Hiding in Plain Sight

When you were here before,
Couldn't look you in the eye
You're just like an angel,
Your skin makes me cry

You float like a feather
In a beautiful world
I wish I was special
You're so fuckin' special

But I'm a creep,
I'm a weirdo
What the hell am I doin' here?
I don't belong here

I don't care if it hurts,
I wanna have control
I want a perfect body
I want a perfect soul

I want you to notice
when I'm not around
You're so fuckin' special
I wish I was special

But I'm a creep
I'm a weirdo
What the hell am I doin' here?
I don't belong here, ohhhh, ohhhh

She's running out again
She's running out
She run run run run...
run... run...

Whatever makes you happy
Whatever you want
You're so fuckin' special
I wish I was special

But I'm a creep,
I'm a weirdo
What the hell am I doin' here?
I don't belong here

I don't belong here...

I tried to put these behind an LJ-cut, but kept getting "irreparable markup" errors. Grr!





So, that's what it looked like within two hours of getting needled. Should heal pretty.

Well, I got a tattoo. It hurts now. It looked good when I saw it at the tattoo parlor, and it's going to be with me forever. Hopefully this perma-stinging will fade a bit sooner =)

Also, if anyone tells you it doesn't hurt? They're lying. They're not just lying, they're lying through their lying teeth. It didn't hurt as bad as I thought continuously, and my artist liked short lines, but it still hurt. At times, it hurt like a sumbish. Other times, it HURT LIKE A MOFO. And then other times, it hurt, but then tapered to a vibration, like when they're drilling my teeth.

Of course, I also wondered if he was smoking and had leaned in a little to close with the cigarette once or twice, mostly on my bone-laden areas.

Also, I had more pain on the left side of my back than on the right side... that's a little weird. makes me wonder.

So I got this in the mail today... I've omitted the link, because they don't deserve to live.

[i]Greetings!


Did you know that you could completely
eliminate your power bill by constructing a zero point magnetic power generator?

A Zero point magnetic power generator is basically a Free Energy Generator. It uses magnets, and magnetic force to induce perpetual motion. It runs by itself indefinitely without stopping, thus creating completely free electrical energy, which can fully power your home for free.

To learn more about this new invention
that can help many people eliminate their power bill just click or copy and paste the link below:
[/i]

Okay, I don't know WHERE to start on this...

1) Laws of Thermodynamics. Learn it, live it, love it.
2) Magnetic power does what now? Are you aware of the EM field around the earth? It's not that powerful.
3) TANSTAAFL. See #1

"I stole this one from a Facebook meme going around: Don’t take too long to think about it. Fifteen books you’ve read that will always stick with you. First fifteen you can recall in no more than 15 minutes."

Hmmmm.... a challenge!
1 Stranger in a Strange Land by RAH
2 Starship Troopers by RAH
3 Interview with a Vampire by Ann Rice
4 Azure Bonds by Novak and Grubb
5 Phantom of the Opera by Gaston Leroux
6 A Fistful of Charms by Kim Harrison
7 Kitty and the Midnight Hour by... YOU
8 The Cat Who Walks Through Walls by RAH
9 Shadows of the Flame by Lydia C. Golden
10 The Art of War by Sun Tzu
11 The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli
12 In Death Ground by David Weber
13 Spellsinger's Scherzo by Alan Dean Foster
14 Nightfall by Asimov and Silverburg
15 The Thrawn Trilogy by Timothy Zahn

Commentary - Of these books, Shadows of the Flame is listed not for being a great read, but because it is self-published and will haunt my mind as an example of what not to do in a book. Why I managed to tough through it is more a testament to masochistic tendencies. All of the rest of these books I've read more than once; in the case of Stranger, over 20 times now.

in aching stillness I sit
your words silent yet echoing
my ears hear nothing
a cacophony of emptiness
centered around the echoes
shaking my soul

my lips move making no sound
my thoughts race frozen in nothing
resonating to the hollowness
inside this symphony of the soundless

Randomness given form, and this is the v1 ingredient list.

CatTea:
Parsley Leaf (cut) 2oz
Catnip Herb (cut) 2oz
Kava Kava (cut) 2oz
Black Tea, Oolong (cut) 2oz
Ginkgo leave (cut) 1oz

CatSpice:
Garlic Powder - 1oz
Cayenne, 160,000 HU Powder - 1oz
Olive Leaf Powder - 1oz
Sage Powder - 1oz
Clove Powder - 1oz
Black Pepper - 2 shakes
Curry Powder - A shot

Note: Both take up a fair amount of space... as made, the tea takes a gallon ziploc bag and the spice is split between a spice shaker and a quart bag. All ingredients came from Leaves and Roots, an Orlando shop with good stuff. (It's on East Colonial, about 2 or 3 miles west of the Alafaya Trail intersection. Currently in a smaller storefront due to fire.)

