Is This for Real?

Has anyone else heard about the woman from Pennsylvania who is accused of murdering five infants she had out of wedlock and hiding them in the closet of her own home? I know I say this a lot but WTF? And get this, apparently neither her husband, lover, or 19 year old daughter realized she was pregnant and then not pregnant five times! Oh, and she was a nurse which makes you think she might have realized birth control would be a much simpler solution than infanticide. Incidentally nobody where she worked seemed to notice she was pregnant either. How could she possibly have sex with her lover (or her husband for that matter) and they not notice she is freaking pregnant!?! Is that even possible? What did she say? "Oh, I accidentally ate a bowling ball..." I can't decide who is more stupid that women, or the men in her life. Honestly.
It makes me sick those babies were killed, especially when there are so many people who want babies and can't have them. But maybe they were better off not being alive to suffer through what I am sure would have been a long and hard childhood with that sorry excuse of a woman.
I can hardly believe that things like this happen and people like this exist. Why couldn't she just give them away of she didn't want them? I've seen horror movies less scary than what this woman has done. 

Consile This

I just started reading Consilience by Edward O. Wilson, And when I say "just started" I mean I am 10 pages in. The basic idea, from what I've gathered in the pages I have read so far, is that the author believes eventually science will merge with social science and everything will be explained and made clear through a singular set of laws. Philosophy will cease to exist, because every aspect of human endeavor will play by the universal rules, and so become understandable, testable, and predictable. At the moment I haven't the slightest idea of how this might happen, but it appears by the length of his book that Wilson has come up with a solution. I was going to read more, but I suddenly felt more like writing and thinking. (Not that reading doesn't require thinking, but I mean pondering/thinking not analysing/thinking.)

I have been toying around with a similar idea (or maybe the same one?), although I never gave it a name, whereby every human action and decision no matter how ridiculous or surprising might be understood in a fundamental way if viewed through the active mechanism of evolutionary progress. It is the idea that no matter what we do, no matter how badly we want to be in control of who we are, at the heart of every action that we are capable of performing we will always find that we are doing what 3.5 million years of evolution is telling us to do. From that point of view, psychology would not be the study of why humans act and feel the way we do. We would already know that. The study would focus rather on figuring out how our actions and feelings are satisfying our (to borrow a phrase from Star Trek) prime directive of evolving.
Even the actions of the insane and mentally ill could be "understood" because if there is some physical ailment that interferes with their ability to function then it stands to reason that their judgement and decisions would be faulty because of it (and not a their own fault). But what would that do to our legal/justice system?

The question becomes if everyone always does what nature intended, then is everything hopeless? If everyone since the dawn of consciousness (and before it for that matter) is doing what evolution wants them to do, then you could argue that the reason we have not achieved things like world peace is because we were never meant to. That's as good an example as any. At first glance killing each other appears counter-evolutionary, but maybe there is a reason we have been fighting each other for centuries. One might argue that it has been our primary means of population control. Our instinct to take over what others have instead of live peacefully side by side could be interpreted to be a result of the fact that evolution has shown that in the long run it is more beneficial to have your neighbor dead than living next door with his 50 offspring and a dwindling supply of land and food.
A dog can learn to open a car door, but it can't speak English. A dog is limited by what it is. Maybe we are limited in the same way? We might learn some cool tricks and have some nifty ideas, but maybe we lack the ability to change the world we live in literally because we are human. I don't know, does that sound depressing? Who cares if it's depressing, what if it's true? Science and philosophy, thought and instinct all rolled into one smooth reality.

Like I said, I haven't read the book yet, so hopefully whatever Wilson has to say on the subject is encouraging and not defeatist. I am already confused! Any thoughts?

