Where Have They Been Hiding?

I've lived in the city for over five years now and when you live and work in a place as bustling and diverse as New York, you tend to see a myriad of people. But one thing I've never really seen before is children. Oh sure, on the weekends you see teenagers playing basketball in the park or young families at brunch. Or at lunch-time you see small kids being strolled by differently shaded nannies, especially here on the UES. But I've never really seen any schoolchildren. You know, pre-teen to teen, hang out at mall, text each other on their Sidekicks kind of schoolchildren. I always knew in the back of mind that they must exist somewhere, just like you know, way deep down, that every time you watch American Idol, Randy is going to look more like a woman than he did in the previous episode until one day the horrible secret will be revealed that he's really Star Jones and you go "Aha! I just knew it!" You know, that kind of nagging suspicion that it is impossible for this city to be inhabited only by multi-ethnic adults and Aryan toddlers. So where are these pre-teens? And do they ever show themselves? I mean, I have seen Kids, so they must be somewhere.

Well I found them. Apparently they only come out in the wee hours of the morning, before I usually get out of bed. And they all travel via the Second Ave bus.

Microsoft Strikes In The Most Unlikely of Places...

So, in case anyone was wondering, my research is on polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), specifically long-chain PUFAs, and they generally come in two varieties, omega-3 or omega-6. The omega means that the first double bond (or first locus of unsaturation) is the third (or sixth) position from the terminal carbon. Carbons are usually named from the head-group, beginning with the alpha carbon, followed by the beta and gamma carbons, etc, but when you're talking about 22 carbons, for example, that gets unwieldy.

Now, if you read the literature, you often see omega-3 or n-3 interchangeably. Now why n, do you ask? I've often wondered that. Classically, omega and n aren't really related. And if you look in the literature, the terminology only changed in the past five or ten years. Before 90s, they are never referred to as n-3 or n-6 fatty acids. What's up with that?

Well, I will tell you. Microsoft apparently doesn't use standard symbol encoding, so when transferring from Word to Adobe or a Postscript printer, omegas magically turn into ns and they are a pain to get back. And somehow, over the years, the fatty acid community has just come to accept the fact that n-3 = omega-3.

Damn you, Microsoft!!!

Gays and Wealth

An idea that is often floated around is that gays, as a group, are wealthier and more successful than the average bear. This is often used by gay supporters as evidence that they will generally make good homes for children, are useful members of society, are more creative, etc, etc. It's also used by the far right to show that gays aren't really an underprivileged class since they do so well financially and occupationally.

But does this mean that gays are actually more successful or that gays who have come out of the closet are more successful? Or, similarly, does one's success help determine the ease with which he can accept his sexuality? Successful people have access to better psychiatric care; they are more prone to live in urban areas, which are more liberal; they tend to have jobs where the barriers to success are no more than women and probably less so; and they tend to be more self-confident due to their current or projected affluence that the negative social and emotional consequences may not affect them as much as if they were in a stifling or confining work environment.

Basically, what I'm getting at is that there may be the same ratio of gay to straight factory workers as gay to straight stockbrokers or academics, it's just that they're not very visible. Although it's hard for me to pinpoint why I'm smarter than the average bear.....

Fine Dining...

This week is Restaurant Week, and so the boy and I decided to have lunch a V as well as Nougatine at Jean-Georges, and what I came out of the experience is that Mr. V prefers his diners to be uncomfortable with no where to comfortable put their feet.

Given that, I have to say that my food was excellent. At V on Monday I started with the celery root and chestnut soup with pancetta, warm and nummy. I followed with the Neiman Ranch steak and sweet potato fripps. The steak came with a delicious carmel soy sauce that was a pleasant blend of savory and sweet and the meat itself was grilled to rare perfection. For dessert, a banana strudel. Simply divine, even if the gold leaf all over the place was a bit tacky.

