BBC: "Couple stand by forbidden [incestuous] love"

I know I've posted about this before, but it was revived this week due to Slate's sex and sexuality special, and I can't help being fascinated by it. The story is here.

The thing that attracts/repulses me about this how it tests my small-l liberal impulses. They're not exactly hurting anyone by having the relationship, except the kids (two of the four have special needs, and apparently there's a 50% chance of that with siblings). But what if you and your non-related partners were both carriers of a genetic disease, and there was a 50% chance your children would inherit? Should the state prevent you from having kids, much less getting married?

 

On a related note, I was looking up autosomal recessive disorders  for the purpose of understanding the above, and I came across this nugget of trivia: heterozygote advantage: certain pathological genetic disorders can help protect you from other diseases! Apparently being a sickle-cell anemia carrier brings enhanced protection against malaria, and being a cystic fibrosis carrier may help protect against cholera (not the infection, but the damage it does) and tuberculosis.

And in case you doubt how helpful an extra protection against malaria would be, the July 2007 issue of National Geographic has this to say:

It's endemic to 106 nations, threatening half the world's population. In recent years, the parasite has grown so entrenched and has developed resistance to so many drugs that the most potent strains can scarcely be controlled. This year malaria will strike up to a half billion people. At least a million will die, most of them under age five, the vast majority living in Africa. That's more than twice the annual toll a generation ago.

Compare that to the WHO 2006 data on HIV/AIDS:

...an estimated 39.5 million people are living with HIV. There were 4.3 million new infections in 2006 with 2.8 million (65%) of these occurring in sub-Saharan Africa and important increases in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, where there are some indications that infection rates have risen by more than 50% since 2004. In 2006, 2.9 million people died of AIDS-related illnesses.

HIV/AIDS = 4.3 million infections   Malaria = 500 million infections

HIV/AIDS = 2.9 million deaths   Malaria = 1 million deaths

And bear in mind, there is no cure for HIV/AIDS, whereas there are plenty of cheap malaria drugs. It can become a lifelong, chronic condition, but it can also be fought off by the immune system alone. So all in all, as horrifying as the HIV/AIDS epidemic is, malaria is worse.

I coulda been a shepherd

According to this Medieval vocational test, a millenium ago, I would have been a shepherd:

Your distinct personality, The Shepherd is to tend to your human flock. You understand the needs of those for whom you are responsible. Shepherds are vigilant and reliable. You realize your obligation and commitment to the well being of those entrusted to your care. Shepherds are very dependable. You engender a feeling of comfort and stability to those within your charge. On the positive side, Shepherds can be empathic, caring, understanding, practical and realistic. On the negative side, you may be manipulative, close-minded and sentimentally rigid. Interestingly, your preference is just as applicable in today's corporate kingdoms.

The ubiquity of my profanity

I decided to take a cue from Language Log, wherein Google is often used to take straw polls of usage, and see how common my occasionally odd turns of profane phrase are. Here are the stats:

• "Oh my gentle Jesus": 1,610 hits, and notably featured on That 70's Show, episode 6X07:  "CHRISTMAS" (December 11, 2003)
• "Sweet merciful motherf**k": unique! Woot!
• "Green and gracious God": also unique. But possibly a bastardization of "great and gracious God," for which there are over 3,000 hits
• "F**k f**k f**kity-f**k": only 888 hits, but also has an entry on UrbanDictionary.com
• "Mom-effing": 65 hits
• "Mom-effer": 3 hits
• "Mom-effing mom-effer" (my preferred usage): unique!

This is excellent news. I'd hate for my swearing to be common. I didn't bother searching for "Jiminy Cricket" on the assumption that many cites would be referring to this fella:

than would be referring to the euphemism.

Testing, testing, 4, 5, 6...

Feeling: productive
Hearing: the Dog Whisperer

Now I miss the LJ-style headers. Must find a way to include those...

One thing I miss about LJ

Is the friends page!

Mind you, everyone but me seems to have curtailed their bloggery by a huge amount.

Nevertheless, how will I monitor the minutiae of the lives of my friends/acquaintances?

