tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-117387532024-03-14T00:34:38.560-07:00Musings From A MuserWritten by ManateesA Muserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09463588248115349984noreply@blogger.comBlogger180125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11738753.post-30367036866586502242018-08-28T23:14:00.000-07:002018-08-28T23:14:44.924-07:00The Failure of RelationshipsI have been having a lot of conversations with people lately about the failure of their last relationship. (Either a lot of relationships have been ending lately, or I'm just hanging out with a lot of people who are at key transitions in their life. Since I've been in a key transition for a couple years now, it's quite possibly the latter.)
They all describe how wonderful their relationships were, and how long they lasted (sometimes as long as 25 years, sometimes as short as 6 months), and what they think are the reasons it ended. ("She cheated." "We grew apart." "He was abusive." "There wasn't enough sex." "He only wanted sex.")
It's always sad when a relationship ends. Because it's hard for most people to be alone (and even those who can handle being alone still crave human contact). Because so much time and energy went into creating and sustaining the relationship for as long as it lasted. Because life was just more beautiful and satisfying when you were in love.
We've all heard it. Most of us have lived it. But there's something more going on here than just the classic, cliche tales of breakups.
In talking to these people, I asked them about how they got along with that person now that the relationship had "ended." And while there were a few who truly had no more contact with their ex, most had some form of continuing contact. Some even said that now that they had divorced/separated/broken-up, they got along better and were good friends. Those with children in common often said that they still collaborated in raising the kids, and met regularly to talk about those remaining ties.
And it occurred to me that their relationships didn't "fail." They didn't "end." The relationships had just...changed.
They still had a "relationship" with their ex. It just wasn't the same relationship that they had before.
And now, instead of looking at those relationships as "failed," I started to see them as part of the natural order of things.
Because everything changes. *Everything*.
The weather changes. The seasons change every year. The world changes in geologic time. The stars themselves change in "galactic" time.
And we change. Our moods, our experiences, our wants and desires. We change all the time. And so must our relationships.
To think that a relationship is a static thing that will forever remain the same is just silly, once you think about it. I mean, all of us know that relationships take some work, and that to stay together sometimes takes *hard* work. But does separating mean that the relationship "failed?" Or just that it ran it's course - it had its time in the sun and then changed, moved on.
It takes two to make a relationship work. It only takes one to change it. The amazing thing isn't how many relationships "end" (or change) - it's how many happen at all, how two people can make something that must inevitably change last as long as we do.
It's a normal human emotion to fear change. Change is uncertainty. Uncertainty causes fear. We fear what we cannot control, invent stories and fictions to explain that which we neither control nor understand. But change happens whether we want it to or not. Constantly. All around us.
Everything changes.
But...even though a relationship changes, it should take nothing away from the fact that it happened. It existed for a time. It was real. And it was good.
That should be a good memory. Not a bad one.
We should revel in the goodness of our current relationships. Appreciate them. Because they are ephemeral. They will change. And then we will have new relationships in which to revel and appreciate.A Muserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09463588248115349984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11738753.post-70113078948434825472008-07-23T20:37:00.000-07:002008-07-23T21:55:45.293-07:00The New LarmarckismOne of the most remarkable developments in biology in years is the discovery of epigenetics. A more technical discussion is down below, but let me start with an analogy.<br /><br />DNA has often been described using a recipe metaphor. The recipe is just some words on a piece of paper, but describes how to combine ingredients in the environment to produce a dish.<br /><br />A chocolate cake is quite different in looks and taste to the ingredients that go into it. And we all know that the quality of the ingredients, as well as the skill of the cook combining them, can dramatically influence how that cake turns out. Even though the recipe is exactly the same.<br /><br />It's the expression of the recipe that makes the difference between good cake and OHMYGODITSDELICIOUS! cake. <br /><br />This last idea is Epigenetics. That is isn't just our DNA (recipe) that determines how we will develop. How that DNA is read and expressed has just as much to do with the outcome as the basic recipe does.<br /><br />Which means that what you eat, drink, smoke, huff, shoot, and accidentally expose yourself to can affect not just your body for that hour, day, or week, but how your cells will develop from then on. And more importantly, it can affect how your kids will develop as well, long after the exposure.<br /><br />(For you Intelligent Design advocates out there, if you think the recipe analogy makes the case for an Intelligent Chef being necessary for the meal, I'm afraid you are once again confusing scintillating metaphor for scientific method. They are not the same. One is a useful method for predicting outcomes, the other is just words that tell a story. Sound familiar?)<br /><br /><h3>More Technically...</h3><br /><blockquote>[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics">Wikipedia</a>] ...the term epigenetics refers to changes in gene expression that are stable between cell divisions, and sometimes between generations, but do not involve changes in the underlying DNA sequence of the organism.[1] The idea is that environmental factors can cause an organism's genes to behave (or "express themselves") differently, even though the genes themselves don't change.</blockquote>This is huge.<br /><br />Your environment (which includes what you eat and breathe, as well as what you *do*, like exercise, read, think) can cause a change in gene expression. This concept has been around a couple decades, and is being exploited in all kinds of genetic therapy ideas (viral, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MicroRNA">miRNA</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SiRNA">siRNA</a>). <br /><br />What's new and interesting is that these changes can be permanent. They can stick around through cell replication, so all new cells of that type now behave differently in the same way. This is epigenetics.<br /><br />And what's truly new and remarkable is that it has been shown that these permanent markers that change gene expression can also modify germ cells (sperm, and probably eggs) in the same way. Meaning that what happens to you in your environment can not only change <span style="font-weight:bold;">you</span>, <span style="font-style:italic;">it can change the genetic legacy you pass on to your children!</span><br /><br />Early indications are that many forms of cancer, schizophrenia (and other mental health failures), obesity may be caused not only from your environment, but could have been caused by experiences of your parents or grandparents.[<a href="http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19926641.500-rewriting-darwin-the-new-nongenetic-inheritance.html">link</a> - requires subscription]<br /><br />For example, if Mom smoked before getting pregnant, but quit and never smoked again once she had you, your genetic expression will still be different than if she had never smoked at all.<br /><br />This is just the teeny, weeny beginning of a whole new understanding of how evolution and genetic expression works. Soon we will not only be able to cure our own genetic disorders, we can make these fixes permanent and inheritable. A further understanding will allow actual improvements to your existing genetic recipe. And these can be passed along to the next generation as well. <br /><br />Have you ever thought, "If I could change anything about myself, what would it be?"<br /><br />Start making your wish list.A Muserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09463588248115349984noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11738753.post-74830588611361972862008-07-15T23:40:00.000-07:002008-07-23T21:54:42.967-07:00Tortured Dreams"Wake up Kalid." <br /><br />I heard my name from a great distance. I tried to move, but could not. I tried to open my eyes, and succeeded - somewhat. Progress. The light was painful, but I could make out a man with a beard and an umamah. Another prisoner?<br /><br />"Keef halak, Kalid," I heard. <span style="font-style:italic;">How are you?</span> I realized I was hearing my own language again. Another prisoner, to be sure. Do I know him? He seems to know me.<br /><br />"Sho...," I try to say "Who are you?" but only a raspy croak emerges from my parched throat. "Sho Ismak?"<br /><br />"Insh'allah," I hear. "You survived!" The face comes into view again, closer this time. He looks familiar. Why can't I think?!<br /><br />"Kalid, listen to me. You were hurt in the escape. Your neck...can you move at all?"<br /><br />Escape? No, I try to shake my head, but feel nothing. "Nothing..." I try to say.<br /><br />"Ok, lie still. We have to move you again, get to a safe place. Stay with me, brother!"<br /><br />Brother...brother...I fade again into unconsciousness.<br /><br />Some uncounted time later I awake again. The light is dim, making it a little easier for me to see. I still can't move - not even my head. A rising sense of panic wells up within me, and the frustration when I cannot even flail my arms adds to the wave of fear that has taken hold of me. Am I paralyzed? Will I ever move again? What has happened to me?<br /><br />I hear someone coming closer, and once again a vaguely familiar visage crosses my field of view. Brother...Ahmed! My brother? It cannot be - he is far away, fighting the infidels in Afghanistan. When I was captured he was still living out of his safe refuge in the mountain caves of Pakistan.<br /><br />"Can you hear me?" he asks.<br /><br />"Ahmed?"<br /><br />A broad smile takes over his face. "God is truly great. Yes, brother, it is I. You are safe now."<br /><br />Safe? How can this be? I am trapped in this land forsaken by God, undergoing interrogation day by day. A trick! This is another trick?<br /><br />"It cannot be you," I finally say. I close my eyes to slits. <br /><br />I don't feel him grab my shoulders, but the room shakes around me. "Kalid - it is me. I shall explain when you feel better. Now rest."<br /><br />A trick...I sleep again.<br /><br />When I awake nothing has changed. Still I cannot move. Still the ceiling of the cave is the only thing I can see. I shout "Where are you!" but my voice is still muffled in my ears. Weak. I shout again. And again. Eventually I hear someone coming, but they don't come to where I can see them. "Who is there?"