I much prefered my lunch today at Nougatine, however, even though the tables were even worse for comfort. I started with the parsnip soup, with citrus aspic, tangy croutons and baby cilantro. God I love parsnips. I followed with a breast of chicken in a mushroom glaze over a bed of wild mushrooms, spinach and turnips. Also divine.

Now I'm off to our departmental opening where I hope to get pleasantly smashed on wine so I can forget the fact that my neck has become about half an inch bigger than my collar.

The Sky Isn't Falling!

The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) remains intact, as a Florida judge rejects a lesbian couple's request to have their Massachusetts marriage recognized. If California follows suit , further DOMA challenges will probably be harder to win. I do, however, wonder how the likes of Rick Santorum (spit, spit) will react if New York voluntarily decides to accept them. DOMA's very clear on this; no state can be forced to accept the marriage of another state. It doesn't say they are prohibited from accepting them.

This, of course, means that next to Virginia, Florida has to be the least gay-friendly state in the country. Where are Mrs. and Mrs. Rosie O'Donnell when you need them?

From the Mouths of Babes

Yesterday was the beginning of the so-called "revolution in evolution" in Dover, PA, and thankfully the earth hasn't spun off its orbit yet. So let's see how effective this "revolution" actually was by seeing what the ninth-graders actually thought of the 1 minute long statement about Intelligent Design:

"I really wasn't paying attention."

"If they're going to teach that, then they should teach everything — like Rastafarianism."

"It (the statement) was kind of confusing."

"I feel that, if they (the board of education) are for something, then there should have been discussion allowed. I was wondering why we weren't allowed to ask questions?"

Well ladies and gents, there you have it. The great Intelligent Design revolution. A confusing statement that no one really paid attention to and left the kids more confused than they were to begin with. I guess that's what happens when you let bureaucrats decide what goes into a curriculum....

I Don't Know Whether to Laugh...

... or cry. Or vomit.

I wish I had watched the O'Reilly Factor last night. Bill takes on evolution...

"But, what if it turns out there is a God and He did create the universe and you die and then you figure that out? Aren’t you gonna feel bad that you didn’t address that in your biology class?"

I can't... I mean it's just... I think that...

Shit.

Read the whole thing. Preferably on an empty stomach. And pay careful attention to his argument that human cloning isn't science because it hasn't happened yet...

God and Torture

I was perusing the National Review on-line this afternoon and I read two things that I need to comment on. The first was about George W. Bush and God. It's mostly about how often God is mentioned in presidential inaugural addresses. Mostly....

Despite all this history, if George W. Bush mentions God in his second inaugural, especially in a meaningful way, he can expect to be attacked by those abysmally ignorant of U.S. history, by those clueless as to the real meaning of separation of church and state, by those seeking to expunge any vestige of God from public life.

I, for one, couldn't care less if the president mentions God in a speech and while I'm not terribly ignorant of U.S. history, I think it is very important to hear how he mentions God. Andrew Sullivan, who is sometimes a bit paranoid about these things, has brought up a few points in recent weeks. First, when apparently a GOP insider said "Mitt Romney is going to have a hard time connecting with the social conservative base of the party given his Mormon faith--just a fact of life. For what it's worth..." Second, when Bush himself in an interview said "On the other hand, I don't see how you can be president at least from my perspective, how you can be president, without a relationship with the Lord."

Having faith should not be anathema to holding public office but it shouldn't be a prerequisite. And apparently, to be a Republican now, you have to be of a particular faith because apparently Mitt Romney, who is uber-conservative, will have a hard time getting support because he is Mormon. So, the question I have about God and Bush, when the president mentions God in his inaugural address, how much do the politics of his religion (not his religion itself) affect his public politics? His intentions, not his reference to God, are what is dangerous to a secular society. We shouldn't expunge God from public life but we shouldn't try to get Him involved in politics.

The second article that caught my eye was one defending Alberto Gonzales' testimony during his confirmation hearings....