Feel free to try these but I recommend scaling back the quantity of ingredients in proportion. CatSpice is hot.

Range has come... ranging to time to turn on...

Hurdle #2: Range has a 6-3 plug on it. Old range was direct wired to the circuit breaker... Lowes installation DOES NOT mess with direct wired to the house installs. Hehehehe...
Time to go to lowes to pick up a 6-3 range receptacle, and ask some pro-tips on how to install it!

This is a hoot... I may also pick up a dremmel for "trimming" purposes.

I KNEW I was gettin' me a damn tool this weekend...

(Dear lord, I don't even sound much like a computer geek today...

So, yesterday ivyriver and I went to Lowes... I originally intended to buy a new dishwasher. However, the preferred replacement appliance for the day in total was a range. So, after a little looking and some discussions, we came to settle upon this Whirlpool 30 inch Freestanding Range (I find it hilarious that the Lowes.com page says they don't sell it where we bought it.)

No problem, right? You'd think that... until as I was driving home I pondered our current stove. A Kenmore 30 inch drop in range. What's the big deal you may ask? Well... let me explain the difference. A drop in range, as the name implies, "drops in" to the cabinets in the kitchen. In our exact case, two cabinets on either side, with the center area being the drop in range. A freestanding range, on the other hand, merely stands apart from or in between cabinets. The real rub is that the counter top for a drop in is not fully cut out; the footprint for the top of the drop in stove is cut slightly smaller (around 29") than the opening you would need for a freestanding or slide in range. So while measuring the opening between the cabinets gives me the required 30" width, the counter top opening is 29" wide!!!! Tab does not fit into slot b, as they say. For the moment, I'll also ignore the extra inch and or two between the wall and the opening for the range (the counter top opening goes behind the drop in range, looking pretty with a back splash and everything. (I have pictures, maybe I'll upload them.) The free standing variety of range has to slide into this opening, and back (in theory, to the wall) to fit all pretty with the cabinets.

So, using a jigsaw, having to shave open the sides of the opening to approximate the 30" requirement is possibly the easiest solution, after also knocking out the bottom support for the drop in stove. Removing the back splash and remaining 1.5" of depth of the counter top still is a question mark for me... a dremmel maybe, or other rotary cutting tool might work.

Let this be a lesson... always look into what kind of modifications may be necessary BEFORE you willy-nilly buy an appliance. (I don't think this will be that difficult... but it may be funky for a day or two.

Hehehe.

Wiccan stabs self in foot during good luck ceremony.

Happy Birthday puzzeled! Also happy soon birthday to dreamsoren.

Also, random thought:

I was confused by the lack of Pat Lynch and Taco Bob the last time I was in Orlando. And now, I've finally found out that they were fired. And yet, 5 months and going after they were fired, the main server for WJRR is still named "fiasco".

F'n hippies. O-Rock goes away, Taco & Pat get canned... Radio is going to be dead to me at this rate.

K... so Obama wins the Democratic presidential candidacy (we think)... and then says this.

Okay, first Hillary comes out saying that she doesn't need to listen to experts in their field because she doesn't want to throw her lot in with them... now Obama is saying that we should tax the profits of oil companies to get money to help people pay for gas.

I don't like the way the Democrats are sounding on this. I mean... ignore the economists. Put a tax on the oil companies profits... this of course means that the oil companies will either reduce output (they did it before) or raise prices to pay for the tax. And then guess what? the money that we're taxing out of them will be going RIGHT BACK to them when we pay for the higher price of gas at the pump.


Can I PLEASE hear someone... Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Communist, I don't give a flying fuck who... tell me something reasonable? Like "I will back heavy government investment into coal-based gasoline, fuel efficient engine designs, and cars based on rational hybrid technologies."
Because, if you didn't know... people are saying the government should lower prices by taking away taxes, or punishing company profits, and pushing investment into Ethanol. Which uses more oil to produce than, well, oil.

I know I don't know the answers, but could we at least get some rational discourse on realistic solutions?