And I need to find a way to inflict my icons on you people...bwahahaha

Good news for a change: WaPo says bin Laden "Sinking in the Polls"

According to yesterday's column in the Washington Post:

• Currently, bin Laden is unpopular with over 90% of Afghanistan and Iraq
• "... polling in Turkey two years ago found that 90% of citizens believe the al-Qaeda bombings in London, Istanbul, Madrid and Egypt were unjust and unfair; 86% thought that there was no excuse for condoning the Sept. 11 attacks; and 75% said bin Laden does not represent Muslims."
• Support for "justifiable" suicide bombings has fallen from 74% to 34% in Lebanon, with similar declines in other Muslim-majority countries
• Majorities in Egypt, Indonesia, and Morocco agree: "Groups that use violence against civilians, such as Al Qaida, are violating the principles of Islam. Islam opposes the use of such violence."

Now, perhaps this should be taken with something of a grain of salt, since the author is undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs. She also conflates one problem--popular support for terrorism--with an unrelated issue--the lack of popular support for the US.

While it is good that many Muslims are recognizing that terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda are a common threat, many polls show that much remains to be done to improve foreign perceptions of the United States. The drop in support for violent extremists presents an opportunity to expand our efforts to nurture common interests with people overseas and work with them to counter al-Qaeda's attempts to radicalize young people.

Al-Qaeda's growing Internet propaganda activities glorify violence and seek to exploit local grievances, from political oppression to a lack of economic opportunities. In contrast, America's public diplomacy programs are engaging young people constructively, through English-language teaching, educational exchanges, music and sports diplomacy.

While I truly feel Ms. Hughes's heart is in the right place, two years of critical theory being pounded into me at Oz definitely makes my scrunch up my nose at some of these statements. I find the first statement (underlined, above) more than a little patronizing. ("While it is good that Susie has learned to use her words, she must be more patient and wait for her turn to speak in class.") I'm also amused/perturbed by the unexamined promotion of cultural hegemony contained in the last statement. And she states that al-Qaeda is exploiting "local grievances" without acknowledging that these "grievances" are sometimes as severe as crimes against humanity, and are often perpetuated by the US or its erstwhile allies.

 

...oh dear. I do believe law school has made me cynical.

More on the veil controversy

An editorial in Tuesdays Globe & Mail deconstructs the to-do over women voting with veils. It is not a policy change or an accommodation--leaving aside the issue if such an accommodation should be made. As the editorial states:

...the rules designed by Parliament for that purpose do not require photo identification. ... Voters don't have to show a photo identification card for the simple reason that many - those without drivers' licenses, for instance - do not have such a card. That is why the Elections Act offers alternatives. Those without government-issued photo ID may show two pieces of identification approved by the Chief Electoral Officer, as long as one shows their address. Or they may have another voter vouch for them (no more than one person per "voucher"), if each swears an oath.

But much more concerning is this:

Mr. Harper surely knows what that law says. His government passed it with opposition support earlier this year. He also knows that eligible voters living temporarily abroad may vote by mail; they do not show their face, except to a mailbox. Yet on the weekend in Sydney, he accused Mr. Mayrand of defying the will of Parliament. "The role of Elections Canada is not to make its own laws." This false accusation against an independent Officer of Parliament smacks of intimidation.

Well, goodness gracious. There's the resolution of the whole thing right there. Yet, of course, the blathering continues. Many articles every day on the subject.

But worse...so much worse it makes me gnash my teeth in anguished rage...is this ridiculous editorial from Sheila Copps in the Edmonton Sun. Now, full disclosure, the snarky Torontonian academic in me can't even say "Edmonton Sun" without smirking, but she is kind of an elitist bitch. Nevertheless, Copps misses the boat alluded to in the G&M piece:

The law states that the voter is required to provide satisfactory proof of identity and address. How can identity be verified if electoral authorities cannot validate photo identification?

...

The PM was right to slam Mayrand's harebrained interpretation of election law. All political parties should be wary of someone who exhibits so little understanding of the obvious potential for voter abuse.

No, no, no, Ms. Copps. What happened was, Parliament passed a woefully incomplete law, and now Mayrand is being slammed for interpreting it. It's just like when they flip out at judges for imposing the democratically-imposed Charter. Sure, he could have been more creative with his interpretation, but he might have gotten into just as much trouble for being "activist." He interpreted it (a) according to common sense, and (b) in a way that would allow the most people to vote. As always, it's open to Parliament to change the laws, and as almost always, it's easier for them to blame those forced to interpret and apply those laws for doing it wrong, rather than admit that the laws themselves have loopholes. Hindsight is 20/20, and all that jazz.

