going 1-11 in my first 12 games on level 3, this is more like it.  I am generally trying to play at a single level until I reach the .500 mark.  A little short here, but no big deal.  Basically, I wanted a new challenge.  And honestly, most of those first 11 losses came from the clock expiring; I solved for this by simply extending the clock.

I've also kept busy rewriting some of my book.  I'm trying desperately to keep at this.  I mostly do this by finding little slices of time.  I find slices whereever I can.  Whereever sounds a lot like the word weather.  Speaking of weather, I've also been busy surviving a hurricane and cleaning up the results.  One last thing about hurricanes:  they are nothing compared to nurturing three sick kids. 

All in all pretty successful.

I read the following line in a story about one man's lament at having purchased a car that was not made in the USA or by union workers:

[ The shirt I'm wearing right now was made in the Philippines. My pants are from Bangladesh ... I would never even think of buying a Japanese car. For me it's a matter of principle ... as much as I can, I choose to spend my money on products made by union workers in America ... Not only was my new Fusion assembled at Ford's plant in Hermosillo, in the Mexican state of Sonora, where there is no UAW, and auto workers earn less than $5 an hour. What's worse, almost none of the parts that went into it were sourced in the U.S. or even Canada ... ]

You have to look closely to see (I'm guessing the author didn't even see it), but its a belief that is at the core of my problems with lots of the immigration and "outsourcing" complaints.

The author complains that none of the parts were sourced in the US or even Canada.  Think about that.  Only a few short graphs earlier the author states he tries to buy American (read, U.S., unless Mexico isn't a part of the American continent, anymore), union-made cars.  He has also complained about, lets see, his shirt from the Philippines, his Bangladesh-originated pants, and his Mexico-sourced car.  And then he proceeds to say he wanted car parts sourced from "the US or even Canada." [emphasis is mine].  So, parts from US, OK; parts from Canada, OK; car from Mexico, not OK.  

He does note that wages are higher in Canada.  But if higher/highest wages are the sole important factor, doesn't that make presumably even higher U.S. wages the best?  Does the ranking for best vehicle to buy go by wages, and thus US, Canada, X, Y, Z?  No, clearly from his earlier statements it isn't a wage thing, its a unionized, country-of-origin thing. 

Mexico.  Phillippines.  Bangladesh.  Let us take a trip to Seasame Street: What do these three have that the fourth, Canada, doesn't?  Oh, right.

I started prefering black teas, so of course ...

... new links between green tea and cancer prevention come to light.

From the story:
Men with prostate cancer who drank green tea had less prostate tissue inflammation, linked to cancer growth, and other changes than those who didn't drink it, says Susanne M. Henning, PhD, RD, adjunct professor at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

''We were able to show the green tea polyphenols (antioxidants) reached the prostate tissue and they did modify inflammation of the prostate," she says. Polyphenols are antioxidants that protect against cell damage.

This is big news for a couple reasons. Despite the "pink" breast cancer push that covers, well, pretty much every square inch of everything, breast cancer rates are stable. Meanwhile, men suffer 30% more incidents of cancer than women.

Anyway, enjoy your greens!

Castling

Either I've reached a plateau, or there is a mighty big step up from level 2 to level 3.

UPDATE: hey I won tonight, so I'm now like 2-11, so that is something.

Two quick thoughts

This article isn't exactly about the downfall of feminism, but how it has changed.  But I've also read other stories (sorry, no links) about the changing face of feminism, especially its apparent splintering and lack of focus.  But doesn't that make sense?  Feminsim largely accomplished many of its immediately pressing goals - sure, you can look around and complain about this inequity, or that stupid law, or this societal belief or factor, but for the most part things are much, much better than they were in the 1950s.  My boss's boss, and even her boss, is a woman.  R is a VP at a financial firm, and until recently reported to a woman.  Maybe not perfect, but this is the real world.  Maybe it splintered because (wait for it) women aren't all the same. My wife, sister and mother share biology, but otherwise enjoy vastly different leisure activites and pasttimes.  In a time of subjegation a movement capturing all three exists.  But today, no umbrella covers all three; let alone all women.  Dressing up goals, calling it feminism and pretending to speak for all of them changes nothing.  Some women are girly girls, some tough as nails; some like purses, some like punches.