<br /><br />"I am Abdul. Can I get you something?"<br /><br />"Water, please." I feel the trickle of coolness on my lips, and I open my parched mouth to drink in what is given. "More..."<br /><br />"I must go get your brother, he will want to know you are awake," I hear the man called Abdul say, and I hear him leave. Not long, I hear another approach.<br /><br />"Kalid, I was told you were awake. How are you feeling?" It is the voice of the man who claims to be Ahmed.<br /><br />"I cannot move. What have you done to me?" I ask.<br /><br />"Brother, brother...I am so sorry. We were betrayed, and you were hurt in the attack. I am trying to get a doctor, a real doctor to come and look at you, but it is difficult."<br /><br />"Betrayed? Explain."<br /><br />I see the face of Ahmed again briefly as he leans over me, then settles somewhere on my side, perhaps sitting. "You were released as part of a trade. We had some of their soldiers, one of them the son of one of their lying politicians. We worked out a deal." <br /><br />Then his voice bitter, he said, "But those spawn of Satan tried to trick us! As you were coming across to us, they shot you. In the back, Kalid! In the back! Cowardly dogs!" He stops, and I hear him breathing hard. "But we knew their perfidy, we were ready. Our men came out of hiding, and we managed to get you out." <br /><br />A long pause. I felt the slightest of pressure on my hand. A feeling! As gladness starts to reenter my soul, I hear. "Kalid. Da'ud was killed in the escape."<br /><br />Da'ud. My friend from the time of our childhood. Captured the same time as me, I saw him only once more at the prison. Even beaten and abused, his smile when he saw me managed to sustain me for weeks.<br /><br />"I don't remember any of this," I said.<br /><br />"What do you remember?" asks Ahmed.<br /><br />"I remember being captured. I remember being tortured - the dogs, the drowning, the beatings where no one could see."<br /><br />"Kalid. I am so sorry, my brother." A long pause. "Kalid?"<br /><br />"What?"<br /><br />"I want to give you the time you need, but we must know. What did you tell them?"<br /><br />Was this truly Ahmed? I was already starting to think of him so. But so many tricks... "Ahmed, when we were children, our mother...what was the last thing she told us before she died?"<br /><br />"Our mother is dead?! This cannot be - I saw her only days ago! Kalid, why do you say this? What do you know?"<br /><br />I relaxed. The Americans could not know this - our mother had been in hiding for almost as long as we had.<br /><br />It was my brother. I was free. The horror of my captivity done. <br /><br />"Ahmed." I sobbed, and once started couldn't stop. The weeks of torture, fear, loneliness came flooding over me. "Am I really free?"<br /><br />Once again the slight pressure on my hand. "Yes, Kalid. You are safe. You are back with us, thanks be to God." He leans over me, and I can see him once again. "Now please, Kalid - it is important to get this in time. We must know what operations to shut down, who to move. What did they get out of you? Do not be ashamed. Many of our brothers break down, denied the chance to be martyrs. But we must know - many lives depend on it."<br /><br />I sighed. "I told them next to nothing, Ahmed. Only operations long over, brothers long ago captured, cells we already know were blown."<br /><br />Ahmed smiled. "That is wonderful, brother. Now let me catch you up. What do you remember about The Fist of God?"<br /><br />The Fist of God. In the works for two years, it would bring a crushing blow down upon our foes.<br /><br />"I remember the planning. I remember the date. I remember dreaming of the day."<br /><br />"We've had to make some changes, Kalid. We've had to change the date as well. What was the last you remember?"<br /><br />"The date? It is no longer to be on the anniversary of our first strike? But that was when their politicians were supposed to be in full session! Their President is only speaking there that one day."<br /><br />A pause. "Somehow they got wind of the date, Kalid. We've had to find a new date. We may not be able to get their President. And we may need a new volunteer to carry out the final phase."<br /><br />"What happened to Ali?"<br /><br />"We think he may be compromised," said Ahmed.<br /><br />"Ali? Never! I don't believe it! His cover as a page was perfect!" I remembered their conservative senator, so proper in public, so soft with his pretty boy Ali - our pretty boy Ali - in private.<br /><br />"Perhaps, brother. But it has been difficult to get close to him since you were captured."<br /><br />"Why? That makes no sense! It was Da'ud that he trusted most." Da'ud. My Da'ud. My dead Da'ud.<br /><br />Suddenly I felt so heavy, so tired. Confused. "I think I must sleep some more Ahmed. Let us talk more on this later please."<br /><br />"Of course, Kalid, of course. Rest now." I drifted off once again.<br /><br />I did not see or feel the men tear the helmet off my head, pull the straps from my limbs. I did not feel or see them as they moved me to a gurney and started to wheel me out of the room, the room that no longer sounded like a cave. <br /><br />But in my dreams, my endless nightmare, I hear them...<br /><br />"That was a pretty close call with the Mother thing. How did you know she was still alive?"<br /><br />"That was the easy part - didn't you ever listen to the tapes of his drug sessions? She was all he talked about for a while. Must have been quite a momma's boy." <br /><br />A laugh. "Well, we have a lot to go on. We had nothing on that Fist operation, and now we may have enough to roll it up completely! I gotta hand it to you - I never thought that high-tech sci-fi crap would work for shit."<br /><br />"Ye of little faith. Not like our boy here. Time to put away your water boarding and guard dogs, Billy. That's so medieval. And useless. You see how much more we get with a little twenty-first century tech."<br /><br />"I do now. Who would have thought that those virtual reality video games had such a promising future in prisoner interrogation?"<br /><br />"Me, for one. And what's even better, those Red Cross weenies can't even complain - nothing "cruel and unusual" in letting a prisoner play a little immersive video game, is there?"<br /><br />Another laugh. "You're too much, man. Let's get this intel to ops pronto - and get this sand monkey back into his cage. I'm thinking it's maybe Da'ud's turn next. What do you think?"<br /><br />"I'm thinking I have a new convert. Go get Da'ud, buddy - I'll run this stuff up to ops."<br /><br />My nightmares...Allah, hast thou forsaken me? What have I done? Da'ud! Ahmed! <br /><br />My nightmares are my reality...A Muserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09463588248115349984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11738753.post-62838025743822705092008-06-24T11:08:00.000-07:002008-06-24T11:22:14.400-07:00InterludeYes, I disappeared for a while. But I only heard from a few of you to start writing again, so I didn't give it much thought. (If no one hears the sound of a blog disappearing, was it ever really there?)<br /><br />I'm thinking of writing again. I keep getting these vivid visions of people and events that take place in a near future dystopia, and it feels like I should be trying to capture them. <br /><br />Writing is a very self-indulgent exercise. It takes time away from family, friends, and work. And when your work also involves a large amount of writing, which mine does, it is tough to get back in front of the screen at night. <br /><br />But to paraphrase another, if not now, when?A Muserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09463588248115349984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11738753.post-82241768049071635232007-10-11T09:27:00.000-07:002009-01-02T08:39:25.506-08:00Fare Thee WellI've started using <a href="farecast.com">Farecast.com</a> to help me decide when to buy an airline ticket. Using strong statistical algorithms, this site is better that Orbitz (or Kayak, etc) because it tells me what the lowest fare should be, and the probability that it will go up or down in the next 7 days.<br /><br />This is yet another capability brought to us by using the power of statistics to make better decisions. (I'm reading the book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Super-Crunchers-Thinking-Numbers-Smart/dp/0553805401">Super Crunchers</a> by <a href="http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/">Ian Ayres</a>. I'll have a lot more to say about this book and its implications later this week.)A Muserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09463588248115349984noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11738753.post-66950087322427296282007-10-11T08:21:00.000-07:002007-10-11T09:18:28.778-07:00JenaI was catching up on some random blogs and found <a href="http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/1002071jena1.html">these pictures and video</a> of some white kids giving their rendition of Jena 6. It made me ill.<br /><br />I was fortunate to be brought up largely free of racism. The small town in California in which I was raised didn't suffer from the black-white divide that I would see only on television. (Although in retrospect, there was a current of racism against hispanics in that community stemming from strained relations with the migrant worker population that would come to work the fields).<br /><br />My first blatant exposure to racism, the incident that forced me to confront its ugly reality, occurred when I went away to college. One of my roommates was (and still is, I believe) of African-American descent. Black. A bright kid studying biology at UC Berkeley, he was raised in another small town in California in a middle class family as I was. We became good friends when we met in the dorms, then moved into an apartment the next year.<br /><br />It was while we were still in the dorms that he was getting ready to head to the airport on a trip. He was dressed in a suit, and had his small travel bag and suit carrier in his hands. We were walking to the parking lot when I joked that this girl he'd been trying to avoid was approaching, so he broke into a laughing run to the parking garage. <br /><br />Coming up the street at the time was a Berkeley Police Department vehicle. As my friend ran into the parking garage, this cop turned on his flashers and whipped into the parking lot after him. Pulling his gun, he told my friend to halt. Which he did.<br /><br />As I jogged up, the cop was questioning my friend, having him open his suit carrier and asking him where the suits came from. Shocked, I stormed up and shouted at the cop something about WTF was he doing, this guy lived in the dorms across the street, etc. The cop wheeled around and told me that unless I wanted to go to jail too, I'd better shut up and move away. "On what charge?" I asked. "Obstructing a police officer, and whatever else I come up with. Now step away!"<br /><br />I was stunned. I had never come face to face with such blatant racism and abuse of power before. (And this was nothing, I realize. But it was my first exposure to this aspect of the real world.) My sense of helplessness, the horrible pain of empathy as I saw the look of anguish and humiliation on the face of my friend...<br /><br />It made an impression.