The Globe had it right:

Mr. Harper and the other leaders should take their own advice. They should respect the voting law, and not single out veiled women for special treatment.

As they say in politics: Oh, snap.

Canada hates on the UN...or does it?

Care of the CBC:

Canada to vote against UN declaration on native rights

Okay so, somewhat hysterically, we are joining forces with "New Zealand, the United States and Australia" in dissenting on the non-binding declaration.

As an aside, I'm not sure why we'd be so up-in-arms about a non-binding declaration, considering that we don't even consider binding agreements to be binding: see Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 SCC 1 (CanLII).

Anyway, the government's stated reason is that the declaration "lacks clear guidance for implementation and conflicts with the existing Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which the government believes already protects the rights of aboriginals."

I can see where this provision would cause problems:

Article 26 of the UN declaration states: "Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired."

Could they vague that up a little? Don't get me wrong, I am all about aboriginal rights, but I think the focus on land is a little ridiculous for 2007. Especially since history has shown that land isn't a panacea if it doesn't include jobs, healthcare, safe water, and so on. Land itself can provide these things, but not necessarily.

So I can see how the government might have sincere concerns here.

...I don't think they do...but I can see how the could...

You know you've got a problem when even the neo-Cons back away...

Care of the NYT:

Magazine

Conscience of a Conservative

By JEFFREY ROSEN

Published: September 9, 2007

When Jack Goldsmith took over as the key constitutional
adviser for the Bush administration, he soon found himself at odds with the White House.

Testing, testing, 1, 2, 3?

So, theoretically, I can post from Windows Live Writer to my Blogger blog. But will it succeed (in transposing titles) where Google Docs failed?

 

UPDATE: Holy heck, it works!

If you ever doubted that terrorist Muslims were bad Muslims:

The BBC, among others, is reporting: "S Koreans told 'convert or die'", and that the South Korean hostages were beaten and threatened with having their heads blown off if they did not convert.

Of course, their captors seem to have forgotten the general rule that forced conversion is not legitimate, based on the Qur'anic statement:

Let there be no compulsion in religion: (Surah 2:226)

Which is not to say that forced conversion has never taken place; like all proselytizing religions, like all religions that have held great political power, Islam is not immune to corruption and thus has been forced upon people in the past. Nevertheless, conversion requires that one state and believe the Islamic creed (the shahadah), and as such merely saying it is not sufficient. Good thing, too, or countless World Religion profs would have inadvertently converted over the years.

Long story short: being a good Muslim and a terrorist are incompatible, mutually exclusive, even. While Muslims, like Christians, may fight for certain causes, neither religion gives carte blanche for this kind of perversion, and Muslims the world over are done a disservice by these crackpots misusing their faith.

Best legal paper topic EVER

Via this BoingBoing post: "Magicians innovate without IP law" and availible via the SSRN here: "Secrets Revealed: How Magicians Protect Intellectual Property without Law"

Abstract:

Intellectual property scholars have begun to explore the curious dynamics of IP's negative spaces, areas in which IP law offers scant protection for innovators, but where innovation nevertheless seems to thrive. Such negative spaces pose a puzzle for the traditional theory of IP, which holds that IP law is necessary to create incentives for innovation.

This paper presents a study of one such negative space which has so far garnered some curiosity but little sustained attention - the world of performing magicians. This paper argues that idiosyncratic dynamics among magicians make traditional copyright, patent, and trade secret law ill-suited to protecting magicians' most valuable intellectual property. Yet, the paper further argues that the magic community has developed its own set of unique IP norms which effectively operate in law's absence. The paper details the structure of these informal norms that protect the creation, dissemination, and performance of magic tricks. The paper also discusses broader implications for IP theory, suggesting that a norm-based approach may offer a promising explanation for the puzzling persistence of some of IP's negative spaces.

Mel Gibson builds a $37m church

Mel Gibson builds a $37m church in the Malibu hills NEWS.com.au Entertainment

Okay so, we know Gibson is an old-school Catholic. And not in the Italian Grandmother sense, but the Breakaway Sect sense.

Gibson's secretive sect is not recognised by the Roman Catholic Church because it does not acknowledge the authority of the Pope or the Vatican and rejects the universally accepted teachings of the Second Vatican Council.

The church - which offers a daily morning mass in Latin - follows an antiquated ideology of Catholicism dating back to the 16th century.