The continued insanity lends credence to my tin-foil hat based theory of government conspiracy. The U.S. government is purposely doing what they can to force the price of gasoline higher and higher to get American citizens so pissed off they'll accept a dramatic paradigm shift in their views on mass transit and lifestyle. Or else it's a ploy to distract people from the erosion of civil liberty across the board. Or as a way to make people forget about how fucked up certain things in the country are getting...

'Course, as fucked up as things are here, I'd rather live here than most other countries.

Bottled or Tap!!!
Water!!!! This has become a very precious substance. States are fighting over it - are we running out. A few years ago, who in their right mind would have thought we would be paying more for bottled water than we do for a soft drink. Bottled water-- exactly what are we drinking- I went to Target the other day while visiting my daughter in Birmingham- so many choices--> spring water, reversed osmosis, and so on and the gentlemen at the register said- you should try that water (referring to the display) -it is the best tasting water next to my filtering system at home. Many cities are taking their tap water, bottling it, and selling it as bottled water- wow!! cool marketing plan- you pay for it to come through your tap- yet you go to the grocery store and buy the same water in a bottle- Exactly, what are we afraid of? Why aren't we drinking the tap water? Is the tap water in our homes not safe to drink, to cook with, to bathe in, brush our teeth with? We are not living in a 3rd world country where you know to use bottled water!! Your thoughts, your concerns, your comments!!

I still agree with a standup comedian, who claims that Perrier water (one of the original bottled waters) was the result of a conversation in France. That conversation went along the lines of
“Americans will buy anything!”
“I don’t agree.”
“Really? I bet I could sell them water!”
On a more serious note, however, the amount of water present on the planet is not in any dire straits. Approximately 71% of the earth’s surface is covered in water, and there is more below the surface. As in real estate, the true problem of water is location, location, location. 97% of the earth’s water is contained in salt water oceans. That leaves approximately 3% of the earth’s water as fresh. Of that amount, 2.4% is locked in glacial deposits and polar ice caps. This leaves approximately 0.6% of earth’s water as free flowing or available fresh water. This, rather than any possible thought about us “running out” of water is the problem. And the other half of this problem is the availability of that 0.6% of the earth’s water. It is not evenly distributed, and some areas have considerably less than others. So how does this affect the notion of bottled water?
Well, bottled water is fairly easy to transport, and has a respectable shelf life. The naturally occurring water in some areas may “taste” better, as a result of different contaminants. This, for example, is why Zephyr Hills, Florida, is capable of making a great deal of money selling their bottled municipal water. It’s also what makes Perrier special. This begins to slide into discussions of consumer habit, advertising, and “conventional wisdom” versus scientific facts. Suffice it to say, Americans drink bottled water not because they have to, but because they have gradually succumbed to market manipulation and advertising. The majority of municipal supplies, regardless of “taste”, are perfectly safe. There have been instances of contamination, however it is not an ever-present threat in this country as it is in some. Chemically pure water, of course, is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. This causes me to wonder how people may be able to suggest that some water “tastes” better; the “best” pure water should have no taste at all. Many filters actually remove contaminants while adding others, so that there is a pleasant taste to water. It’s this process that may be part of what makes bottled water alluring. Tap water is regulated for purity, not taste; bottled water, like most products, is actually monitored for safety and quality. Part of quality generally includes taste, so manufacturers tend to try and make sure each bottle “tastes” the same as the others. This is a normal part of corporate production; people generally dislike inconsistent tasting products, and steer clear.
The scarcity of water, and the feeling that we are running out, is due more to the overutilization of available water sources in our areas. Georgia, for example, had issues because their water sources rely on rain and the flow of rivers. The amount of water provided by these sources is limited and constant; the population of residents utilizing that water is increasing steadily. There is no true shortage of water, but a failure of distribution and resource management. The naturally occurring sources of water are insufficient to support the growing populations in those areas. There are really only two choices… people can move to where there is more water to support the larger population, or find a way to increase the amount of water available. To date, many initiatives to produce water in addition to that which is naturally occurring have run into many problems. Desalinization plants are able to produce fresh water from the sea, but must be located on the coast. This means that the water would have to be pumped long distances to reach the people that need it. Further, desalinization leaves behind a large amount of solutes and is not exactly energy efficient. What to do with the remaining solutes and the energy requirements are questions that have yet to be solved. Condensation plants have been technically difficult, and have environmental concerns as they may reduce humidity in the areas they operate. There does need to be re-evaluation by people about some basic facts; there is a limited amount of water available in desirable areas, and some areas are completely dependent on water from outside sources (for example, Las Vegas, Nevada); without some changes in thought and realization that optimal water use and the location of other sources of water, we simply cannot continue to concentrate our populations into smaller, denser areas. The trend towards urbanization makes many things more convenient, but also concentrates more and more of our ecological burden on small areas that are more easily destroyed by our taxing presence.