<br /><br />Since then, I've managed to get some experience on the "other side". Traveling around the world, being the only white face in a restaurant or a plane, being ignored or treated poorly. Americans certainly aren't the only ones in the world who suffer from racism.<br /><br />But it does appear to be deeply rooted in the formation of our country. And 300 years later, in the midst of universal education, globalism, and the village of the internet, it still amazes me to see behavior like that in the video.<br /><br /><h2>Fear Leads To Hate...</h2><br /><br />I believe "fear of other" is the basis of most forms of racism. I think this sort of fear is tied to ignorance. I've noticed that people are usually only racist in the abstract. <br /><br />By this I mean that most people I have met who make what I consider to be racist comments only make them about a generic stereotype of people they haven't met. These same people can be very racist against blacks (or, as in Texas and California where I grew up, hispanics), but be very kind and friendly with an individual of that same persuasion. In fact, they point to the fact that they have "a black friend" to demonstrate how they couldn't be racist. You know..."I'm not racist! I love black people. I took one to lunch just the other day..."<br /><br />They seem to view any individual they know and like as an exception to whatever racist stereotypes they've formed. But strangers of that race are guilty of a big bag of negative associations, until they prove that they're "like me."<br /><br />As George Lucas once said (via a muppet called Yoda), "Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate leads to the Dark Side."<br /><br />Racism, homophobia, religious jihads...they all stem from fear and insecurity. Given the strong selection advantage that fear provides a species, I'm afraid (pun intended) that we'll never solve these disgusting tendencies. <br /><br />We can only strive to recognize the Dark Side, and intentionally choose against it.A Muserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09463588248115349984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11738753.post-1711240494601405942007-10-05T08:40:00.000-07:002007-10-05T09:31:56.469-07:00The Necessary WarI just finished watching the Ken Burns documentary on World War II.<br /><br />As you'd expect, there are a number of parallels, and stark differences, between that war and the war that we're fighting today.<br /><br />A few things really stood out.<br /><br />The people supported the war, because they felt we had no choice. We were attacked. When you are attacked, you have no choice but to defend yourself or die. Japan attacked us, so we fought back. Germany declared war on us and started sinking our merchant ships, so we fought back. We went into the war reluctantly, because going out of our way to kill other human beings wasn't something most people thought they'd ever do. But we went, because we had no choice.<br /><br />Even when attacked, to ensure that the will of the people and the integrity of constitution, President Roosevelt went to Congress and asked them to declare war. On record, a vote was taken whether or not to go to war, and against whom. The mandate was clear, as was the accountability.<br /><br />I compare this to the recent past, where military forces were committed by the President before any request to Congress to support said actions (although in almost every case, the Congress passed a resolution authorizing the use of force - after the fact. When your troops are already in harm's way, is there really much choice?). <br /><br />I'm not just talking about President Bush - this has been the mode of operations for every military action taken since WWII. And it's also clear that the popular support for the actions varied dramatically from that for WWII. As did the outcomes. Can history teach us any lessons here?<br /><br />We can't say it isn't a war. If a nation bombed the U.S., or sent troops across our borders, what would we call it? I do think the enemy is different. Whether you believe our enemy is a terrorist group or Islamo-facism, it is definitely a different enemy than a nation's leaders who decide to attack. Yet we use the same tactics that we used when we fought nations. We respect borders, we invade a specific nation, we remove that nation's leadership, and we cause destruction and death among the civilian populations of those nations. Our tactics are those of WWII. <br /><br />The fact that the nature of the enemy is different should suggest different approaches to countering the enemy. Are WWII type bombings and invastions effective against terrorists? Is "War" the wrong paradigm for countering a terrorist threat? <br /><br />The parallels to WWII all regard the horror of war - just how much happens that is so far from the realm of day to day thought, just how brutish and barbaric man can become when he throws off the constraints of civilization. I don't have the words to describe the atrocity and horror. <br /><br />I recommend, though, that you watch the series. Everyone should understand what it really means to be in a war. And no one should have to come any closer to that understanding than the arms length distance a documentary provides. To gain any better understanding is to live the nightmare and be forever changed.<br /><br />Yet it seems that almost every generation has to learn this over again. Not being exposed to the horrors of war, it appears all too easy to glamorize and oversimplify the use of military force. Admittedly, some of those who actually serve in battle do the same. And although I have served in the military, I was never under fire, so I won't presume to understand or explain this thinking. <br /><br />But it does seem to me that the majority of those who are most adamant and vocal about the use of force are those who have never served.A Muserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09463588248115349984noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11738753.post-12760970364622678872007-10-05T08:11:00.000-07:002007-10-05T08:40:28.439-07:00Slave to SafetyQuote of the Day<br /><br />"I would gladly give up my freedom if it meant my kids would be safe." - Overheard at a Starbucks<br /><br />While I could envision a scenario where this would be true for me (e.g., "come with us now or we will shoot your kids"), I'm pretty sure this wasn't how it was meant by this person. He was talking about his willingness to give up democracy and his unalienable rights if it would guarantee the safety of his children.<br /><br />Noble. And perhaps morally right. But it struck me as too simplistic, too reactionary...this statement, for me, boiled down so many of the platitudes, certitudes, and questions that the War On Terror seems to elicit.<br /><br />Platitudes to "keep America safe" ...at any cost? Are there some prices too high to pay for safety? Or is safety the trump card, taking priority over the Bill of Rights and the Constitution? Is the life I want to pass on to my children one in which they are slaves?<br /><br />Certitudes that everything is black and white; you either love the U.S. or hate the U.S.; you either want to win the War On Terror or you want to cut and run; you're either for us or against us; Good or Evil.<br /><br />Questions...how to regain the concepts of dialogue and discussion; how to reverse the trend toward fear, illogic, and irrationality; how to get out of either/or and into options a, b, and c; how to get people to think and to solve problems.<br /><br />As talk of war with Iran starts to bubble into the mainstream, can we perhaps have a public discussion? Can we see Congress debate the myriad of questions (Is the threat real? What other options are available to remove the threat if we determine that it is real? How did going to war in Iraq work out for us? Did it remove the perceived threats? Can our military support even the missions in front of them without breaking, let alone a new front? Does refusing to talk help or hurt the problem?)<br /><br />I don't have (all) the answers, but I do have legitimate questions. Can they be asked without causing a reactionary pigeonholing? Can we have a discussion?A Muserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09463588248115349984noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11738753.post-71697480562231146052007-09-30T18:50:00.000-07:002007-10-01T13:17:31.144-07:00Mind GamesWe have so many misperceptions of the world. Contributing to this are "blind spots" in the way our bodies and brains have evolved.<br /><br />Here is a list of some fun sites that explore various sensory "blind spots."<br /><br />(You can't trust your eyes)<br /><a href="http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/blindspot1.html">Your brain will make stuff up</a><br /><a href="http://pantheon.yale.edu/~bs265/demos/MIB-percScotoma.html">And it may ignore what's actually there</a><br /><a href="http://nivea.psycho.univ-paris5.fr/Slow%20changes%20bis/intro.html">Things can change right in front of you and you won't notice</a><br /><a href="http://viscog.beckman.uiuc.edu/djs_lab/demos.html">You can miss huge gorillas</a><br /><a href="http://www.psych.ubc.ca/~rensink/flicker/index.html">http://www.psych.ubc.ca/~rensink/flicker/index.html</a><br /><a href="http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/">And lots of other interesting misperceptions of color, contrast, and shade</a><br /><br />(you can't trust your ears)<br /><a href="http://www.exploratorium.edu/exhibits/highest_note/ex.about.fr.html">http://www.exploratorium.edu/exhibits/highest_note/ex.about.fr.html</a><br /><a href="http://www.kyushu-id.ac.jp/~ynhome/ENG/Demo/illusions2nd.html">http://www.kyushu-id.ac.jp/~ynhome/ENG/Demo/illusions2nd.html</a><br /><br />How our expectations affect what we hear:<br /><a href="www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/~mattd/sine-wave-speech">www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/~mattd/sine-wave-speech</a><br /><br />Vision/Sound systems affecting each other:<br /><a href="www.faculty.ucr.edu/~rosenblu/lab-index.html">www.faculty.ucr.edu/~rosenblu/lab-index.html</a> (Look for McGurk effect under Demonstrations)<br /><a href="www.cns.atr.jp/~kmtn/soundInducedIllusoryFlash2/index.html ">www.cns.atr.jp/~kmtn/soundInducedIllusoryFlash2/index.html </a> <br /><br />How thoughts and emotions can affect how you perceive things:<br /><a href="https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit">https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit</a><br /><br />So...How do you feel about witness testimony in <span style="font-style:italic;">your</span> trial?A Muserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09463588248115349984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11738753.post-45383115400354779092007-09-25T12:51:00.000-07:002007-09-25T13:26:58.032-07:00By George, I Think He's Got itI've been reading <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Something-That-Will-Surprise-World/dp/0465017797/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-4564034-7787004?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190750437&sr=8-1">Something That Will Surprise the World: The Essential Writings of the Founding Fathers</a>.<br /><br /> It amazes me how many of the pitfalls and foibles of our system of government were anticipated by these learned gentlemen.<br /><br />Take this bit from George Washington's farewell address when he left the office of President (given Sep 19, 1796).