Okay, let's play spot the oxymoron...

"...rejects the universally accepted teachings of the Second Vatican Council." Yes, um, see how that's not possible? I mean, I love JP2, and most people love the 2VC, but come on...obviously there are going to be some hardcore conservatives who don't like it. Witness Benny16's revival of the Tridentine Mass.

But really, I think the media is going out of its way to make this seem cultish. I find Christians are weird that way--a lot of the more conservative sects would throw an apoplectic fit if someone diverged from a strict but unwritten code of dress and behavior, but if that code is explicit, like here or with conservative Jews/Mulims, they freak right out.

Also, stop making Gibson out to be the next David Koresh. I've never seen a lick of evidence that he's any more than a lay patron of the Church, the way all rich people used to be, and the way most Protestant churchgoers strive to be.

Of course, he's anti-semitic, so that makes him a) brainwashed, or b) a jerk, but that doesn't necessarily correlate with being active in your chosen spiritual community.

Again with the veils?

Apparently there's another dust-up brewing in Quebec about a decision to allow women to vote while wearing a niqab or a burka/burqa, as long as they have two pieces of ID and another voter to vouch for them.

Visual aids:

Totally random aside...why are burkas always such screamingly bright colours?

ANYWAYS: I find it interesting that no one responded to Mohamed Elmasry's straight-forward solution:

Mohamed Elmasry of the Canadian Islamic Congress said that Muslims aren't asking to be allowed to vote with their faces covered, and that niqabs are a rarity. He said veiled women would have no problem removing a niqab before a female voting official for identification purposes.

I guess that's too simple, eh? The thing is, voting takes place in a public forum, which means if a woman removed her veil it would not only be seen by the elections official, but probably also by a dozen or more other voters waiting for their turn.

Another thing not mentioned is the whole how-important-are-ID-checks-really angle. As anyone who had underage kids in college knows, visual ID checks are sketchy (interesting article on eyewitness unreliability here ). And the elections officials are generally volunteers...trained, competent, but not experts, n'est pas?

Previous to-dos about veiled drivers being pulled over are, I think, a different issue. That's time sensitive, and there's no way to effectively get past the need for immediate identification in those circumstances.

The BBC has an interesting breakdown of the pros and cons--not of veils as a practical matter, but whether or not they are required:

Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: And Allah is well acquainted with all that they do.

And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof…

Qur'an 24:30-31

As many have pointed out, if women are totally covered, why should men lower their eyes? and so on. Basically, my reading of the doctrine is that modestly is required, hijab is usually considered a part of modesty, but burkas and niqabs are not called for in scripture or Hadith and can theoretically be done away with. To me, this indicates that if a woman chooses to wear a niqab or burka, she may, and the fact that it makes people uncomfortable is not a good reason for banning it or making it functionally impossible. However, there will be circumstances in Western life where there are no work-arounds, and no woman should be (or could be, according to scripture) considered immodest for cooperating with police at those times.

Rewriting History

The Globe & Mail reports: "Fighting words rile historians: Museum's decision to adapt text sets dangerous precedent"

Might this actually be the most idiotic thing I've ever heard? Well no, of course not... but it is seriously obnoxious.

According to the article:

The fight over the 67-word panel, titled An Enduring Controversy, erupted shortly after the Canadian War Museum opened in May, 2005. A group of veterans objected to its saying that "the value and morality of the strategic bomber offensive against Germany remains bitterly contested," and to its contrasting 600,000 dead with the statement that "the raids resulted in only small reductions of German war production until late in the war."

So the museum is in negotiations with veterans to re-word the panel, to be "more respectful" to those who died during the campaign.

Nothing I've seen mentioned about the controversy claims personal responsibility on the part of the RAF pilots and crew who took part in the bombings. What is controversial is the Allies' decision to firebomb Dresden, resulting in 25,000 dead, and arguable claims of a war crime. The point was not to belittle those who served in WWII, but to demonstrate that the Allies were also guilty of the deaths of civilians, of misjudgment, of disregard for humanity. To simply add information pointing out the casualties on the side of the Allied bombers would be one thing, but to reword the whole exhibit to de-emphasize the controversial and historically significant slaughter is more than irresponsible, it is unacceptable.
The article adds that another controversy is brewing:

One, the National Association of Japanese Canadians, says that the war museum's version of the internment of Japanese Canadians underplays the racist and economic forces behind the internment; the NAJC also wants the museum to recognize that despite the treatment of Japanese Canadians, 150 volunteered to don uniforms and fight for Canada. NAJC president Grace Eiko Thomson met with Mr. Guerts four weeks before his departure.