Meanwhile, another article notes that while most European countries bar people from questioning the Holocaust, or even investigating it, or denigrating Jews, its open season on Muslims.  It strikes me that this is largely the problem with such laws.  The majority enjoys protecting itself while ignoring the law equally applies to some minority.  I'm not one for bagging on on any group or minority, but if you want to make yourself look like an idiot in my eyes, bag away.  Given that the article is from Slate.com I worried it would come out in favor of such laws.  Thankfully, it argues that we either need to apply them equally, or more likely reject them entirely due to their possible abuse.

Lets Play Password!

I kind of have a thing for passwords. 

I've blogged before about "type the picture" passwords so difficult they are impossible.

So naturally I read a story about how 8068 is the least popular pin for MAC cards.  The three most popular?  1234, 1111, and 0000.  Its not that these are just bad passwords; its that researchers calculate that those three comprise approximately 20 percent of all passwords.  Find a MAC card on the street and use those three combinations and you have a one-in-five chance of guessing correctly.

Other findings: people prefer evens over odds, more passwords start with 1 than any other number, followed by 0 and 2, 8675309 is the fourth-most popular seven-digit password, and passwords with large gaps between numbers (29, 37) are disfavored.

I myself continually searched for ways to make passwords for 25 different sites easy to remember while simultaneously making them hard to guess.  Based on the study cited above, most people are at least going for that first one.  Then I read a story saying that most password advice we were given accidentally made most of our passwords hard to remember, but easy for a computer program to guess.  I'll pass along the secret to a really great password: make up some nonsense phrase containing at least one number, take the first letter of each word plus the numbers as your password ...

Phrase: I Made 10 Passwords When I Was 57.
PW: Im10PwIw57

Easy to remember because its something you came up with that can have some meaning to you (unlike the easy to figure out birthday or family name) but very hard to guess, becuase its 10 digits containing both caps and lowercase and numbers.  You can even come up with something site specific, so that every site is different...

Bank:
Phrase: I Have 10 Dollars At Continental Bank
PW: Ih10DaCb

Credit Card:
Phrase: I Have 10 Dollars At Mastercard
PW: Ih10DaM

Again, easy to remember all your logins, but hard for a computer to guess, and if one password is compromised, its hard for a hacker to get into all your accounts.  Also, you never need to follow the advice (which seems to be falling out of favor anyway) of changing your passwords every month or 6 months or whatever.  If a hacker gets your password, he'll likely use it almost immediately.  Changing your password is nothing but a hassle for you.

Antibiotics and obesity

Two new studies suggest that antibiotic use - especially in the under 6 month old set - can cause gut bacteria to rebalance. This potentially sets the stage for obesity. The discovery coincide with a rise in the use of antibiotics, including at a younger age. I've also been doing a lot of reading of emerging science on just how complicated our gut bacteria is. It plays a big and fascinating role in our life. When things go wrong with it, it can have depressing consequences.

But you know, maybe we should ban soda.

Mixed Messages

Want to know about unintended consequences and what they can do to you and society in general? Look no further than the sudden interest in the obesity crisis. From Michele Obama’s campaign for fitness and backyard gardens to NY Mayor Bloomberg’s war against soda, the government’s major push is against fat.


And its working. According to Gallup, 81 percent of us think obesity is an “extremely serious” or “very serious” social problem. All fine and good, if you ignore that while I was in high school, it was a national crisis that all the girls were developing eating disorders based on unfair media images of women.

The sad thing is, only 67 percent of us rate cigarettes as “extremely serious” or “very serious.” I say sad, because - without getting into the nitty gritty details - using cigarettes is roughly twice as bad for you as being obese. Cigarettes raises your risk of disease 4x, while being obese only raises is 2x. And being just a little overweight actually lowers your risk of dying below 1 (where 1 = average risk) while using cigarettes only occasionally actually puts you at the same risk as an obese person.

The government not only permits cigarettes, it provides manufacturers with tax breaks. Meanwhile, it also helped promote the obesity crisis by pushing low fat, high carb diets as the food choice du jour.

Having promoted both problems, it now tamps down slightly on the most dangerous, while launching an all out war on the less dangerous problem. Most likely because it has run out of ways to shame hard-core smokers, while the social stigma against being obese allows it target them without problem.

Milk Dud

Here is an article that caught my eye titled “5 ways milk doesn’t do a body good. It’s a The Week story apparently based on an opinion piece in the New York Times.