Night Train Lane

Head to head collision

Today is my day for sequels I guess. I just thought that since it's been in the news recently I'd do a quick follow-up on my post about CTE (chronic traumatic encepalopathy). A couple weeks ago there were some really brutal helmet to helmet hits around the NFL. One was in the Atlanta vs. Eagles game and I can't remember the other two but I think one involved the Titans...or the Steelers. Anyway, the commissioner of the NFL, Rodger Goodell, immediately decided that something had to be done. So they (NFL) has sent each team a video breaking down legal and non-legal hits, and has also instituted more sever fine for hits on defenseless receivers. Here is a video from NFL.com that shows the hits, and describes the issue pretty well. (it starts around the 45 second mark). Injuries and impacts on players is a high priority for the NFL decision makers because of the possible severity of the consequences, such as CTE which can result in dementia, depression and suicidal tendencies. But the Comissioner is not the only one who has influenced the NFL in protecting it's players. It might seem odd to thank one of the meanest, roughest SOBs in football history for saving many a young man from the wide range of head injuries that can be sustained on a football field, but it happens to be the truth.

Night Train Lane

I was watching a show about the top 100 NFL players of all time the other night, and one in particular caught my attention. Ranked number 30, "Night Train" Lane was a cornerback for the Lions during the 1950's. From the video (this is actually a different segment, but it shows pretty much the same thing)I saw every hit he made on another player was as brutal as the above mentioned. He didn't just knock you down, he took you out. Back then there weren't as many rules in football, but two were created as a result of Night Train on the football field. The first was no grabbing the face mask of an opposing player (which could whip a guys head around and throw his feet out from under him). The second was no more "Night Train Neckties" or as we would call it nowadays clotheslining of players. In face, the rule became no hitting above the shoulders. So what's my point? 

Combination face mask grab and "Necktie"

You might wonder why I think he was so pivotal. The reason is after thinking about it for a while I realized that the NFL wouldn't have taken hits like the "Necktie" too seriously if they only happened once in a blue moon. Think about it. Guys were getting hit since football began being played. Players were grabbing face masks when they could and clothslining guys whenever the oppertunity arose. So why weren't rules made to protect players before Night Train? I think it has to do with the fact that he was so rough, all the time and on every play, that really he was able to get peoples attention focused on the problem in a way that no one else had been able to do. Suddenly players and coaches were thinking to themselves "Wait a minute, I won't make it to my 30th birthday if I keep getting hit like that" and then they realized that a change needed to be made. He took something that was always dangerous but sort of invisible in the NFL  and condensed it into a weekly ass-whoopin that brought it's severity into the light and made people sit up and take notice.  If not for Night Train, who knows how long it would have been before the NFL would have realized how dangerous above shoulder hits were, and changed the rules? And how many more players would have been injured in the process?That's what I think anyway. It's funny how things work out like that sometimes. Who would have thought the rough and tough guy could end up being a hero?

A Cowboy America

I know I just wrote about the rodeo, but there was one other point I wanted to make about my experience but I didn't want it to interfere or compete with what I was trying to say in my previous post. And a comment left by my cousin actually hit upon it. She mentioned that the pro-rodeo people say the rodeo promotes "American" values and I encountered similar claims on the websites I visited, and at the rodeo itself.

However, besides the calf roping the thing that actually offended me the most was the (pardon my language) douchbag (is that one word or 2?) rodeo announcer. If he is what is meant by "American" values then I am moving to Canada. He was the most ignorant, sexist, nonsensical man and I could barely believe he was allowed to speak, much less into a microphone over a loud speaker. And boy could that man talk. It's like they say "he who has the least to say always ends up talking the longest". I can't even list all of the stupid things that man said because there are too many.