Yesterday, Mr. Eaton said that the museum had been in touch with the Japanese Canadians (Not recently, according to Ms. Thomson). "Everyone's knocking on the door," Mr. Eaton said.

Frankly, I think this is a slightly different issue. As I said, I don't mind adding details; its when history gets edited out that my inner History major raises an eyebrow. Nevertheless, no museum should be constantly adjusting itself to political pressure.

On an unrelated note, the fact that I can't properly publish from GoogleDocs to Blogger is driving me crazy.

Long time no blog...300 spoiler alert

So last Saturday I watched 300, the much-hyped, much-criticized film version of Frank Miller's graphic novel (full disclosure, I ♥ Frank Miller). Wikipedia has a good summary of the criticisms, which were many, ranging from the political implications to the historical inaccuracies. I think people who expect historical perfection from action movies need a roundhouse kick to the head, but it's always nice when they make an effort.

One thing which did amuse me was the throw-away comment about Athenians being "boy lovers," since Sparta was, I believe, downright famous for pederasty. The Guardian featured an article quoting a historian, Paul Cartledge, stating:

Few cultures have celebrated the naked male body in the way the Greeks did. But the Spartan king Leonidas refers to the Greeks as "boy lovers", suggesting they are decadent. The irony is that the Spartans were literally boy lovers: they incorporated a form of pederasty into their educational system, as a way of turning a boy into a warrior.

Zephyrus and Hyacinthus, beloved of Apollo was a patron hero of pederasty in Sparta. Attic red-figure cup from Tarquinia, c. 490-480 BCE.

Another comment often echoed:

But the most controversial aspect of the film is the portrayal of the Persians. They look a bit like the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. The real emperor Xerxes was not a 10ft-tall god-king with multiple piercings. I can understand why the Iranians are upset about this. However, I think they're wrong to assume that the film-makers are making a comment on the Middle East, simply because it takes a very long time to develop a movie.

This is exceptionally true. For one thing, the Greeks and the Persians? Arch enemies for centuries. And the story is a fairly central one to Western culture. So to link the current supposed "Clash of Civilizations" to the Battle of Thermopylae is pretty ridiculous. For one thing, the 4th century BCE Persians were extremely different from Middle Easterners in general and Iranians in particular today. For one thing, they wouldn't be Muslim for another millennium. Which sort of involved a paradigm shift. Also, the graphic design was done when Miller published the graphic novel in 1999, before the current conflict.

Xerxes version Frank Miller, left version Zack Snyder, right

I suppose there might be a better argument to be made that the reaction to the film was influenced by the current "clash of civilizations," which is concerning. But that's a symptom of our time, not attributable to Miller or Snyder. In short, I can't agree with this comment from Slate reviewer Dana Stevens :

If 300, the new battle epic based on the graphic novel by Frank Miller and Lynn Varley, had been made in Germany in the mid-1930s, it would be studied today alongside The Eternal Jew as a textbook example of how race-baiting fantasy and nationalist myth can serve as an incitement to total war.

Stevens missed some key points of the film. For one, she says that the law is "whatever Leonidas wants", and "if Spartan law is defined by 'whatever Leonidas wants,' what are the 300 fighting for, anyway?" As evidence, she relates this tidbit:

When a messenger from Xerxes arrives bearing news Leonidas doesn't like, he hurls the man, against all protocol, down a convenient bottomless well in the center of town. "This is blasphemy! This is madness!" says the messenger, pleading for his life.

Which raises the question: did she watch the movie? Not that it's incredibly strong on plot, but there is more to the story. First of all, the set-up to throwing the messenger in the pit is a consequence of Leonidas's belief that one should not use the cloak of "messenger" to throw threats at his people and insult his wife. Was the pit an over-reaction? Well, duh. But Leonidas is clearly a Punisher-style whackjob-maverick. Over-reaction is his forte. And as for the "there's no law" thing...uhm, a major plot-point of the movie is the fact that Sparta's "law" (as interpreted by venal, pseudo-religious perverts who have been bribed) is that Leonidas cannot defend his land and people, and so he has to try fending off the Persians with a tiny group pf volunteers.