My political science professor, Peter Vroom, sees “water wars” in the not too distant future. I, sadly, can’t say I don’t agree; as a race we seem to flock to simple, quick solutions that are easier than long term thought out plans and self-sacrifice for the better of the entire group. Also, if you get the chance, take World Politics by professor Vroom; it’s a blast.

These two are from my bio lab... same teacher... can you guess?

---

Lab Discussion Questions:
Biology
Compare the goals of science and technology. Explain why an understanding of biology is essential to all of our lives-- Your thoughts!!!!


The goals of science and technology are interrelated, but not identical. Science seeks to study the world, find explanations, and predictions. Science is about the accumulation of knowledge. Recently, this includes the ability to test our knowledge in reproducible ways. Technology, on the other hand, is the harnessing of our knowledge to create new processes and things that increase our productivity, ability, and sometimes, our quality of life. Technology uses science, but doesn’t often concern itself with the details unrelated to its goals. While scientists create plasma to study how it behaves and reacts to things, technologists create plasma to put together one really great HDTV image. Outside of how to manipulate color, position, and the like, the technologist doesn’t make broad enquiries as to the very nature of the substance he’s manipulating. It is, it works, and that’s all that technology really looks towards.
An understanding of biology should be relatively basic to all people. We are animals, and bound by our own biological urges, drives, and the requirements of our biological processes. All of our civilization is ruled by our basic biological drives, expressed in increasingly complex ways. It may seem to trivialize all of culture, civilization, and human accomplishments to say that they are merely the drive of gametes to produce more gametes through zygotes, yet without bringing to the forefront religious arguments… the basis of all life seems to be the continuation of life. Through gametes, producing zygotes, to produce more gametes, throughout all time until we are no longer capable of surviving.

Toxic Plastics !! In Our Kitchen
The substance is bisphenol-a, or BPA, widely used in the making of the hard, clear and nearly unbreakable plastic called polycarbonate. Studies and tests show that trace amounts of BPA are leaching from polycarbonate containers into foods and liquids. BPA migrates into food from polycarbonate plastic bottles or the epoxy resin coatings that line canned food. The typical adult ingests an estimated 1 microgram of BPA for every kilogram (2.2 pounds) of body weight. Babies who use polycarbonate bottles and formula from cans get more, an estimated 10 micrograms per kilogram of body weight. A microgram represents a trace amount. Consider this: a single M&M is about a gram. If you cut it into 100,000 slices, one slice would equal about 10 micrograms.The 2003-4 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found detectable levels of BPA in 93 percent of urine samples collected from more than 2,500 adults and children over 6. Although many plastic products claim to be microwave safe, some scientists warn against putting any plastic in the microwave. “There is such a wide variety now, from disposable containers to actual Tupperware,” says Dr. Anila Jacob, a senior scientist for the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based advocacy group. “I don’t know of anyone who has done definitive testing of all these different types of plastic containers to see what is leaching into food.” Your thoughts, concerns, experiences, comments!!!!! (This was taken from the New York Times-) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/health/22well.html?adxnnl=1&ref=science&adxnnlx=1208995596-XKlZrrviN1Pk8Dhu46pi+Q
This is definitely something that needs more study. But then, it would be interesting to see whether or not BPA is a significant risk to humans who ingest it. Following the link for “Bisphenol-a” above, I noted that the National Institute of Environmental Health expert council found only negligible to minimal concerns about BPA, except for infants, children, and fetuses. Certainly, people in those categories should consider the products they are using or providing. The BPA being excreted in urine is not necessarily a bad thing, however. The chemical is passing out of the body along with many other toxins and indigestible substances your body removes. The amount of “food grade” silicon entering and leaving the human body isn’t addressed, and I know from occupational exposure that there are some very hefty warnings associated with that substance. The proliferation of new substances our bodies are dealing with means that we absolutely need to study the effects of these substances, but weigh them against the benefits provided. Even plain milk can have negative effects on humans, who are still adapting to drinking it, and likewise there are minimal risks associated with glass containers.
For the most part, I do agree that one should be hesitant about microwaving in plastic… there are too many different plastics in use to always be sure that your dish will avoid melting. And until we study how much of the BPA is entering, AND leaving our body, we don’t know exactly how much is staying in the body, or exactly what those effects can be. Caution is always good, but I don’t know if it’s quite worth giant blaring red flags that seem to permeate the non-peer reviewed media. Y’know, the ones that keep saying fat is good, fat is bad, carbs are good, carbs are bad, butter is bad for you, margarine is worse, etc.