But he covered all the basic points: religion, politics, sex and culture. He made a point of proclaiming that "his" Savior was Jesus Christ and told us if we don't get saved we are going to hell which brought him to his next point, his support of the war and our troops over seas (he then led a prayer for our brothers among the those that God abandoned). A while later he informed us of a woman's "proper" place (Oh yes, and I am being totally serious!). Somewhere in there he spoke of getting back to our "roots", and a simpler, American way of life, and how technology, development and industry is "ruining our great country". He made ridiculous claims like cattle ranching  is crucial to preserving the natural California environment, but criticized environmental groups that were apparently doing studies on waterborne illness from ranches and the effects on indigenous life. He spoke about family values and giving our children opportunity for a good life and in the next breath made racist comments about the Mexicans who come here and work for almost nothing to support their families. He had very strong words to say about dishonest "people" (which I can only assume includes all foreigners) trying to come into our country and take away "honest" American jobs.
I was like WTF? Is this guy for real? And no one else seemed to notice (except my boyfriend because he knows how pissed off I get about all that kind of stuff). They were all cheering and whistling and hollering. (Most of you probably have not seen the movie Borat, but there is a scene in it where he goes to the rodeo, and at the time I thought it was kind of staged, but I don't think that any more.)
It's outrageous to me that people really think a homogeneous culture, religious intolerance and going back to the days of outhouses and wiping our asses with leaves is what constitutes American values! Are we even talking about the same country? Because that's not the American I know and love. Seriously! I felt like I has stepped back in time.It was absolutely shocking.
I get why some people love the idea of a "cowboy" lifestyle; simple, hard working, lots of dirt and horse apples, and sleeping out under the stars. Except for the poop, that idea appeals to me too sometimes. But that doesn't mean that I believe my place is in the kitchen, or at the mall or "at a husbands side". Or that I am OK to give up the internet, or check the weather on my phone, or get medical attention at a state-of-the-art hospital when I need it.  And it certainly does not mean I think anyone who believes different than me or speaks another language should be banished from the country. In fact I consider that last idea specifically anti-American.
I don't want to lump all cow-people together and say that they all think like that announcer did because that would be stereotyping, and very unscientific of me. But if I was asked to form a hypothesis I will say that based on the fact that no one else at the rodeo seemed outraged by the man's idiotic comments there is a good chance that the majority of rodeo-folk agree with his...arcane philosophy. And that, to me, is an incredible thing to consider.

Quote of the Day

"Sometimes the only reason to move forward is because you can't go back."
-Unknown

Eat Me

Several years ago (neigh onto a decade now I guess) I read the book Alive written by Piers Paul Read about the plane full of rugby players from Uruguay that crashed in the Andes mountains of South America, and survived by eating the bodies of their fallen comrades. It is an excellent book, and I would rank it as probably the most unbelievable but true story of survival I have ever read. It is more amazing than any of my polar explorer stories because unlike Shakleton or Perry these guys were not trained, nor were they even remotely equipped (emotionally or physically) for their ordeal.
Anyway, just last week I saw a show about the incident, and it once again was revived in my mind. (I believe the show was on the History Channel but I don't remember for sure.) I don't want to re-tell the story, but I did want to discuss one part of it. The most controversial part, the part that shocked the world when they found out; the fact that the survivors ate the flesh of their dead friends to stay alive.
The survivors have been called cannibals by the press, but that isn't really accurate because they did not kill their friends in order to eat them, they just scavenged the bodies of those that had died by injury, cold, or illness. Some of them seemed to have no problem with it, some have lived with emotional issues ever since, and some couldn't stomach the idea at all and chose to slowly starve to death rather than pick the meat off of bones of their dead friends.

Nando Parrado survivor of Flight 571

I have no judgement about what they did, or didn't do, or their reasons. It's called survival for a reason, and under extreme circumstances extreme choices must be made. I honestly don't know what I would choose. But I would like to say this. While I am uncertain whether or not I could actually eat someone else (and raw too) I am absolutely positive I would not mind in the slightest if someone consumed my body after I was dead. I wouldn't want them to feel bad about it, and I wouldn't want someone to starve when they didn't have to on my account. The same goes for donating my organs or eyeballs (you saw how great they are) if for some reason I was to get into an accident and die. After my consciousness leaves my body I don't consider it to be something sacred, or special. I wouldn't want it to be preserved out of respect for me. In fact I rather prefer the idea of my body being something that could be utilized rather than just discarded. So if we should ever find ourselves in a situation where I am dead and you are hungry and there is nothing else around, I wholeheartedly say to you "Eat me."

A Question of Ethics II : Rodeos

A couple weeks ago I heard the rodeo was coming to town. For those of you who know me, bull riding (and I can say this from personal experience) is not really my thing. But my Significant Other grew up with livestock and roping and whatnot so I thought it would be a fun "date". Friday night we headed up to the Cow Palace in San Francisco.

When we got to the entrance of the arena there were tons of people wearing sandwich boards plastered with horrible and graphic pictures of cows and horses being strangled and contorted into positions nature never intended, all at the hands of competing cowboys. They were animal activists obviously, and that got me thinking as we walked in, bought our tickets and found our seats.