The gist is that there are reasons why humans should not drink milk, or at the very least, the downsides to such consumption. But the reasoning is a bit flawed; to say the least. I take down the five (really four and one half) arguments below. “Checks” indicate my support with the argument. “Milk dud” indicates I think the argument falls short.

First description of problem: I’m guessing they put it up top is because it’s the best. Anyway, the article notes milk is high in calories and saturated fat. The article notes that milk has the same calorie load as soda on an ounce for ounce basis. Also: Sugar. Egad! And the story notes milk consumption is linked to type 1 diabetes and that milk contains as much saturated fat as French fries.

My thoughts: Since when did calorie load become the absolute measuring stick for food health? Just about everything seems inflated when compare to carrots or kale, so should we only be eating those things? (yes, I realize comparing something to unhealthy soda is a bit different than comparing it to healthy kale). And I thought we had largely given up the saturated fat fear, but I’ll go along.

Fat, half check; diabetes risk, check; calories, half check.

Second description: A lot of people can’t drink it. Like, 50 million people and 90 percent of Asian-Americans and 75 percent of African-Americans!

My thoughts: Um, Ok. A lot of people can’t run a 4-minute mile or do a triatholon either. My son Liam and many others can’t handle penicillin-based antibiotics (that’s 20% of this family!). This argument is so irrelevant that I’m not sure what to say.

Lots of people can’t drink it! Bad argument. Milk dud.

Third description: Milk is often full of chemicals. The article notes additives have been blamed for skin conditions, acne (aren’t they the same?) and inflammation. Its source appears to be Blisstree’s Deborah Dunham, who notes that we are the only species to drink milk from another species.

My thoughts: Let’s ignoring the boogieman of “chemicals” and the fact that “chemical” doesn’t equate with bad or harmful. “Natural” products can sometimes be more harmful than “chemical” ones. Even then, lots of products are full of chemicals. Tea has photochemicals like HGCG that are very good for you. Merely saying “chemical” isn’t going to win me over. Secondly, we are also the only species with a legal system, or cars, or clothing made from the hides of other species, but I doubt you would use that argument for those items. And besides, I think the cross-species milk drinking probably has a lot to do with the fact that in nature, species tend to be hostile to one another.

Chemicals! I hate doing this based on the unreasonable fear, but half-check for at least listing potential problems, even if they are shadily sourced.

Fourth description: Many people are allergic (hey, didn’t we see something like this already?). Milk follows only peanuts as a food allergen.

My thoughts: Allergies! This is literally the end of the argument. So, are we to abandon peanuts? And once we’ve abandoned peanuts and milk, are we then going to abandon the new #1 and #2 allergens? Something has to be #1 on the list. Not going to cut it. Milk dud.

Fifth description: You don’t need milk for strong bones. Exercise and Vitamin D contribute to strong bones.

My thoughts: Yeah, but just about every food has an alternate supplier of the nutrients its supplies. Life isn’t about optimizing nutrient delivery; at least mine isn’t. Absolutely deplorable. Milk dud

The article ends on an odd note by quoting someone at Lifehacker regarding the health benefits of milk, but then says you should drink milk because you enjoy it and not for its health claims. Um, what? This despite the fact that the opening paragraph of the story noted that milk is “packed with nutrients” and helps kids grow taller.

Awaiting a ruling

Just a quick update to say that I’m excited for tomorrow’s Supreme Court ruling on the challenges to the PPACA (Obamacare). I’m a nerd, and currently a law nerd; I know.


Still, this represents one of those cases where a perfectly good and desirable outcome – everyone having healthcare – can be gotten through a means that is deleterious. There are ways to ensure universal healthcare (though maybe not obtainable politically) that would ensure its constitutionality. Instead, some individuals let an end goal we can all probably sympathize lead them down a path from which there is probably no return.

If you can be forced to purchase healthcare because it affects everyone, you can probably be forced to purchase or consume certain foods (broccoli being the one most named) because that too is used by and affects everyone, especially after healthcare is federalized. And what about voting? Elections affect everyone and national elections certainly affect interstate commerce. Can we be forced to vote? I would argue that the answer to all three (healthcare, food and voting) should be answered in the negative. Allow for the mandatory healthcare, however, and I see no line that requires exclusion of food and voting.