Hybrids!!Nano?
Is "hybrid" the new word??? Everytime I listen to an advertisement I hear the word "hybrid" something- well I know about hybrid animals such as a mule and hybrid vegetables and other plants-but now there are hybrid cars (and now the Nano car) and hybrid heating systems for our homes to help with the environment- What are they? In the skim of things will these make a difference ? or are they a quick fix to a serious problem? we all know what we have to do- but are we as a society ready to make the cutbacks and necessary commitments - we can fly in our jet all over the world to talk about the problems of the environment or print millions of newpapers & flyers promoting good practices - isn't that part of the problem in itself???? What are we going to do? Your thoughts, concerns, your comments!!!!!!!!!
Hybrid cars? Hybrid flowers? Nanos? Hybrid is a marketing term, and nano… well, nano is too. If we could develop a hybrid nano alternative renewable energy solution, we would be at one with the great zen of the world. Sadly, these are all buzz words which hint at glorious futures and deliver almost none of their promises. The classical uses for hybrid, as you note, involve animal husbandry and dirty hands ecology. Both of which are good, and often underestimated, parts of our world. Genetic engineering is accelerating how we combine and create new species and plants, which in the future will be a necessary thing. The earth can barely sustain the human population now, and it’s not going to get any easier. Hybrid cars are a start… but they don’t make a great difference, and they’re still novelties. While the price of gas may force automakers into accelerating their plans at introducing hybrids, nanos, minis, and the like, we as a society in the United States are still less primed to receive them. We don’t really want a super small, amazingly safe and gas sipping car. We want a Ford Explorer or Cadillac Escalade that is just the same as the ones we have now, but that runs on synthfuel which is cheap, easy, and whose only emissions smell like Chanel No. 5. Raising awareness helps to slowly shift our glacier sized societal baggage in the right direction, but we don’t seem interested in more than quick fixes that require minimal changes to our normal habits. The Nano (or for that matter, the better named ForTwo), and our new crops of Hybrid cars, flex fuel cars, still barely fit our perceptions of what’s acceptable. Hybrid air conditioning systems are a far better idea, although perhaps not as good as moving the majority of our houses underground (where possible; not likely in Florida) and seeking better ways to generate electricity locally to fuel our own needs. I myself am a fan of the “off grid” house… one which is not connected to the utilities network, and largely energy independent. Think of all the copper wires we could reclaim! Then of course, we could stop people from stripping copper pipes out of vacant houses, a form of guerilla recycling which is gaining popularity as the price of copper rises. Fossil fuels aren’t the only disappearing resource, but they certainly get the most press time.
I would say more, but I have to go work my other job so I can get gas money to go to my primary job.

Yes, at this point I no longer cared. But this is the last one for Bio 1101. My lab has a couple though... ugh.