With the facts separated from hyperbole, Senator Cornyn turned to the substance of Gonzales's legal thinking. The Democrats arranged for a handful of witnesses to criticize Gonzales, but none of them truly refuted (or even rejected) his legal stance. Indeed, the witnesses — a pacifist opposed to the war in Afghanistan altogether and two law deans specializing in international law — seemed, by the conclusion of Cornyn's questioning, to have little argument at all. To the senator's principal question, "Did they agree that all lawful means to gather intelligence likely to save American lives should be permitted?," they all answered affirmatively.

This may all be fine and good; I too believed that Gonzales acted legally. But just because terrorists aren't entitled to the Geneva Convention doesn't mean that they aren't entitled to human rights. I certainly don't believe that the the level of questioning should be kept to name and rank, as the Geneva Convention requires, but we certainly don't need to haggle over how far we can go without actually reaching the level of torture.

We're America. We're supposed to go above and beyond the call of duty. We go above and beyond with foreign aid, with protecting the world from terrorism, with personal freedoms for our own citizens. Shouldn't we be going above and beyond when it comes to preserving human dignity, no matter how ignoble or barbaric the human in question might be? And when did it become un-conservative to care about human rights?

We're either that kid that everyone hates because every teacher loves him and gets straight A's and is captain of the lacrosse team and homecoming king, or we're the kid that everyone hates because he beats all other kids up on the playground and won't share his ball unless he makes up all the rules. Quite frankly I'd rather be hated because I'm generally better than everyone else, not because I carry a bigger stick.

It's Colder Than A...

Witch's tit or a snowman's balls? That was the erudite debate I had last night. In case you don't live here in the City, we've been having unusually warm weather for January. For example, last week we had a day or two in the 60s. The 60s! But yesterday the temperature dropped to the teens, below 0 wind chill. So it was a lot colder than we'd been used to.

So we were walking to the Banshee for an after dinner drink when the subject of how cold it was came up. Jen said it was colder than a snowman's balls; I said it was colder than a witch's tit. We were thus at an impasse. Which was colder? We settled on the snowman's balls but for entirely different reasons. Jen maintained that the witch's tit would be at normal body temperature whereas part of the function of the testes is to maintain a temperature slightly less than 98.6 (95 I think) in order for sperm to be happy. I claimed that a tit would have a much lower temperature than 98.6 because external body temperature is significantly different than internal body temperature. However, a witch's tit is only metaphorically cold whereas the snowman's balls are literally made of snow and ice and would therefore be colder in general.

Now it's your turn: what's colder, a witch's tit or a snowman's balls? And why?

Santorum and Intelligent Design

Don't get me wrong; I have extraordinary little respect for Rick Santorum, if any at all. Which is why I find it fitting that language he adopted when drafting an amendment to the No Child Left Behind Act (which I have less respect for than Santorum) is now being used to defend the constitutionality of teaching Intelligent Design in public schools. To his credit, he doesn't support Intelligent Design, but says:

"I am not an advocate for intelligent design and I do not believe that public schools should be teaching biblical creationism in the science classroom... However, I do believe that evolution should be taught as a theory — not fact. It's important to teach the controversy of evolution so that students fully understand the depth of discrepancies regarding Darwin's evolution theory and the increasing number of respected scientists beginning to question evolution."

I have so many problems with this.

First of all, evolution is taught as a theory. A scientific theory. Which is based on virtually irrefutable facts. A scientific theory is also unifying and predictive. The theory of Intelligent Design is narrowing and predicts nothing scientific. This is not the colloquial definition of a theory. If there is any problem with the teaching of evolution it is that proper scientific definitions and terminology aren't being emphasized.

Second, while it is indeed important to understand the discrepancies regarding Darwin's evolution theory, it is even more important to understand how respected scientists have been modifying and adapting his theory for 140 years and how most of what his original theory predicted has been verified by reputable science. These "respected scientists" that Santorum references are not evolutionists of any kind. And this is important class: They are generally chemists, biochemists or mathematicians. They do not have training nor have they contributed any original research to the field of evolutionary theory or the origins of species. Not one "respected scientist" that has come out in favor of Intelligent Design has ever formally been involved with any research regarding this topic. Got that?