Are rodeos really a form of animal abuse?

At first it seems like maybe the activists are right. The "bucking" horses and cows...I mean bulls have a belt strapped around their..hips. And that's what makes them jump. And the calf roping has got to be my least favorite thing I saw with the cowboys lasso-ing and dragging the poor little guys to the ground and tying their feet up. I was like WTF? Why would anyone want to watch cowboys half strangle and tie up an innocent baby cow?
So I went to a bunch of people-against-the-rodeo sites (yes! right when I was there because I have an iPhone and I can do things like that) where they talked about the bucking belts pinching the genitals of the animals causing excruciating pain, and calves having their necks snapped during the roping competitions. I read about horses being stabbed by knife sharp spurs, and lots of other horrible things.

 Since I was still at the arena I tried to pay closer attention to what was going on. The first thing I noticed was the the referee-cowboys immediately unhooked the bucking belts from the horses and bulls after the rider fell off. They didn't leave them on the animals longer than was absolutely necessary for the competition. I had the chance to observe the belts close up (well, about 10 feet away) and noted that they didn't have any sharp parts on them (some sites claimed they were like the spiky choke collars for dogs) and that they were lined with what looked like wool, and that at least on the animals I saw, when in place came nowhere near their private parts. That was inconsistent with what I had just read online. Also I witnessed the cowboys kicking (or whatever you call it when they push the back of their boots into either side of the animal) and the spurs just bounced off the sides of the animals, never once cutting into their skin. That was also inconsistent with what the rodeo-as-animal-abuse people had said.
We had a chance to walk around and see a lot of the animals in their stalls during half-time (or intermission or whatever it's called). They looked pretty content to be honest. Most of the horses had on jackets and were brushed and had lots of food and water. The cows we saw looked healthy, no lacerations or raw spots of skin. They were sometimes kept in narrower stalls, but that was because in the close quarters of the arena apparently they get into fights with each other, and it was safer for them to be separated. The owners of the animals were mostly on hand and were very friendly. They let us pet them, but were also very concerned for their horse/cows comfort and asked people not speak to loudly, feed them random things or otherwise frighten them. I thought it was kind of odd to think that they would hurt their animal to get it to jump in the arena, but then ask that I not use a flash on my camera because it might scare them. From what I saw they all looked like responsible "pet" owners who cared for their animals.
We went back in to the arena and I looked up some pro-rodeo websites to see what they had to say. They claimed that the animals don't really mind the roping/riding. They said that rodeo animals actually live longer than most livestock (especially the cows who usually end up as hamburger in about 2-3 years). They said that the skin of horses and cows is much thicker than ours (duh) and that they don't feel the pain of spurs or belts the way we imagine they would. They said the animals are treated humanely and that the animal abuse people don't know what they are talking about. I thought about that, and I have to say I was kind of leaning that way...and then the (I have no idea what it's really called) little bull wrestling and calf roping started. And it was awful. I don't know why but ever fiber in my body was shouting what they were doing was wrong. The wrestling was accomplished by a little bull running out between two cowboys on horseback, one of which jumps off his horse, grabs the bull by the horns and then whips him around and tries to pin him on the ground. I thought for sure the cowboys would snap the bulls neck with how fast and hard they were twisting. It was gross. And let me tell you the little bulls did not want to lay down. I could be anthropomorphising (um I might have spelled that wrong) but they looked pretty terrified sandwiched in between to giant horses and ran like hell out of the chute.
Calf roping is similar in that the cowboy (on horseback) and calf run out together. Then the cowboy lassos the calf around the neck, shoves him/her to the ground and then ties up their feet. The calf's didn't like it one bit, and they made the saddest little noise, not a moo, but more like the baaa of a sheep as they were pinned down and tied up. Just thinking about it upsets me.
So who is right the activists or the cowboys/girls? I'll tell you I saw a little bit of both sides and I can't decide what I think. Some of the animals didn't seem too put out by the whole thing, and in fact they looked pretty pampered. But then some were obviously not pleased with being pummelled and tied. What do you think?