Super-Athletes????
Are world - class athletes born or made? this question is debated about almost all human attributes, both good and bad. Genes and training must play a role. There are other factors to consider such as skeletomuscular structures.- Consider ligaments- they hold bone to bone at the joints- by increasing the proportion of collagen to elastin fibers - one increases the strength and decreases the elasticity of the ligament- A pitcher on a major league baseball team- must throw the baseball with sufficient speed and force to make hittting the ball difficult- this is close to the limits of force that the human elbow can withstand. The pitcher with more collagen is likely to do a better job than the individual with more elastin. --- Muscle biopsies are routine in sports programs of some nations. Children who show evidence of being good runners or swimmers are biopsied to determine the ratio of fast-twitch muscle fibers (quick response, sprinters,etc) to slow twitch muscle fibers ( long lasting, endurance sports- swimming, marathons) On this basis, they are trained for sprint events or long-distance events. Some parents want to give their child growth hormones at early ages to increase height, size. Athletics have become a science not just playing the game!!! A team nurtitionist, trainer, specialist in each field of medicine,psychologist, and so on-- Gets very expensive-Our Sports of today !!! - begins at an early age- grooming today 's children to be the Sport's Stars of tomorrow - Your thoughts , concerns, and comments!!!!!!!!!!! Athletes today are made much like our consumer products. The manufacturers (parents, coaches, national programs, etc) look for a good raw material... a child with good performance, good genetics, or a promising outlook. From there, that raw material is shaped, molded, and grown into the desired shape. Continually the manufacturers, aided by the athletes, push harder and faster to get the most possible performance out of what they started with. This isn’t anything new, really; my fencing teacher at a previous college started off by saying “If I had you when you were 5 years old, we might have been able to make you into something. Now, I’ll make sure you are okay, but you’ll never be a true competitor.” The lengths people will go to, and the tools they have today, however… they have increased amazingly. Even with anti-doping laws, regulations, and mandatory tests for performance enhancing substances as early as middle school, coaches and trainers have found ways to increase performance while being all but transparent to anything but the strictest tests. In perhaps the strangest case, the IOC recently turned down a request from a “paralympian” (an athlete in the Paralympics, an Olympic style sporting event for persons with disabilities) to participate in the Olympics. They denied his request because, as a double amputee, they deemed that his advanced prosthetics would give him an unfair advantage over healthy runners. (His prosthetics were recurve carbon fiber “springs”.) Had they allowed it, and had he won, would we see a surge in the number of voluntary amputations?
The mindset that leads parents to go along with this kind of program boggles me, although I admit that it may simply be a different lifestyle from the one I grew up leading. Today, athletes in even “unpopular” sports can make large amounts of money for their endorsements and skills if they are the best at what they do. And pressure is high on them to be the best; the better they get the more people tell them about how much better they could be. The inner drive of some sports figures is admirable, but there are times when the only voices are coming from the outside. There is a point where this becomes too much, and I think in some cases we’re already there. But so long as we keep pushing for better, faster, stronger athletes, even at the expense of their happiness, longevity, and human limits, I don’t see things changing.

The subject line says it all for this one...

---

Who owns the eggs?
Who is responsible for the mix-up at the sperm bank that led to the birth of a baby to parents of a different race? If a couple has had fertilized eggs frozen prior to a divorce, can the embryos be disposed of? Is it ethical to carry an anencephalic (lacking a brain) fetus to tern in order to supply tissue for transplantation? What about beginning a pregnancy and then terminating it in order to collect cells to treat a sibling who has cancer? What are the rights of surrogate mothers? These questions have been repeated in divorce courts, behind closed doors, on the evening news ,and even on soap operas. The newer techniques of fertility and infertility control, like those of genetic engineering, have inevitably led to moral, ethical, and legal dilemmas. Who is responsible? What parameters should be set? Who should set them? Our court system seems to be lagging behind our technology!!!! Your thoughts , concerns, and comments!!!

I am in no way touching this one with a ten foot pole. There are entire degree programs in advanced bioethics that cannot begin to adequately address this seemingly simple question. Hopefully, science and technology is advancing beyond the point where we’ll need to make these kinds of decisions; between the Department of Defense researching how to “turn on” genes that would allow us to regrow lost body parts to other research in how to find stem cells for use and research without involving embryonic stem cell lines. In a cold, detached sense any random group of cells that does not exhibit consciousness, self-awareness, and self-determination could be considered dead. Or is it the lack of recognizable brain wave patterns? Maybe all we need is a heartbeat and breathing to be alive? Where life, and consciousness, begins, and how it ends, is beyond our current understanding. As people, we each have our own viewpoints. And this particular one is possibly the fastest way to start a fight, bar brawl, or irreparable rift between people. Then again, in the few cases we have, the results are mixed. Some people may slip into a coma, only to awaken years later as if nothing happened. Others may appear awake and aware, only for us to later find that their brain had atrophied to the point that they may have been only as “aware” as the grass on your lawn. Custody battles over frozen embryos may be the clearest suggestion that we should rethink how marriage and child-rearing are done in our society.
And if, as a mother, the race of your child is of more importance than it’s well being, perhaps you shouldn’t be a mother. (For that matter, if you need a sperm bank, perhaps you should try eHarmony.) Do the answers change if a life hangs in the balance? Messing with the mechanics of sexual reproduction has many many difficult facets, but I don’t think there are many people qualified to even begin sorting them all out; least of all most of our elected officials and legal system. For that matter, most of the people currently setting up rules and ethical statutes have questionable authority. If the courts decide, legal ones or those of public opinion, what is right for you, what about your viewpoints?

I wonder about this teacher some days...