Maybe those two wouldn’t happen today, but without a line they could, and in all likelihood would, eventually happen.

Dalai "Quote Machine" Lama

I don't post quotes very often, because I generally find people tend to use them in place of actual, good, intelligent arguments.  As if having posted Quote X effectively wins the argument.  Fact is, you can find a smart-sounding quote to support just about anything.  They are the original sound bite.  A good quote can add finality to an argument, but it doesn't comprise an argument.  Most conflicts are much too complicted to be resolved in a quote.  Sadly, many people seem not to know this and merrily go about with it anyway.  Confirmation bias and all.

Having said that, here you go:

"I am increasingly convinced that the time has come to find a way of thinking about spirituality and ethics beyond religion altogether." - Dalai Lama

I told you so

It happened faster than I thought, but I have to say I told you so.

The board/commission that will consider banning large sodas is also making noise regarding popcorn and milk-based drinks such as milkshakes and various coffees.

First they came for cigarettes, then candy bars, then soda, then coffee, then popcorn, then ... [hey, you know what has a lot calories, pizza, burgers, hotdogs are a nutritional wasteland almost on par with soda, and also: food in general].

I for one would rather enjoy a nice unhealthy food every now and again and die 5 years earlier than not enjoy the food and die 5 years later, probably after a long, insidious disease that deprives me of every enjoyable part of life.  Life is to be enjoyed, not just lived.

Hopefully by the time pizza is illegal, assisted suicide will be legal.

UPDATE: I changed the last sentence.

Cigarettes yesterday, soda today, burgers tomorrow

When I say I support gay marriage, even though I don’t think its constitutionally protected (at least not under any sensible reading of the due process clause), its because of outcome like the following.

Several years ago people began to bang the drum for heavy regulation of cigarettes as a public health issue. Cigarettes are horrible for you, and I don’t and have never smoked. I don’t support it and frankly, if you smoke, I think you are an idiot. And in public places, the public should be able to ban smoking, but not in private places, so bars and restaurants should be able to allow smoking. But this compromise wasn’t enough, and public policy makers went after these establishments as well.

“No, no,” they said to those who worried about what this could mean down the road, “this is where it ends. Cigarettes are a unique case involving a product that is hazardous as used. It is limited to this one case.”

Except now the use of trans fats is all but illegal (and actually illegal in New York). Also in New York, salt is all but illegal. And then you get Newsweek columnist Michael Tomasky supporting New York’s ban on soda’s containing more than 16 ounces (but not in convenience stores; or grocery stores).

Ok, you say, someone out at a movie or at a McDonald’s can buy two 16 oz sodas if they want more soda.  Same price.  No a big deal. Soda really doesn’t have much in the way of a redeeming quality, so its an easy target.  Obesity is epidemic.  Obesity is clearly unhealthy. Maybe you can see the logic here. I for one can understand the thinking.  If you drink too much soda you really are an idiot, and if you wind up fat, you really only have yourself to blame.  This all makes this is a pretty unique case, correct?

Certainly, except that this is where Tomasky goes next:

“Are bacon-cheeseburgers next? As a practical matter, no. Sodas are an easy target because there is nothing, nothing, nutritionally redeeming about them. But might there come a day when the New York City Department of Health mandates that burgers be limited to, say, four ounces? Indeed there might. And why not? Eight- and ten-ounce burgers are sick things.

“As a practical matter, no.” It’s also not often practical to wage a 2-front war. But once the war on 1 front is won, it makes perfect sense to turn your eye to that other front. So once the battle over 16oz+ soda is over and people are still fat, perhaps then it will be more practical.

When you try to accomplish something good without regards to the means, this is where you can end up.  Because now there is no limiting principle.  Why stop at 4oz burgers.  An eight ounce burger (Tomasky's "sick thing") is twice as large as a four ounce burger, but a four ounce burger is twice as large as a 2 ounce one.

In fact, fried patties of ground meat are certainly one of the, if not the, least healthy ways to eat beef.  Why not ban burgers?  Practical?  Not right now.  Once we are down to 2 ounces per burger, maybe.  And plenty of people will tell you that eating beef isn't healthy anyway.  Why not just ban meat consumption.  Again, as a practical matter, it won't happen today, but I'm not worried about today, I'm worried about tomorrow.