<br /><blockquote>Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party, generally.<br /><br />This spirit, unfortunately, is inseperable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human Mind. It exists under different shapes in all Governments, more or less stifled, controuled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.<br /><br />The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissention, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able to more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of this own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.<br />...<br />It serves always to distract the Public Councils and enfeeble the Public administration. It agitates the Community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions.</blockquote><br /><br />Sound like any political party system you know? How about this one from Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 1. <blockquote>And yet, however just these sentiments will be allowed to be, we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives....History will teach us...that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.</blockquote>I particularly like this next one (again from Hamilton, Federalist No. 70). Not only is it applicable to politics, I've seen it time and time again in other setting that it must be a fundamental failing of human nature...<blockquote>Men often oppose a thing, merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike. But if they have been consulted, and have happened to disapprove, opposition then becomes, in their estimation, and indispensable duty of self-love. They seem to think themselves bound in honor, and by all the motives of personal infallibility, to defeat the success of what has been resolved upon contrary to their sentiments. Men of upright, benevolent tempers have too many opportunities of remarking, with horror, to what desperate lengths this disposition is sometimes carried, and how often the great interests of society are sacrificed to the vanity, to the conceit, and to the obstinacy of individuals, who have credit enough to make their passions and their caprices interesting to mankind.</blockquote>Don't you wish we could vote for someone with the education and insight that these men demonstrated? Someone who uses history and human nature as their guide (as opposed to truthiness :-).<br /><br />I know that if I'm to learn anything from history myself, it's to apply these lessons to my day to day life. Next time I oppose a plan, I'll look a bit deeper within for the reasons why. And next time I propose a plan, I'll try to figure out how to get buy in for the particulars before launching the generality in an attempt to keep from poking this temperamental button.A Muserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09463588248115349984noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11738753.post-61249267804878294032007-09-25T12:00:00.000-07:002007-09-25T12:34:31.113-07:00Blade Runners of GloryI'm excited as only a true science fiction geek can be about the upcoming release of a new cut of Ridley Scott's <a href="http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/film_reviews/article2373618.ece">Blade Runner</a>.<br /><a href="http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/br2007/announce.html"><br />Blade Runner: The Final Cut</a><br /><br />I've always thought the original <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083658/">Blade Runner (1982)</a> (BR)was one of the best science fiction movies ever made. There are a lot of movies that have some great element(s): story, script, acting, effects, production values - but BR had it all.<br /><br />The story, using an old noir detective type device, explored what we mean when we use the word "human." How easily we draw the line between us humans and those less-than-human, and how blurry (or non-existent) that line is in reality. We humans seem to be built to dehumanize.<br /><br />The script, even the one with the hokey voice overs, was intelligent. I should say that the script, combined with the set design visions of Ridely Scott, was intelligent - prophetic some might say. Taking a complicated Philip K. Dick novel (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Androids-Dream-Electric-Sheep-Great/dp/0752864300/ref=pd_bbs_5/103-4564034-7787004?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190748634&sr=8-5">Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?</a>) and boiling down multiple story lines to the essential parts so they could be told visually. <br /><br />The actual dialogue of the screenplay was bare, with the story told primarily by visuals. But it couldn't have been told well with just special effects (witness any of the past few Star Wars movies). Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer, Edward James Olmos, Joanna Cassidy, Sean Young and Daryl Hannah ... while each may have had a particular finer moment in some other film, each delivered a great performance in their roles for BR.<br /><br />The movie was shot before digital effects had really taken off, and therefore the sets had to be "real" (or as real as sets and props get). Because of this, it all looked and felt real, like you were really looking at the streets of San Angeles some decades in the future. CGI is powerful, but it still doesn't come across the same as real 3-D set work. The production values were extremely high throughout. Were there mistakes? Sure, but only a supergeek would notice.<br /><br />25 Years after it's initial release, Ridley Scott has put together the movie he originally wanted to make - no compromises, happy endings, voice overs - a hard movie that doesn't give anything away freely, and rewards that much more because of it.<br /><br />I hope.<br /><br />I'm looking forward to it. December 18th! (Can you say <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000UBMWG4/ref=pd_cp_d_3/103-4564034-7787004?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-41&pf_rd_r=0WY494Q4BY0P4PWS72Z7&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_p=252362301&pf_rd_i=B000UD0ESA">early xmas present</a>?)A Muserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09463588248115349984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11738753.post-52728588865611268592007-09-20T12:13:00.000-07:002007-09-20T12:43:21.352-07:00Life SupportI made some comment the other day about the Iraq war, and a staunch defender of Der Fuhrer in the group gave me a shot about "not supporting the troops."<br /><br />Why is it that any anti-war comment is taken as "not supporting the troops," but anything pro-war - whether it's extending tours, staying indefinitely in Iraq, attacking Iran - is somehow <span style="font-style:italic;">supporting </span>the troops? <br /><br />Repeating tours so that those lucky enough to make it out alive the last time get another shot at getting shot? (<span style="font-style:italic;">Pro</span>-troops?)<br /><br />Extending tours so that troops spend more time in combat than they do with their families? (Pro-troops and Pro-<span style="font-style:italic;">family</span>)<br /><br />Shutting down public debate on options to get out of the horrendous mess? (Pro-democracy, pro-free speech)<br /><br />How is it that Senator can <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20877306/">vote against a bill</a> that would allow our troops some time at home, away from a war zone, and be considered as <span style="font-style:italic;">supporting the troops</span>?<br /><br />There is no support for the troops, just those who want them to stop dying and those who think their goals are worth the ultimate sacrifice of others. There is no debate, only two sides that won't listen to the other. There is no victory, only attempts to keep things from getting worse. There is no end, only years of death and suffering.<br /><br />There is no making sense of the messes we make. Not yet, anyway. Maybe when we understand ourselves and our motivations better, we can behave better.<br /><br />Here's a debate for you that is relevant to the war, I think, but hopefully one that doesn't evoke the knee jerk reactions that the war does.<br /><br />Take one second to imagine a person behaving the way some countries do. After all, a person is a group of cells and organs. A country is a group of a group of a group, just an entity at a larger level of organization. <br /><br />What do we think of individuals who threaten others? What do we think of individuals who won't play well with others, who always want things their way? What do we think of someone who pulls a gun to get what they want? What do think of individuals who bully others, who beat them up and leave them broken and bleeding? <br /><br />We use sociopath, bully, crazy, dangerous, criminal as words to describe people who act like this. What do we call countries who act like this? How have we come to <span style="font-style:italic;">expect </span>such deviant behavior from countries?<br /><br />Should we continue to allow countries a <span style="font-style:italic;">lower </span>standard of moral behavior than we demand of individuals?A Muserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09463588248115349984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11738753.post-19499405158745038922007-09-19T10:26:00.001-07:002007-09-19T11:56:55.117-07:00Crazy MonkeysIn <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sloan_Wilson">David Sloan Wilson's</a> book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Everyone-Darwins-Theory-Change/dp/0385340214/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-4564034-7787004?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190226082&sr=8-1">Evolution for Everyone</a>, he tells a story about crazy monkeys, and the evolutionist explanation for why this behavior, though seemingly contra-survival, can keep coming up in a rhesus monkey population.<br /><br />Here are the basics (paraphrasing the book). Every generation, a small faction of males in a rhesus monkey colony active as if they are out of control. They take insane risks in jumping between branches. They bully and rebel, can't be controlled by their mothers or by their peers. <br /><br />The first theory the researcher, <a href="http://ciar.ca/web/home.nsf/pages/home.0673">Dr Stephen Suomi</a>, was that perhaps this behavior conferred an advantage to the psycho males - they could enter a new group, take over with their bullying and crazy behavior, mate with the females whether they liked it or not, and thereby perpetuate their genes.<br /><br />But experiments showed that this theory was wrong. Rejected by family and friends, the psycho males never learn to compete well with other males or to fit into a group. Rejected, they typically lead a miserable solitary existence until they die. So why doesn't this sort of maladaptive behavior die out?<br /><br />The answer appears to be that the same gene that causes males to go crazy turns out to produce confident, capable females who achieve high status within their groups. These females breed more, and, just as important, due to their enhanced abilities are even able to raise sons with the "crazy gene" to be fine young monkeys. Mothers lacking the gene who gave birth to sons having the gene (thanks, Dad) weren't so effective, and the crazy gene expressed itself to produce crazy monkeys.