Look, the movie is visually stunning and ideologically suspect. But if your getting you ideologies from movies based on Frank Miller graphic novels...there's a bigger problem.

Criteria for the Proper Tactical Usage of the Phrase "Oh Snap": A Flowchart

Care of this BoingBoing post:

Too hilarious. I might get this as a tattoo...

This is so cool...

BBC NEWS Technology Shadow lamps to connect friends

So, I realize that I am, in fact, not an American voter. However, out of interest...and a solid history of watching the Daily Show, which means I am ever-so-slightly familiar with the candidates, I decided to take this quiz (care of this post on BoingBoing ). My results:

Kucinich 63
(you have no disagreements with this candidate)

Gravel 49
(you have no disagreements with this candidate)

Richardson 35
Death Penalty, Assault Weapons Ban, Patriot Act, Same-Sex Marriage

Clinton 35
Death Penalty, Patriot Act, Border Fence, Same-Sex Marriage

Dodd 34
Death Penalty, Patriot Act, Border Fence

Edwards 32
Death Penalty, Patriot Act, Same-Sex Marriage

Obama 29
Patriot Act, Border Fence, Same-Sex Marriage

Biden 24
Death Penalty, Patriot Act, Border Fence, Same-Sex Marriage

Paul -10
McCain -18
Huckabee -28
Giuliani -29
Cox -31
Thompson -32
Brownback -44
Romney -50
Tancredo -54
Hunter -55

So, apparently if I were an American voter, both/either Dennis Kucinich and/or Mike Gravel would currently have my support. I'm pretty sure I'd be a Democrat, for the same reason I'm usually a Liberal in Canada--because they have a chance of winning. (Also, fringe parties that encourage vote-splitting on "principle" make me stabby.) VISUAL AID!

Smiley Kucinich	Serious Kucinich (with bad hair)

While I've heard of Kucinich more than Gravel, I must say, this photo makes me want to vote for the guy...

...not for President, though. Maybe for like, "Best Coach" or "Favourite Career-Day Guest." Although I have no problem with leaders with teen-aged or University-aged kids, something about being a grandparent and a head of the executive seems odd to me. Grandparents are supposed to be relaxed, dang it, not having one finger on the nuke-launching button.

Suspension of disbelief

On Friday evening, D. came over and we watched Kate & Leopold, grâce au my parents' sweet sweet PVR. Totally non-spoiler-y synopsis: Liev Schreiber, a struggling, um...physicist goes back in time, and when he returns he accidentally brings forward Leopold, the Duke of Albany.

Liev Schreiber, a.k.a. Stuart

Of course, there's a week until the next portal opens up, and the Duke ends up meeting Stuart's ex-girlfriend (who lives in the apartment below him--how awkward yet convenient!), played by Meg Ryan, and yadda yadda, you can figure out the rest.

Hollywood Leopold, Duke of Albany a.k.a. Hugh Jackman	Real, and much more tragic, Leopold, Duke of Albany

Anyway, at one point in the movie, Leo makes Meg Ryan a formal meal. I blurted out: "Oh right, like a Duke from the 19th century could cook."

D. just looked at me and cracked up. I got the joke and continued to deadpan "Because that is where this movie diverges from reality."*

But it's true that we will suspend our disbelief to a certain--possibly quite distant--point, and then no farther. I think it has a lot to do with internal consistency.

Another perfect example: CSI. This Wikipedia article has a summary of some of the criticisms, including, hilariously, that it isn't realistic. This Australian article also takes it to task. The number one complaint I get from friends and acquaintances who don't like it is that it's illogical, because:

• it's always dark
• the criminalists seem to carry out the whole investigation, including interrogations
• the science is improbably fast and perfect

But seriously, folks, it's a TV show. I enjoy CSI; that doesn't mean I think criminalistics works like that. They need to have the core characters doing everything because otherwise they'd have a cast of thousands. They need the visuals to be flashy and compelling 'cause otherwise their rating would tank. And, they need the science to work quickly because otherwise every episode would last hours if not days.

And let's be fair about that, too. They use the time-honoured TV traditional montage to show the passage of time (i.e., they make an effort to convey how long things like this take). They also include what I suspect are realistic flaws in the science: detectives harassing criminalists to prioritize their results, random unexpected effects from experiments, scientists mis-designing experiments because of their own assumptions, the tension between what the forensic evidence says and what everything else says. Mistakes are made. Hell, when the lab blew up (dramatic as that was), it was (a) really only one room, and (b) the result of human error and incomplete safety precautions.