Check out http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/03/newsweek-writer-we-have-this-liberty-bus for more likeminded commentary.

Blue Team, Rose-colored Glasses

V.P. Dick Cheney: Gay marriage is a state issue that the federal government should not get involved in = horrible policy and enemy of the "good."

President Barak Obama: Gay marriage is a state issue that the federal government should not get involved in = hip hip hooray, the "first gay president" and this Newsweek cover.

Is this partly on Newsweek?  Sure.  Is there some leeway for other parts of what they probably believe (Cheney that homosexuals are probably bad people, though his daughter is a homosexual; Obama that it is perfectly acceptable), yes.  But the policies and the way they want the issue treated is essentially the same.

If anything, I think Obama is cast in a worse light, since he was for gay marriage before he was against it and then in favor of it and supports federal intervention into such issues, whereas Cheney, as far as I know, has been consistent in his position and is generally in favor of state resolution of such issues.  Obama essentially came over to Cheney's position and got praised for it, while Cheney was demonized.  People love to talk about making politics more congenial, but its not only the demonizing that adds fuel to the fire.  This type of deification for taking a non-position that is already the position of the opposition doesn't help.

So... its not so much that Obama is great and Cheney is the devil as it is that Obama is a Democrat and Cheney is a Republican.  Got it.

The Beastie

Turns out, Oprah (in a kind of pre-"Oprah" Oprah mode) and Tipper Gore revealed the true turning point in society in 1986.  It was the Beastie Boys.

Yes, even in 1986 it was impossible to raise Christrian children in our X-rated society.  It's sad that so many of those now 30 yearish old kids have all turned to Satanism due to our society and are wildly accepting of whatever denigration is put in front of them.  So much so that children these days have no boundries or rules and essentially run wild in the street in their rag clothes, clutching knives to their chests - but only when they can't afford guns.

Kim Kardashian as the downfall of society; Or not.

Simon Doonan at Slate.com pisses and moans on and on about how as a society we are all fetished up with the Kardashians.  It isn't like in his day - or that of his parents or grandparents - when accomplishment and talent was truly respected, he says.

I've blogged so much about this type of thing, I doubt I even have to make most of arguments again.  Doonan ignores two hugely important facts:

A) every society and culture and time period has had its "cupcakes."  Way back when it was gladitorial fighting, then it was coming out parties and Queens and Kings and Barons and courts and then it became movie stars and comic books and on and on.  Most if not all of those "cupcakes" are forgotten about 30 years on, so of course today's offerings appear worse.  When you compare Bieber or Spears to only the best of what survived from decades ago, of course today is going to pale in comparison.  But was Elvis really so much more accomplished?  One of the few really insightful comments is from a reader of Victorian novels who notes that even in those works - written in the 1800s - people complain about the disrespectful youth and downfall of culture and society.

B) As more and more people learn to read and have access to television, of course the interests of those people are going to dominate the media more.  This isn't a dumbing down of America or the world or a refutation of science, its just that people who 100 years ago would have gossiped in pubs can now read, and so they read People or US or watch the Kardashians or Real Housewives.  To this extent, TV now more closely represents what the U.S. always was.  When rich, educated people have 90 percent of all the televisions you would expect the fare to be tailored to them.  It stands to reason that when they represent only 10 percent of the viewership, the programming is going to be less tailored to them.

And some of the commenters are the best.  They run about 80 agreeing, 5 percent contradicting Doonan, and 15 percent saying "don't lump me in with 'those people'"  This last group posts things like: "Kim who?" "Sports schmortz, we don't watch them."  "When people ask what us about the game we say 'is there someone playing something'" - as if not knowing about pop culture somehow makes one smarter or superior.  But its not as if one can't know both who S. Hawking or R. Dawkins are while at the same time knowing of K. Kardashian or Fletcher Cox (Eagles draft pick).  I know of all four.  I also know that - contrary to many of the commentors - there is plenty of good television programs.  And lots of it doesn't appear on PBS.  Channels like Science, Discovery and the like produce shows like "How Its Made" and shows featuring science giants like Hawking and Machu.

Some other comments I like: 80 of people are idiots (excepting, I'm guessing, the commentor and his friends, who probably don't follow such mundane things as sports and television stars)

As one of the commentors noted, there is an entire South Park episode dedicated to S. Hawking - how much more pop culture, Red Carpet, can you get?