<br /><br />So the gene stays active in the population, and due to the statistical dynamics, about 10% of male rhesus monkeys get the crazy gene, with a smaller percentage of these not having the advantage of corresponding super mom who end up acting...crazy.<br /><br />The basic story of the crazy monkey - adaptations that thrive work for the group (or species), not necessarily for an individual. Certainly, at an individual level they can't be too destructive or they would die out in a population. But they don't have to be individually helpful, and can sometimes be individually hurtful. <br /><br />For the longest time I've wondered about religion, and how some of the craziest acts of humans seem to come from religious extremists. <br /><br />Initially, I used <a href="http://mikemccown.blogspot.com/2005/12/god-of-death.html">simplistic explanations</a>. In searching for better answers, I looked to neurobiology. <a href="http://www.usc.edu/programs/neuroscience/faculty/profile.php?fid=27">Antonio Damasio</a> has produced some great work on how emotions work (and are in fact necessary) in reasoning. Better yet was Pascal Boyer's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Explained-Evolutionary-Origins-Religious/dp/0465006965/ref=pd_bbs_2/103-4564034-7787004?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190225757&sr=8-2">Religion Explained</a>, which went into some evolutionary origins concepts for religion, and did pretty good job of explaining what religion was (and wasn't), and how our brains dealt with it. <br /><br />But this only got into the proximate reasons for religious tendencies (meaning that it helped explained why people act religious, but not why these brain structures and cultural structures developed in the first place). For the trait to become so widespread in our species, it must have some larger effect that helps species survival. (In evolutionist terms, proximate causes are the immediate biological or physical mechanisms that cause a behavior or outcome. Ultimate causes are the species level reasons why such a behavior or outcome propagates through the generations more effectively than others).<br /><br />In <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Cathedral-Evolution-Religion-Society/dp/0226901351/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-4564034-7787004?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190225987&sr=8-1">Darwin's Cathedral</a>, David Sloan Wilson gets into these proximate and ultimate causes of religion. In his theory, the ultimate cause of religion is that it is adaptive at a group level. In other words, religion is a mechanism that causes people to group together with common purpose. (Clearly there's more to it than that - otherwise he couldn't fill a whole book. But the gist is that religious tendency in the human brain is a proximate cause which supports an ultimate cause of forming groups that perform better than individuals, or even of other groups that aren't so cohesively knit).<br /><br />Getting together into cooperating groups doesn't require religion. And certainly having religious feelings and irrational beliefs don't always result in forming a cohesive group. But individuals who initially developed the genetic variation producing the <a href="http://www.godless.org/sci/ramachandran.html">god module</a> portions of the brain had <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2165004/">powerful feelings</a>, and connecting with other individuals with similar feelings (to the exclusion of those who didn't) made sense. And because these feelings evoke such powerful emotions, this mechanism provides a very strong social glue for like individuals. Groups who can collectively whip themselves into a religious fervor can feel more connected, and more cohesive, than those who group based on less emotional drivers.<br /><br />This is finally a reason which makes sense to me, and which is consistent with known facts of religion. This is a group-supporting behavior, like <a href="http://mikemccown.blogspot.com/2005/06/of-two-minds.html">altruistic punishment</a>, that provides survival and propagation benefit to members of the group over members outside of it. <br /><br />Personally, I may not like the fact that the mechanisms of religiosity periodically result in a crazy monkey. But I can understand the selection advantage to groups with strong binds and common purpose, which religion historically has provided.A Muserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09463588248115349984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11738753.post-30791828858161429182007-09-18T10:07:00.001-07:002007-09-18T10:33:30.915-07:00Free Market Fodder<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119007362996330515.html?mod=pj_main_hs_coll">Article today</a> in WSJ about cancer research. The article is about company scientists (or academic scientists who's research is funded with corporate dollars) won't share data with each other.<br /><br />Sharing data is pretty fundamental to how science works. At the core of science is the Scientific Method (which is basically hypothesize, design experiment to prove/disprove, collect data, publish results showing how data is consistent with new or old theory). No scientist can afford to test a theory completely. But collecting data across the experiments of multiple scientists, theories can be explored and supported or disproved. Having other scientists able to repeat the results of an experiment also validates that the data is meaningful, and not just a fluke or product of some other unknown variable.<br /><br />When scientists don't share ideas, then multiple experiments aren't run in parallel (which dramatically slows the pace of advancement). When scientists don't share data, then repeatable experiments aren't run, placing the data and the conclusions in doubt.<br /><br />When scientists don't share data, multiple theories abound, each consistent with a couple experiments, but probably not with the full body of evidence collected across the community. Meaning that it's likely that each theory is wrong in some way.<br /><br />Which not only means that science and human knowledge doesn't advance as rapidly. In the medical field, it means that drug companies and doctors are providing treatments based upon incomplete and possibly incorrect theories.<br /><br />Which is bad for you.<br /><br />But that's our system as it sits today. Companies will not release information until it is patented. Also, scientists competing for grants will not release information until it gets them grant money. Patents take years to award. And once a patent is awarded, other companies are dissuaded from trying to repeat the experiment even if it is then published, since it won't buy them anything. And unless the research is something that affects lots of people (thereby increasing the potential payoff), the research won't even get funded in the first place.<br /><br />Which is why we still treat many forms of cancer with blunt instruments, blasting our way through healthy cells to get the few bad cells. Which is why we still treat cancer like witch doctors, scratching our heads when a treatment that worked for one patient doesn't work the same on another, then trying some new magic incantation handed down from the archipelagos of medical research.<br /><br />Which is why some hedge fund managers are freeing up $1 million (a pittance, really) to try some new approaches to funding research.A Muserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09463588248115349984noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11738753.post-15824055955114120732007-09-18T08:17:00.000-07:002007-09-18T08:57:48.825-07:00ACL WrapEvery year, Austin City Limits hosts ACL Fest - over 130 bands over 3 days. Always hotter than hell, in so many ways.<br /><br />Here is my quick take from this year. (Warning - all of these reviews were subject to time of day, heat, state of mind, and personal preference. Your mileage may vary).<br /><br />New bands I found I liked:<br />Sahara Smith<br />Kaiser Chiefs<br />Young Love<br />Rose Hill Drive<br />Butch Walker<br />Cary Ann Hearst<br />Ike Reilly Assassination<br /><br />Shows I enjoyed more than I thought I would:<br />DevotchKa - known for slow stuff, their fast stuff they did live was fun<br />Regina Spektor - she was clearly blown away by the crowd, full of spark, and funniest damn lyrics<br />Arctic Monkeys - I like most of their songs<br />MIA - good show, high energy<br />Ghostland Observatory - Muse meets Prince, which sounds weird till you see them, but it works.<br /><br />Disappointing-<br />The Killers - the old songs I still like, a lot - the new stuff, not so much<br />Queens of the Stone Age - 3 good songs - still only 3 good songs<br />Dax Riggs - As Dead Boy he blew me away - as Dax, he's a downer<br /><br />Ok to see, but didn't make me wanna buy their albums:<br />Bloc Party<br />My Morning jacket<br />One Mississippi<br />Peter Bjorn and John<br /><br />I'm not really going to comment on Blue October, Joss Stone, Spoon (which were all fine, just not my favorite live performances); neither will I comment on Bjork, Arcade Fire, Muse, Bob Dylan - they have plenty of fans already. <br /><br />A couple other notes...some bands are good in studio, some are good live, and some are both. And even those who are usually good live can have a hard time at ACL, where you are at a large outdoor venue in front of 30,000 to 60,000 people on a hot, sunny stage.<br /><br />Which makes those that <span style="font-style:italic;">were</span> good that much more impressive.<br /><br />Oh yeah - the fire was impressive too. I was there right after it started, before they started a perimeter, and it was big and scary. You look at this raging inferno that is getting bigger by the moment as more propane tanks and porta potties explode, and realize that there's no amount of willing people with fire extinguishers that can do a damn thing to contain it. Then the police and festival staff start clearing a perimeter, and everyone is very cooperative and wants to help, but can't. You all start looking around nervously for the fire department hoping they'll get here soon because you really don't want Zilker to burn down (or ACL to get cancelled). Then they finally do show up, winding their way through the crowds, and quickly contain what is now a raging inferno as tall as the trees. And you realize how freakin' awesome the fire department is, the police, the ACL staff, and all the very cool crowd that shows up for this event every year (even if all your friends think you're an idiot for running over to video the fire...).<br /><br />If you haven't been to ACL Fest, I highly recommend it.A Muserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09463588248115349984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11738753.post-41321607588368777582007-09-17T13:54:00.000-07:002007-09-17T14:47:17.833-07:00Colonial ExpansionTo understand how intelligence can emerge from groups of simple cells, it helps to have examples of other emergent behaviors.<br /><br />Hive animals, such as ant and bees, work in ways similar to the ways in which cells in our body work, but because they are "bigger", they're easier to study.<br /><br />Let's look at how bees manage to figure out the best place to go get nectar every day.