Look, if a judge is seeking expert testimony on the mental state of a defendant, he's going to ask a psychiatrist not a cardiologist. Just because they're both doctors doesn't mean that they can speak with equal weight on specific subjects. So why is it that IDers can't find any scientist who has a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology to come to their defense? I'll let you think of the answer.

Right now, I'm going to get back to chiding Rick Santorum, who is unabashedly Catholic and who should know that the Vatican has formally supported evolution but not Intelligent Design. You don't see the Pope rushing to endorse it so why should our public schools? Come on, Rick! Be a good Catholic! You're so great at keeping the gays from marrying and eroding the culture, why can't you help us keep this obviously fundamental Christian crap-ola out of our schools? You're right, our kids should be encouraged to think independently, but they should also be taught to think correctly.

The Weirdest Compliment I've Ever Received

In an email from a colleague:

So here's the story...you have the greatest blood ever. In particular, you
have kick-ass PMNs. As such, we're going to save you until Olivia needs
blood later this week...

So, in addition to my many other talents and positive qualities I can add "kick-ass PMNs" to the list, whatever that means. New York Blood Center eat your heart out! I got someone that wants to pay me for the greatest blood ever. Boo-ya-ka-sha!

I Am Not Making This Up

Dave Barry, beloved humorist and social commentator, retired from his weekly column last week. I, for one, will sorely miss him. Slate has a nice send off piece, very befitting of someone whose 22 year career was riddle with booger jokes. When I was growing up I used to read his column religiously as well as all his books. He certainly helped define my sense of humor. When I was in high school, I had a brief stint writing a humor column for the newspaper. To say that I borrowed Dave Barry's style would be an understatement. Of course, I was leagues behind him. I do think that some of him has bled into my more satirical writing, such as my intense love-affair with parenthetical comments, as well as his qualifying statements declaring the veracity of his too-funny-to-be-false stories. He's one of the few writers who could consistently make me laugh out loud. Of course, I haven't read him much recently, but I do go back every now and then and pick up one of his books from the eighties or early nineties. Back when he used to be funnier.

More On Dover and ID

The following is the text of the four paragraph statement that will be read to ninth-graders in Dover, Pennsylvania next week, regarding Intelligent Design Theory (my emphasis):

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.

Pay careful attention to the bold-face type. What is my mantra, people? Say it with me, all together: The theory of evolution is not a theory of origin! While the statement is, I believe, technically correct insomuch that Charles Darwin would probably support abiogenesis over divine creation (but he's dead so we can't very much ask him) the modern theory of evolution picks up only after life began. It's a given.

It's bad enough that these poor children have to be put through this crap; it's insult to injury that the clarifying statement is WRONG. Wrong wrong wrong.

I am, however, extraordinarily pleased, pleased to the point of tears, in fact, that all but one of the Dover science teachers wrote a letter of protest requesting to opt out of reading the statement. In the letter they write:

INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT SCIENCE. INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT BIOLOGY.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT AN ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

I believe that if I as the classroom teacher read the required statement,

my students will inevitably (and understandably) believe that

Intelligent Design is a valid scientific theory, perhaps on par with the

theory of evolution. That is not true. To refer the students to "Of Pandas and

People" as if it is a scientific resource breaches my ethical obligation to

provide them with scientific knowledge that is supported by recognized

scientific proof or theory.

Tears, I tell you, tears. I've taught in high school classrooms before and worked closely with teachers. Being a high school teacher is a thankless job. Dealing with administrations and school boards can be one of the most frustrating experiences ever. It can beat you down and just make you accept whatever stupid idea they throw at you because it's easier than rocking the boat. The fact that these eight teachers had the integrity to stand up and identify this idiocy for what it truly is gives me hope for the future. For someone who's life mission is going to protect and strengthen science and science education in this country, it's heartening to know that I don't have to look very far for help.