The bottom line, however, is probably this: who looks for realism in RomComs or on Prime Time? No one--well, no one sane. Nevertheless, I think we all have a border to our imaginations where we will not cross.

---

* Actually, they went out of their way to establish that the Duke was eccentric in the period sequences. They could easily have dropped something in there about cooking...

More comics

"No Pants Zone"

You know, this comic really makes me nostalgic for undergrad...


UPDATE: Best. Follow-up. Ever.

I nearly LOLed coffee through my nose

Bag Brothers Three

YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY BE SERIOUS: "Mahjong game 'can cause epilepsy'"

BBC NEWS Health Mahjong game 'can cause epilepsy'

Getting comfy with genocide. - By Ron Rosenbaum - Slate Magazine#page_start#page_start

Getting comfy with genocide. - By Ron Rosenbaum - Slate Magazine

More on this later...

I refuse to believe there were six seasons...

I can't believe this referenced this.

And in case you don't remember it, here's a clip of the theme song.

Charles DAR-win
He's our HE-ro
Bagging those with an IQ of ZE-ro

Why don't kilts have zippers?

So I was browsing through the Queen of Wands archive over my morning coffee, and I found this delightful panel:

Queen of Wands - Monday, May 12, 2003

And laughed...and almost snorted coffee...and laughed some more...

Because all I have is free time

I read webcomics.

And Wondermark is a particularly awesome one. Also, bonus, they're one-offs, so no need to worry about following the story.

Some particular favourites of mine:

• #291... In which notability is determined
  
• #219... In which God has an expense account
  
• #87... In which suspicions are validated
  
• #51... In which Man's Creator is dissed
  
• #24... In which factors Public Health
  
• #10... In which Power is exercised
  

...read...

...love...

UPDATE: Hahahaha...ya think?

Sikh name-change letter 'poorly worded': Immigration Canada

And you went for THAT as a headline?

As I was checking out my sweet, sweet Google Reader this morning, I noticed this headline from CBC:

Sikh group slams immigration name change policy

The first bit of the article read:

A Sikh-Canadian group is slamming the long-standing immigration policy that forces people with the surname Singh or Kaur to change their last names.

Jasbeer Singh, of the World Sikh Organization, said the policy is incredibly out of synch in this day and age.

My god, I thought, seriously? Like, Ellis Island stylz? Freakin' ridiculous.

Then I read the rest of the article and my blood pressure dropped quite a bit. The actual issue is that, given how common the names Singh and Kaur are, people with those names are asked to give a second surname to distinguish their file.

Karen Shadd-Evelyn, a spokeswoman with Citizenship and Immigration Canada, said the reason for the policy is that it helps officials with the paperwork and allows them to identify people's files quickly, efficiently and accurately.

"You can imagine you wouldn't want your file to be confused with someone else's," she said.

...

Shadd-Evelyn said that while the department recognizes the tradition of having the names Singh and Kaur, it's their understanding that it is already a common practice for people in the Sikh community to have a third name.

"Generally, when we ask for that, they are accustomed to that and are used to providing a third name," she said. "They have it. It's not something that they're just making up on the spot."

Okay, well, both sides are being a little stupid I think.

According to this wikipedia article, there isn't a huge panoply of traditional Sikh names. The CBC article seconds that:

Singh and Kaur are common names in the Sikh community. In a tradition that began more than 300 years ago, the name Singh is given to every baptized male and Kaur to every baptized female Sikh. There are millions of Singhs and Kaurs around the world.

As someone who works in a doctors' office, and has worked with refugee and immigration files, I can tell you that even in small scale, repetitive names are a disproportionate complication. Also, families where the children are all named after the mother and/or father, and so on. Although I couldn't find a reference for this, in my own experience the Roma tradition of wives taking on their husband's given names is a particular hassle (paperwork-wise--I'm not criticizing any of these practices per se, but I do know they create administrative difficulties). So I suppose I have some sympathy for the paper-pushers at CIC who have to deal with this. According to StatsCan, almost 300,000 Southern Asians came to Canada between 1991 and 2001, so that's about 30,000 per year (about the population of Orangeville), and I doubt it's gone down much. Wikipedia claims there are about 600,000 Sikhs in Canada. That's a lot fo Singhs and Kaurs to sort out.