<br /><br />Bees look for nectar that they then take back to the hive to make into honey. The higher the sugar content of the nectar, the more efficient the bees are at making the honey. Bees are pretty good at finding the best sources of nectar, even when those sources change. How is this done? Is there some guiding intelligence that takes the reports back from the worker bees and decides to send all the other workers to the best spots?<br /><br />In a sense there is a guiding intelligence, but it is an emergent intelligence, based upon statistics and feedback loops in a system. Here's how it works for bees. The worker bees head out in random directions looking for nectar. When a bee finds nectar, it collects some then comes back to the hive. It then does a little "dance", which other worker bees at the hive can watch to learn the directions to the nectar.<br /><br />Different bee species have variations on the dance, but basically the orientation of the dance correlates to the relative position of the sun or the direction of the nectar relative to the hive, and the length of the "waggle" portion of the dance is correlated to the distance from the hive. The worker bees in the audience can head out in the correct direction and the approximate distance, then look for the nectar source.<br /><br />Ok, neat, this is how other bees can find nectar more efficiently than just every bee randomly searching each time. But when you have lots of different nectar sources, how do most of the bees go to the best nectar source? If they're all coming back and dancing about random nectar locations, then the audience bees should also be spread out among the random sites.<br /><br />But...the time spent on the dance is driven by the richness of the nectar. The bee gets a buzz on, and the better the buzz, the longer he can dance. With bees coming and going all day, those bees that dance longer will have a larger audience of bees - more bees will catch their act if they perform it ten times rather than just once. So all those bees go find the better buzz, and they too come back and perform longer dances, which grows exponentially to send even more bees to the better source.<br /><br />Each bee just follows a few simple rules. Step one - get ready to leave the hive. If you see a bee dance while leaving the hive, stop and watch it, then orient yourself in the right direction and fly ten waggles thataway. If you don't see a recital going on, just leave in a random direction. Remember to count how many waggles you fly, and in what direction relative to the hive (or sun).<br /><br />Now look for nectar. If you find some, take it back to the hive. Pass the nectar to another type of bee, then go perform. Perform as long as you feel the energy to perform.<br /><br />Go back to step one.<br /><br />If you model this, you see that no matter where the best source of nectar is in a given day, most the bees will end up heading for it, thus optimizing the nectar collection for the hive.<br /><br />No single bee made a decision. Nobody passed along the information to the (nonexistent) decision makers. The dance says nothing (directly) about how good the nectar is. Nor is there any "debate" among the bees about the relative merits of the different nectar locations. It was purely the inherent mechanism that the better the nectar, the longer the bee could dance, and the statistics inherent in that fact that drove the "intelligent" behavior of the hive.<br /><br />"That is real intelligence," you say. Well, it's a smart move on the part of the bees, certainly, but it isn't how humans make decisions. (Or is it? I'll come back to how groups of humans make decisions in a later post). <br /><br />What this example highlights is how separate "cells", each just doing what comes naturally, can create a higher order "emergent" behavior when the cells are in a group. Studies of human organs indicate similar sorts of statistical emergent behaviors in blood cells, liver cells, and even brain cells, where the normal biological functions of the cells and the chemical byproducts of these functions create a form of communication between cells. Groups of cells (an organ) also work with other organs for even higher order emergent behaviors. Our organs use chemical signaling (such as nitric oxide, hormones and neurotransmitters) and electrical signaling (such as potassium and sodium ion channels).<br /><br />Understand that all of these mechanisms develop over time through the evolution of genetics. Those mutations that provide better survival and breeding in a given environment become standard in the later generations. Bees that could dance longer given good nectar statistically attracted more bees to the right place, so the hive outperformed other hives that didn't have workers with this trait. Over time, only those hives who had workers with this trait were the only ones around. <br /><br />Evolutionary theory isn't just for biology, although it's pretty amazingly useful to help understand how and why organisms are the way they are. This powerful concept can be applied at any level of organization - including brain organization, and even human social organizations. The exact same principals apply.<br /><br />I'll try to put together examples of each of these in the following weeks.A Muserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09463588248115349984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11738753.post-64932531449936048462007-09-11T19:31:00.000-07:002007-09-11T19:32:04.077-07:00Woman jailed for serving salty burger to police officer<blockquote>The police officer said that after he ate the burger, he nearly threw up. Bull wonders why the officer didn't he throw it away after taking a bite? By the way, the McDonald's gives free meals to the police who eat there. </blockquote> <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2007/09/10/woman-jailed-for-ser.html">Boing-Boing article</a>A Muserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09463588248115349984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11738753.post-90930153066050662872007-09-09T09:02:00.000-07:002007-09-09T15:21:56.607-07:00Taliban Qwikie MartHere's a <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070906/ap_on_fe_st/65_year_old_carded">story</a> about a girl with no ID trying to buy alcohol. Fortunately, she was caught in the act and prevented from doing so, thanks to new laws and policies requiring ID for those who may look too young to drink. <br /><br />The "girl" in this case was 65 years old. (And I have some friends who want the number of her plastic surgeon).<br /><br />The first absurdity that struck me was the obvious one - in how many ways can we attempt to replace good sense with arbitrary and ridiculous laws? The Maine State Legislature "passed a law that requires identification from those who look under 27 years old." Not to be outdone, this particular supermarket chain implemented a rule to card "anyone who looks under 45 and wants to buy alcohol." <br /><br />(Rumor is that their competitor down the street, not wanting to lose all the MADD mom's in the neighborhood, is considering an "id required for anyone who looks under 100 and wants to walk by the cold beer section" rule). <br /><br />I really shouldn't make fun of these stores. They're just reacting to the incredibly absurd laws passed around the country regarding "underage drinking." Laws that arrest bartenders and 7/11 clerks if they sell to a minor, even if that minor has a valid looking ID. Laws that close businesses if their patrons get intoxicated - not before driving, not even outside on the street, but <span style="font-style:italic;">in the bar</span>. Laws that <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19251324/site/newsweek/page/0/">lock-up parents</a> and send the kids to foster care if those parents allow kids to drink - even the safety of <a href="http://www.theagitator.com/archives/014426.php">their own home, even </a>if they allow no one to leave the house till the next day.<br /><br />I could go on. I could start citing the evidence around drinking age laws, but these arguments have been presented well by people like former college president <a href="http://www.chooseresponsibility.org/">John McCardell</a>, to no effect. <br /><br />Instead, I'll just do what I do best. Laugh at the absurdity of people, particularly those who make the absurd laws that generate even more absurd behavior.<br /><br />You know the old saying..."If you can't laugh at yourself, make fun of other people." (attributed to Bobby Slayton)A Muserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09463588248115349984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11738753.post-49141233171812140592007-09-07T10:56:00.000-07:002007-09-07T11:20:45.871-07:00Taliban AirlinesAs we continue our travelogue on the country's journey to intolerance and fascism, I offer this little tidbit.<br /><br />Apparently being young and hot is against airline policy at Southwest Airlines. Miss Kyla Ebbert, wearing attire more conservative than I see on the UT campus every day, was asked to change clothes or leave the aircraft because some<span style="font-style:italic;">one</span> thought she was dressed inappropriately for a plane flight. (I suppose "appropriate" would have been wearing a leather cap, goggles, and an aviator jacket?)<br /><br />You can see the "scandalous" outfit on this <a href="http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/09/07/costello.mini.skirt.cnn">CNN video </a> or the <a href="http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070905/news_1m5braun.html">San Diego Union-Tribune</a> story that originally broke the news. (I like the CNN video, which juxtaposes the original Southwest Airlines flight attendant hot pants outfits with the more conservative white skirt worn by Kyla Ebbert).<br /><br />Here are the facts as stated in the newspaper article:<blockquote>She arrived at Lindbergh Field wearing a white denim miniskirt, high-heel sandals, and a turquoise summer sweater over a tank top over a bra.<br /><br />After the plane filled, and the flight attendants began their safety spiel, Ebbert was asked to step off the plane by a customer service supervisor, identified by the airline only as “Keith.”<br /><br />They walked out onto the jet bridge, where Keith told Ebbert her clothing was inappropriate and asked her to change. She explained she was flying to Tucson for only a few hours and had brought no luggage.<br /><br />“I asked him what part of my outfit was offensive,” she said. “The shirt? The skirt? And he said, 'The whole thing.' ”<br /><br />Keith asked her to go home, change and take a later flight. She refused, citing her appointment. The plane was ready to leave, so Keith relented. He had her pull up her tank top a bit, pull down her skirt a bit, and return to her seat. </blockquote><br />This sort of sexist, hypocritical bullshit has always bothered me. I've noticed that it is always the attractive young women who get targeted for being called out for "dressing inappropriately." This happens a lot in office environments, but I've also seen it in restaurants, cultural events, and other locales. <br /><br />My guess here...some bitter old bitch who's husband just dumped her for his new stripper girlfriend saw Kyla and decided that she was going to get back at everyone who had ever done her harm (which would be the entire category of women who are younger, cuter, and more tolerant than Taliban Bitch). She complained, and Keith, who apparently isn't very bright (or who could never get the hot girls in school to talk to him) decided he would pull an authority power trip over poor Miss Ebbert.