These teachers are truly unsung heroes, being called saboteurs by the anti-evolutionists. Well I say, when the anti-evolutionists have a theory that can actually hold more water than evolution, bring it on! But until then, go back to church. Or read some Thomas Aquinas.

La Cage Aux Faboolous!

Last night I saw the revival of La Cage Aux Folles at the Marquis Theater. It starred Gary "I Wish I Were Nathan Lane Because Anything He Can Do I Can Do Backward And In Heels" Beach and Daniel "I Was Tony Nominated But All Anyone Can Remember Was That I Was The Butler In The Nanny" Davis. They were (bad drag queen pun alert), ahem, Divine. It really is a touching story. Well, what there is of story, since this is really in the classic vein of the old-school Broadway musical. It's main draw was really a bunch of men in drag performing acrobatics and a kickline that would have put the Rockettes to shame. Oh, and the requisite penis gags.

I was especially pleased that they kept it set in France and that they didn't try to overtly pull any references to the current state of politics and anti-family policies of the current administration. Gary Beach's "I Am What I Am" made me sniffle, although I officially maintain it's my lingering cold. I kept thinking about how it must have been received in 1983; it's not a shy piece. The show is not Jerry Herman's best, but I'd definitely recommend it for the season. Considering the garbage Broadway has been dumping on us lately, it's quite refreshing.

Leeches!

The other night the boy and I decided to use that whole Movies OnDemand feature of my extraordinarily expensive cable. Rather than get something good, like Kill Bill, or professional wrestling, we opted for a B horror movie called Leeches! (complete with exclamation point).

I was not previously a fan of low-budget horror movies but I have since been convinced of their appeal. You see, in Leeches!, the "plot" is as follows: There is a community college swim team who are taking steroids (oh no!) and are fond of walking around in their speedos everywhere and/or taking off their shirts. They are also fond of swimming in the local lake, which has leeches. The leeches are fond of sucking the blood of the swim team and so they end up growing really big (from the steroids, remember) and terrorizing everyone.

So pretty much the movie consisted of slow, pan-up shots of nearly naked Abercrombie models with similar acting skills being sucked dry by giant leeches which were quite clearly hand-puppets. One of the swimmers was a resident biology geek (Abercrombie model with glasses!) who was able to fill in the requisite plot holes with painfully obvious astute scientific concepts.

I think my favorite scene was when one of the swimmers was tied to the bed by his girlfriend who left him there to go get condoms and while she was out, leeches sucked him dry. Of course, the slowly crawled up his nearly naked body while he moaned, thinking it was his girlfriend.

There was, of course, deliciously humorous homoerotic subtext, mostly coming from the overly macho main asshole character, Steve-o, played by some blond with horrible poofy hair who was apparently also played River Garvey Carpenter #4 on One Life to Live. (Now, I don't watch soaps so I don't know exactly who River Garvey Carpenter is or why there needs to be four of him. But there you go.) He also apparently is allowed to do things with Jason that Jason's girlfriend doesn't need to know about.

So, in conclusion, I suggest that you go out and rent Leeches! immediately, especially if you like to see almost naked boys being erotically sucked by leeches in something that is almost, but not quite entirely unlike porn. Of course it would have been so much better if we'd been given even just one butt shot.

Kyrce Swenson Is A Big Fat Whore

WARNING: This post contains very, very, very bad words that should not be read by anyone. Please proceed at your own risk....