---

To Vaccinate or Not?
Many people are unaware of a brewing controversy about various vaccinations. On one hand, every child is expected to be "innoculated" with some 30 vaccines by the age of 18 months and by the age of five years old have had up to some 38 shots. - On the other hand, some parents are concerned about flaws in the theory and application of our vaccine policy and claim they are dangerous. The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is dedicated to the prevention of vaccine injuries and deaths through public education and to defending the informed consent ethic. NVIC does not promote the use of vaccines and does not advise against the use of vaccines. In many cases the vaccine additives are far more toxic than the viral component. This is particularly true for thimerosal, which is mercury. Many people put more research into the car they buy than the medical procedures they consent to or the medications they take. Autism was once an uncommon disorder in the US- but now it is occurring at epidemic rates according to some statistics. Is there a link here? or a link between vaccinations and other illnesses / diseases- But, Can we just not vaccinate our children? I took the flu shot about 5 years ago- and then got sick- with the flu- almost ended up in the hospital- I don't think I have ever been that sick in my life!!! - Never taken one since nor have been that sick (knock on wood- for you that are not from the South -just an expression- thank goodness and wish myself good luck) Your thoughts, concerns, experiences, comments!!!!!!!!

I cannot possibly answer this question as well as my friend Henry, who is heading for Brown to get his doctorate in biomechanics and casually investigated this issue because he makes a habit of writing cogent responses to poorly thought out ideas. The link for his response is http://citybeat.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A140055 , and it is titled “No Vaccine Is Dangerous”. It particularly brings up the problems being had in Denver, CO, where fairly good percentage of parents refuses to vaccinate their children for fear of autism. One school appears to be grappling with a resurgence of whooping cough, which is largely wiped out elsewhere in the United States. Current vaccines are largely free of thimerosal, since it is easier (and more profitable for pharmaceutical companies) to use single dose, disposable units. The numbers of vaccinations children are exposed to is also on the decline. Whereas my brother had to receive multiple shots several times, including one “multi-shot” that left an interesting circular pattern on his arm, I only received one or two shots and drank a strawberry “milk” that I’m told will help me keep polio at bay. I too, have received the flu shot, for several years running and am currently pondering the 5-year pneumonia shot. The flu shot is poorly named, however, as it is only an educated guess by researchers as to what strains of the flu virus are likely to be most prevalent that season. It certainly does not immunize you from all kinds of flu virii, and can’t protect you if you do get the flu but ignore it because you’re vaccinated. In my case, the year I didn’t get the flu shot, I had the flu for a month… and then was in the hospital with pneumonia. I had pneumonia again this year, but avoided the flu. In my position (at an airport), vaccinations make sense because I will be exposed to nearly every strain of contagious illness you can imagine in the course of my work; likewise for school teachers it is a good idea. Children getting ill as they are young gain immunities; vaccinations are aimed to prevent children from being hit with diseases and illnesses they may not live through by providing their bodies a chance to build an immune response. Let’s compare for a moment the history of vaccination and autism. Autism, as a disease, has a muddled history but first began to be differentiated from other illnesses in the 1960s. It was discovered and has been long treated by psychiatrists and psychologists as a behavioral issue, although there are some clues that seem to link it with genetic inheritance. Vaccination in the United States was first allowed to become mandatory by a decision of the Supreme Court in 1905, in which the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was found to be legally able to require vaccination. In the United Kingdom, vaccination became mandatory much sooner. Yet the trend of increasing autism occurrences did not manifest until relatively recently, the 1990s. If additives in vaccination, as well as mercury content and other additives, were responsible for autism, why was the disease not prevalent in many of the earlier vaccines which contained many times the impurities of modern vaccines? The amount of mercury in a normal vaccination is miniscule compared to the amount which may be found in a fair sized tuna (or other apex predator fish) steak. Autism, in the way in which it manifests from mild to severe cases, does not seem to be a form of mental retardation or developmental abnormality. It rather appears to affect how the person with autism perceives and communicates with the world around him or her, often in very frustrating ways. The most common treatments today are behavioral and social skills approaches, while many drug treatments lack even the most basic research to prove any positive effect.
Certainly, any new vaccine regimes should be thoroughly investigated, and some vaccinations may be adjusted as the prevalence of diseases they treat changes. But not vaccinating your kids is akin to betting that the 1 in 1000 odds of autism are better than their odds of not contracting 10 potentially fatal illnesses between birth and age 6, or a number of others later. Let’s do a lot more research before throwing away the gift Pasteur gave us, and which has saved untold millions of lives in only the past 100 years.