<br /><br />(These are usually the same people who say of rape victims, "well, she had it coming, dressing like that...")<br /><br />This attitude, which appears to be common in the U.S., even shows in the article and CNN piece, in which somehow the fact that Miss Ebbert is a waitress at Hooters is relevant to the fact that she was arbitrarily bullied on an aircraft.<br /><br />And those of you out there who think I'm wrong, who actually think you're the arbiter of appropriate, you fashion police of teh interweb...go look in a mirror, and ask yourself for the <span style="font-style:italic;">real</span> reason you hate Kyla Ebbert.A Muserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09463588248115349984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11738753.post-63342280401412319622007-09-07T10:21:00.000-07:002007-09-07T08:24:20.609-07:00I Love The Taste Of Your GenesFrom <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/mg19526205.400-the-first-kiss-can-make-or-break-a-couples-relationship.html"> New Scientist...</a><br /><blockquote>So says George Gallup at the State University of New York, Albany, who surveyed 1041 students on their attitudes to kissing (Evolutionary Psychology, vol 5, p 612). Some views verged on the predictable: women, for example, placed more emotional importance on a kiss, valuing kisses during and after sex, and throughout a relationship. The men tended to see kissing as a means to an end - sex - and placed less importance on kissing as a relationship progresses. Just over half the men said they would have sex with someone without kissing, compared to 15 per cent of women. And more men than women said that a good kiss was one with tongue contact, where the partner made moaning noises.<br /><br />But Gallup says the first kiss a couple share could make or break the relationship. In a separate survey, 59 per cent of men and 66 per cent of women reported on occasion finding themselves attracted to someone, only to lose interest after kissing them for the first time. "The complicated exchange of information that occurs during a kiss may inform evolved, unconscious mechanisms about instances of possible genetic incompatibility," Gallup says.</blockquote>A Muserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09463588248115349984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11738753.post-42587469091004382162007-09-06T10:00:00.000-07:002007-09-07T08:17:59.026-07:00Free Will To Highest BidderI read an <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19526162.100-determining-free-will.html">article</a> in <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/news.ns">New Scientist</a> that once again questioned whether or not humans have "Free Will."<br /><br />I think the debate is again asking the wrong questions. We use undefined terms such as "free will" and "conscious" or "voluntary" actions.<br /><br />If we look at the brain as a collection of independent but connected subsystems (or a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_of_Mind">society of mind</a> as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Minsky">Minsky</a> phrased it), there are structures that are responsible for different acts of reasoning and behavior. If we look at the concept of "consciousness" as being the portion that is responsible for modeling the behavior of ourselves and others (the mirror neurons and other supporting structures), then it makes sense that this model can inform the other "unconscious" structures of the brain and that actions can in fact be taken as a result of the actions of structures other than the modeling structure. In such an organization, many times the modeling structure would be informed of actions "after the fact" - and would then incorporate this new data into the model of self and others and continue to inform and influence the other "unconscious" structures.<br /><br />This is consistent with the experiments of <a href="http://www.consciousentities.com/libet.htm">Libet</a>. In fact, Libet's later experiments showed that once the awareness of the pending finger movement made it into consciousness, the subject could "choose" <span style="font-style:italic;">not</span> to lift the finger - could "cancel" the command already given by another part of the brain to lift the finger. Although Libet developed a theory of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet#Conscious_Mental_Field_Theory">Conscious Mental Field</a> to explain this, I think a better explanation is in a way simpler.<br /><br />His results are completely consistent with a model that says the motor section of the brain starts to lift the finger, and then this input is factored into the model of self (consciousness), which then can further influence the other sections of brain depending upon the "choice" of the model. (In fact, since the subjects were asked to lift a finger in the first place, it is likely that the modeling subsystem created the impetus for the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readiness_potential">Readiness Potential</a> that was measured).<br /><br />This concept of consciousness is also consistent with experiments of <a href="http://www.icn.ucl.ac.uk/Staff-Lists/MemberDetails.php?Title=Prof&FirstName=Patrick&LastName=Haggard">Haggard</a>, and even <a href="http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~wegner/">Wegner</a>. Haggard did some interesting experiments around how the brain perceives cause and effect, and the time allowed by the internal model between cause and effect. Wegner did some interesting stuff with our sense of "agency" where two people are moving a mouse at the same time and how at times one individual may think they are the agent of control when in fact it is the other individual - the modeler gets confused when the inputs closely resemble, but not quite fit, the expected inputs of the mirror neurons. Both are explainable by separating the modeling subsystems from the motor control subsystems, and tying "awareness" to the modeling subsystems.<br /><br />All of these have been used, incorrectly, to question whether humans have "free will." I think it is a confusion of sloppy definitions, and therefore a red herring. <br /><br />(Adding a huge amount of additional confusion are the religious authorities, who freak out at the very notion of a lack of free will, since this choice to be "good" or "bad" is at the heart of many religions. As I've said in previous posts, books such as <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Minds-Nature-Designed-Universal/dp/0060780703">Moral Minds</a> show how this too is framing the discussion in the wrong paradigm - there is no inherent "good" or "bad", except in the context of an organization, an environment, and a goal).<br /><br />I think there are still a number of mysteries unexplained by this conceptual framework. But for the scientific evidence we've been able to produce so far, it is a consistent theory of mind.<br /><br />(What are the unexplained mysteries? Well, in a sense I just isolated the mystery into a smaller black box, then left the workings of the black box unexplained. The "modeling" portion(s) of the brain are well and good, supported by evidence - but how do they work? And ultimately, how does the modeling engine decide which actions will best accomplish the goals? <br /><br />I don't think we need to stop here and resort to the supernatural for explanation, however. I think creating similar modeling engines using computer simulations that are driven by these neurological experiments, and experimenting with a more complex set of "goals" driving the engine, we could probably start to explain how this black box actually works. In fact, that sounds like really fun work - I wish I had the time and resources to pursue it.)A Muserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09463588248115349984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11738753.post-22263674109483659082007-09-05T17:35:00.000-07:002007-09-07T07:33:28.669-07:00Moral RelativityWhether or not something is "good" depends entirely upon the level of organization and the environment in which is exists.<br /><br />You, as a normal human being, are a social organism made up of a lot of other living entities. Large groups of cells, whether organized into tissue or organs, or living in colonies like bacteria, "cooperate" to form your body. In the same way, each cell depends upon even smaller (although still complex) structures, such as mitochondria, ribosomes, membranes, and many others. (In fact, a mitochondrion is really itself a separate organism, living inside your cells...but this story is for another day).<br /><br />If a cell is "misbehaving" (such as in a cancer or other harmful mutation), what's best for the organ (and organism - you) is to kill the cell. From the cell's perspective, this option really sucks. <br /><br />But why would a cell risk being killed? Lots of reasons. A lot of what the cell does as a whole is driven by the "cooperative" behavior of all those cellular structures we talked about - mitochondria, DNA, RNA, membranes, and such. If something changes in the behavior of one of these members, then the overall behavior of the cell may also change. And the immediate rewards may encourage such behavior, such as unchecked replication and growth.<br /><br />But as with most dynamic systems, the surrounding community of cells (or some specialized cells) may take action against the non-conformist cell, perhaps bringing it into line, perhaps just killing it. (Sometimes the cell itself will commit suicide!) Thus a tendency toward the status quo, an inherent conservatism built into a stable organization.<br /><br />At each level of organization, it isn't immediately obvious to the individual components what "good" behavior is. And good is, obviously, relative. It really depends upon the level of organization, the environment, and the "goals" that determines "goodness" (where I define goodness as furthering the progress of the organizational level toward set goal).<br /><br />Without defining the organizational level, goal, and environment any concept of "good" or "bad" ascribed to behavior is meaningless. It just is. The cell changed - it now made copies of itself unchecked. Good for the cell. But probably bad for the larger organism/organization in which the cell lived. So the cell was killed. Good for the larger organization. Bad for the cell - no matter what its goal was, it's sure not going to achieve it now. (Unless the goal was death - in which case, Way To Go, Cell!)<br /><br />The parallels to social theory are obvious, and have been used quite a bit in the last century. The good of the individual human being vs the good of the group has been ripe ground for applications of theories in social structure. The group can be a family unit, a neighborhood, a community, city, a state, even a species. <br /><br />Benefits can accrue to individuals who attempt to cooperate in a larger group. The level of group "allegiance" can vary quite a bit from individual to individual, and game (and evolutionary) theory has a lot of fun trying to work out the relative cost/benefit equations for these trade-offs.