If you're name is Kyrce Swenson, and you used to be a filthy, unemployed loser who lived in East Harlem, I have news for you: you are the biggest, wettest cunt in the world. That's right. Kyrce Swenson is the biggest, filthiest cunt in the world. What kind of whorish, filthy cunt sits in her apartment, unemployed for two years while trash and cat filth and moldy, rotting food builds up around her? Kyrce Swenson, that's who! What kind of twat-licking douche breaks eggs in the refrigerator and then doesn't clean them up for six months while they sit and fester and grow new species of mold? If you said "Kyrce Swenson is that kind of douche!" then you'd win a gold star! Because that's the kind of twat-licking douche Kyrce Swenson is. What kind of ass-licking cunt-whore signs a sublease agreement, moves out of town because she hasn't been able to find the perfect socialist, pinko-commie leftist job to suit her nutbag fantasies, and then doesn't resign her lease, even though she had a legal, binding agreement to keep the apartment? That cunt-whore would be none other than Kyrce Swenson. I mean, come on people! How big of a fat, lazy cunt-bag do you have to be to NOT SIGN A PIECE OF PAPER? I guess you could be as fat and lazy a cunt-bag as Kyrce Swenson. Because that's just the kind of cunt-bag action that someone as lazy and whorish as Kyrce Swenson would do. Because in case you didn't know, Kyrce Swenson is a big, fat, lazy, cunt-licking, twat-sucking, worthless piece of horseshit. Just in case you didn't know.

Oh, and if you are Kyrce Swenson, and you are reading this right now, you can go fuck yourself.

More Intelligent Design Hooey

Over at IntellectualConservative.com, Robert Meyer has a thoroughly unoriginal article about intelligent design. In it, he (or course) winds up comparing scientists' committal to the theory of evolution as "blind religious faith" and goes on to lament that one can't "convey honest skepticism without banishment." And this is what is wrong with this entire debate, if we can even call it a debate. How are we ever going to get anywhere in this discussion if we can't get past name-calling and false comparisons. Here's part of the passage that really struck me:

It seems curious, though, that some evolutionists and non-theists, such as Stephen J. Gould and Francis Crick, were not comfortable with the classical Darwinian paradigm of gradual changes via natural selection. Both came up with theories of origin, which made the need for intermediate types a non-factor.

First of all, and I cannot stress this point enough, Darwinism is not a theory of origin! Get that, people? The theory of evolution is not about the origin of life but the origin of species, the diversity of life on earth.

Second, note who Meyer evokes as supporters of evolution: Gould and Crick. Atheists. Naturalists. Hawkins often comes up as well. He's pretty much an atheist too. Do you know who doesn't come up ever by proponents of Intelligent Design as an example of an evolution supporter? The Pope. Or any other scientist who believes in evolution and God. The Discovery Institute, the major funder of ID "research" has one atheist. How often do you think they mention him? So often that you'd think he's the only atheist in the world that believes in ID (probably because he is). But how often to you here them talk about all of the thousands of scientists whose faith, true faith in God, isn't shaken by the notion that we might have evolved from apes? The hundreds of thousands, no, millions of people in the world who have absolutely no problem with evolution and still believe in God? Never, ever mentioned.

He continues to lament the fact that he perceives the debate as being loaded in favor of evolution:

We must also denounce the farce of objectivity. Science is supposed to take you where the evidence leads, and must have a patina of skepticism about it. Yet how many evolutionists are rooting for the universe to be a specific way, namely without an ultimate purpose or meaning.

Well now, Mr. Meyer, that's a totally different question, isn't it? The world being full of purpose or meaning? That's philosophy. He's correct to point out that people who use evolution as proof of the non-existence of God are overstepping the bounds of what science can tell us and are approaching religious dogmatism. But just because some people are misinterpreting what the theory of evolution can tell us doesn't mean that we need to replace it with one that has significantly less (if any) scientific credibility.

Happy Third of the Month!

If you can even call it that. Happy, I mean. Of course it's the Third of the Month. I've been up since six. Six! In the morning! Fuck New Year's resolutions; I much prefer my beauty sleep. Today is supposed to for me, me, me and I'm tired, tired, tired. But not as grouchy as some people I know who are quitting smoking against their will. But that, I say, is the best way to celebrate yourself; treat your body right!

That's why I'm going to sleep by nine tonight. Because I deserve it after my illness ridden holiday.....

Go moist towelettes!