Without getting into a political discussion, or endorsing any candidate, or putting forward any viewpoints vis a vis the election, I found it humorous that Google may be making a dire prediction about the chances of the Democratic candidacy....

Searching for Obillary (a way of saying Obama with Hillary as VP) made google ask me "Did you mean Obituary?"

Of course you could also construe that to mean Google is calling Hillary a bitch...

Hmm.

For fairness' sake, I've left intact my biology professor's "question" at the beginning. This is a Biology 1100 class.
"A pill to lose belly fat, a purple pill to aid acid reflux, a pill to make "Bob smile", a pill for my headache, and a pill for my backache. I'll just run up the to pharmacy and pick up some cough syrup and/ or allergy pill- I'll feel better tomorrow. How well informed about warnings and cautions on over-the-counter(OTC) medications are most people? Is it easier to receive a prescription and send you on your way in a quick exam because there are so many patients waiting to see the doctor and you have waited a long time as well?. "just give me a prescription or a shot, Doc, and let me go home" Do we as a society expect that quick fix? What has accumulated in your medicine cabinet or medicine drawer? Have we become an over-medicated society? Your thoughts and comments, experiences !!!!"

Why are we overmedicated? There are a great many answers to this question, and all of the suggestions you've made are absolutely valid. But that only scratches the surface. For doctors, it's a dilemma of time and suggestion. There are a lot of patients, and most doctors can only expect to see a patient for between 10 and 20 minutes. (The military healthcare system makes most appointments for 15 minute increments.) This is not a lot of time to determine the cause of symptoms; it becomes a lot simpler for the doctor to make a guess concerning the most likely causes, and prescribe medication that treats the symptoms that present themselves. Patients themselves seem less inclined with finding out the root causes of their problems, and instead want a fix that involves the least impact to their lifestyles. When it comes to psychiatry and some branches of psychology, this kind of thinking can be atrocious. I incurred a seven year hiatus and a change of schools because of a psychotic breakdown; during the time I sought treatment, I was referred to a psychiatrist. His office was decorated in the latest Prozac (tm) promotional gifts, and he saw me for 10 minutes. As you might guess, I walked out of his office with a prescription for Prozac (tm) and an antipsychotic drug called Risperdol. During that brief visit, the good Dr. said the following: "Remember, it's about quality of life; we want to reduce your symptoms and increase your quality of life, although you may have to take these drugs for the rest of your life." Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on how you view things, I am one of the few people that have a severe allergic reaction to Prozac (tm). After just three days, I had to stop taking Prozac (tm), and was then prescribed a different antidepressant called Remeron. I eventually was unable to take any of the medication prescribed to me, the last of which was going to be Paxil (tm), because my situation at school had deteriorated so much that I no longer had insurance, and could not afford approximately $100 a pill. I eventually recovered, and am doing just fine now. This story should bring up a few questions... I saw the psychiatrist about an hour after the appointment was made, and the psychiatrist spoke with my psychologist for approximately 5 minutes. From the psychiatrist's manner, he already had a very good idea of what was going to prescribed within the first few minutes of my visit. Based on an overall time of 12 minutes, the psychiatrist had determined that I was likely going to be taking antidepressants for some time, and chosen a new antidepressant. The influence of pharmaceutical salespeople on his choice could have been fairly strong; many promotional "freebies" were present and directly related to the prescription he chose. (The prescription pad itself was a promotional item.) I should note that something similar occurred when my wife saw the same psychiatrist. While it's possible that this only reflects on this psychiatrist, I had a more recent interaction with a neurologist that was quite similar, although the problem was migraine headaches. Coincidentally, the neurologist prescribed an antidepressant that is normally used in place of lithium carbonate, and denied that there were any negative side effects despite there being clear labeling to the contrary on the package.
With prescription medications being the focus of a legion of pharmaceutical company salespeople, there is some weight to the cynical argument that drug companies are not looking for cures, but for treatments that will net the highest profit over the longest term possible. Rather than research methods of increasing serotonin production, they may find new and better ways of utilizing serotonin uptake inhibitors. The difference in these two approaches, in my mind, is that the former may solve the underlying cause of the depression (assuming it is biologically derived, and not cognitively treatable) while the latter promotes the patient becoming dependant on a product that must be obtained from the pharmaceutical company. As I mentioned, this is a cynical viewpoint and most likely not entirely true in practice.