<br /><br />And humans are well adapted to this sort of group cooperative behaviors. Evolutionary theory would say that's obvious. If working as a group confers advantage to individuals in the group over individuals who are not in a group, then over time individuals who work well in a group will proliferate more than those who don't.<br /><br />Rogue "cells," such as a terrorist, can produce significant local change. With the technologies being made available, this change can reach quite a bit further than local. Think nuclear, or worse, biological weapons. The cells may think they are doing the right thing. They might not see themselves as cancers - perhaps they think they're mighty immune cells! Their mission is to wipe out the foreign viruses that threaten to change the very DNA of the stable host society!<br /><br />I'm not the first to wonder about the social parallels. In fact, it was the following quote that made me start thinking about this. What has changed is that it is only recently has science started to get to the point where is was possible to actually do something about it.<blockquote>I am prepared to assert that there is not a single mental faculty ascribed to Man that is good in the absolute sense. If any particular faculty is usually good, this is solely because our terrestrial environment is so lacking in variety that its usual form makes that faculty usually good. But change the environment, go to really different conditions, and possession of that faculty may be harmful. And "bad," by implication is the brain organization that produces it. - W. Ross Ashby, 1962</blockquote>I see the battleground of today is being defined as western concepts of progress and individual liberty against the backlash conservatism of religious fundamentalism (typically anti-science, anti-"progress"). I hear questions like: Is globalism and consumerism and what's best for the individual what is also best for the planet? Or do we need to revert to the "good old days," of strong hierarchical (typically religion based) control?<br /><br />I think we're asking the wrong questions. We need to think of new models of social organization. Ones that provide the best chances for species survival, that better check the rogue individual (be they terrorists, CEOs, or Presidents). But that do so in a way that enables the creativity and progress that comes from free thinking individuals. <br /><br />It's likely that these new models will require that we take our own brain evolution in hand and modify it as required.<br /><br />Most of what we think of as "moral judgments" are made as a result of genetic hardcoding produced by evolution. In <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Minds-Nature-Designed-Universal/dp/0060780703">Moral Minds</a> by Harvard's Marc Hauser, reports of experiments and studies show that moral decisions are made "intuitively," with various rationalizations for the decision produced after the decision is already made.<br /> <br />Interestingly, and perhaps counterintuitive, there don't appear to be any real differences in fundamental moral choices in people of different cultures, or people of different religions. In fact, even people with a religion and those without make the same choices, suggesting that inbuilt morality is independent of learned religious frameworks. We don't think our way through moral decisions - we just react. <br /><br />So where does this leave us? Our moral decisions are made based upon our selected genetic wiring. That wiring was selected for being "good" for the majority of breeding individuals, given the environment (including social structures) that existed prior to now.<br /><br />If the environment changes, be that the physical or social environment, those decisions may no longer work. They're no longer "good," regardless of what worked before, and regardless of religious dogmas. And as we see, "good" also depends upon whether we're talking about the individual, the country, the species, or the planet. <br /><br />Like the example of the cancerous cell, individuals who threaten the planet threaten all species of life that we know of. These threats can be immediate, such as terrorists with WMDs, or more subtle, such as governments who do nothing about resource depletion, global warming, and other "let the next generation deal with it" type of threats.<br /><br />What could we adjust that make us less likely to follow the crazy leaders, more likely to look at long term consequences?A Muserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09463588248115349984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11738753.post-72925627508967309432007-08-26T14:31:00.000-07:002007-09-30T20:29:11.287-07:00The BetrayalMy last post was about how interesting I found ancient Roman history, particularly the period around the fall of the Republic. Little did I know then just how relevant that history was to my personal life.<br /><br />One of the most intriguing series of events was around Julius Caesar. History has no consensus on Caesar - was he just a power hungry tyrant? Or was he a true patriot of Rome, taking the step he thought necessary to save Rome from herself?<br /><br />We can never know the thoughts of the man, but we can judge him by his actions. The most striking to me was Caesar's leniency, his forgiveness of his enemies. As opposed to precendent, Caesar did not kill his (real or imagined) enemies. <br /><br />In Caesar's lifetime, there was regular chaos of civil war. Both Marius and Sulla used their armies to kill their enemies in the streets of Rome. Most accounts of that time comment how the streets ran red with the killing of heretofore noble citizens of Rome, all because they made the hit list (proscriptions) of Sulla. <br /><br />And after Caesar, the same - Marcus Antonius and Octavius Caesar issued their own proscriptions, and again citizens of Rome were killed outright, their properties taken, their families brutalized and killed, because they were a political enemy.<br /><br />Gaius Julius Caesar, on the other hand, forgave those who took up arms against him. He did not confiscate their property. He did not strip them of their place in society, or even of their place in the Senate of Rome. He tried to work with them in passing new laws which even today clearly were to the betterment of Rome.<br /><br />Caesar was no angel. He did use his armies to fight in the civil wars, and he did kill other Romans on the battle field. He did use his armies to intimidate the Senate and to keep the peace in Rome. But never to kill the citizens of Rome, in Rome, just because they were his political enemies.<br /><br />And for this, be was betrayed yet again. Not politically, as civilized men would have it, but in blood, in his own death. By the very people he forgave and trusted again with the future of Rome. By cowards who wielded their knives not on the battlefield or even in direct confrontation, but on the very symbol of civilization and representative government, the Senate floor itself.<br /><br />I gained a new empathy with Caesar today. I had a personal event occur in my life that was ironic in it's timing with my new found fascination with Caesar. It is the worst feeling imaginable to have those in whom you place your trust turn on you and stab you in the back. <br /><br />While I cannot compare my feelings to those of Caesar, who was after all killed, I wonder...at least he didn't have to live with the shame, humiliation, shock and betrayal for long before he died.A Muserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09463588248115349984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11738753.post-43893421556955978602007-08-22T21:29:00.000-07:002007-08-22T19:30:03.191-07:00The Rise And FallI've been watching the 1st and 2nd seasons of the HBO series <a href="http://www.hbo.com/rome/">Rome</a> for the past week. I've always been interested in the history of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic">Roman Republic</a>. It's fascinating, and has so many lessons that are directly applicable to the times in which we live.<br /><br />(Side note: if history teachers would use historical fiction - books, miniseries - as a way to get people to engage in learning history, I think students would be much more interested, and learn more. Sure, they might have trouble at times sorting out fact from fiction. But which is worse - learning a few unverifiable fictions in addition to the documented facts, or knowing no history at all?)<br /><br />The time of the fall of the Roman Republic is filled with drama enough to engage any vidiot. Sex, War, Political Intrigue - <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar">Caesar</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicero">Cicero</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleopatra_VII_of_Egypt">Cleopatra</a>. How a civilization can go from a vibrant, creative global economy to feudal peasants rooting for food in the mud of the dark ages. How a representational democratic republic can rapidly turn into a authoritarian military empire - this is the stuff on which civilizations are made and broken. Literally.<br /><br />So many lessons. So many lives swinging on the honor (or is it vanity?) of men. How the guys with the guns will always rule at the end of the day. <br /><br />So many ideas to blog about. So few people who would care to read them :-)<br /><br />So I guess I won't. But if any of you are interested in seeing that there's nothing new under the sun, and how fragile our peace and democracy can be...rent or buy HBO's "Rome." (Or better yet, read some accessible historical fiction, like Colleen McCullough's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masters_of_Rome">Masters of Rome</a> series).A Muserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09463588248115349984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11738753.post-18906784230602491642007-08-22T20:37:00.000-07:002007-08-22T19:06:52.446-07:00My Cold, Dead PrivacyIf only the gun nuts felt as strongly about the 4th amendment as they do about the 2nd...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2007/08/10/court_rules_us_air_t.html">Court rules US air travelers can't refuse security searches at airports</a><blockquote>Citing threats of terrorism, the court ruled passengers give up all rights to be free of warrantless searches once a "passenger places hand luggage on a conveyor belt for inspection" or "passes though a magnetometer."</blockquote>This made me wonder how many other ways I could be subjected to warrantless searches.<br /><br />A <a href="http://www.lawcollective.org/article.php?id=105">quick primer</a> here was interesting. Bottom line - if an authority has "probable cause" (which can be just about anything - including a completely subjective "I thought they were drunk," or "I thought they looked like that suspect we were looking for."), then they can search you and your immediate "area of control."<br /><br />The current US Administration <a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060327/27fbi.htm">doesn't even believe</a> they need probably cause. (Of course, they don't believe they need to be accountable to the other two branches of government, either, so I guess that's not a big surprise. But to be fair, apparently <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp">all Presidents believe</a> they are not subject to 4th amendment restrictions.)A Muserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09463588248115349984noreply@blogger.com0