That said? This is exactly the kind of problem agencies like CIC are supposed to be able to sort out. For one thing, immigrants and refugees are assigned file numbers. Also, the way they've presented the issue to immigrants and sponsors does not match what they told CBC. The article included a link to a sample of the type of letter Citizenship and Immigration Canada sends out. The letter requests:

ORIGINAL passport for yourself after getting your surname endorsed on it. ...Please note that your surname must be endorsed on your passport. The names Kaur and Singh do not qualify for the purpose of immigration to Canada. [emphasis added]

Worst. Phrasing. Ever. Come on now, people. That really does sound like "change your name or no Canada for you--P.S., we are racist."

Frankly, I can't believe this is only coming out now.

No, really. I'm weird like that.

BBC: Taiwan applies for UN membership

I wonder if Taiwan realizes that's unlikely to happen?

Here's the problem: China considers Taiwan a breakaway province, and no one want to make China angry. Now, to be fair, one of the longstanding problems has been resolved, in that Taiwan is no longer claiming to be the proper representative of all of China. But still, angry China is bad news for everyone, especially given their security council veto. And frankly, there's been so many work-arounds put in place, I don't think anyone's really concerned about Taiwan's status as a virtual non-country.

---

BBC: First female president for India

Oh India, you are now and forever my favorite developing country. As the Beeb notes: "Millions of women in India face discrimination and poverty often linked to age-old traditions which require the parents of a bride to pay a large dowry to the family of her eventual husband." And yet, you're way more likely to have women in leadership roles than most Western countries. "A study in contrasts" is a massive understatement.

---

BBC Again: Two held over Rwandan massacres

Is France finally getting their act together? Also: one of these accused genocidaires is a priest. Oddly, despite what I know about the genocide, that still upsets me.

More 24ths

At the Age of 24...

Dame Agatha Christie 1890-1976

Her first marriage, an unhappy one, was in 1914 to Colonel Archibald Christie, an aviator in the Royal Flying Corps. The couple had one daughter, Rosalind Hicks, and divorced in 1928.

During World War I she worked at a hospital and then a pharmacy, a job that influenced her work: many of the murders in her books are carried out with poison. (See also cyanide, ricin, and thallium.)

---

Florence Nighingale 1820-1910

In December 1844, in response to a pauper's death in a workhouse infirmary in London that became a public scandal, she became the leading advocate for improved medical care in the infirmaries and immediately engaged the support of Charles Villiers, then president of the Poor Law Board. This led to her active role in the reform of the Poor Laws, extending far beyond the provision of medical care. She was later instrumental in mentoring and then sending Agnes Elizabeth Jones and other Nightingale Probationers to Liverpool Workhouse Infirmary.

---

Dorothy Parker 1893-1967

In 1917, she met and married a Wall Street broker, Edwin Pond Parker II, but they were separated by his army service in World War I. ...

After her limited schooling, she earned money by playing piano at a dancing school, among other things. She first sold a poem to Vanity Fair magazine in 1917, and some months later, she was hired as an editorial assistant for another Condé Nast magazine, Vogue. She moved to Vanity Fair as drama critic and staff writer following two years at Vogue.

24ths

So, I turned 24 a couple of weeks ago. I realize this is belated, but here are some interesting related trivia tidbits. From Wikipedia, of course...

June 15th in History

• 1215 - King John of England puts his seal to the Magna Carta.
  
• 1667 - The first human blood transfusion is administered by Dr. Jean-Baptiste Denys.
  
• 1996 - In Manchester, UK, a terrorist bomb injures over 200 people and devastates a large part of the city centre.
  

At the Age of 24...

Elizabeth I 1533-1603

["Bloody Mary" Tudor died in November 1558.] Upon Mary's death there was rejoicing in the streets of London, and in November 1558 Elizabeth was set to succeed to the throne. Legend has it that she was sitting beneath an oak tree reading the Bible at Hatfield when the news reached her - although this is unlikely given the winter season. A manservant approached her and breathlessly said, "Your Majesty…". Elizabeth then quoted Psalm 118 in response: "This is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes".

---

St. Ivo of Kermartin 1253-1303 (patron saint of lawyers)

He went to Orléans in 1277 to study Canon law.

---

Louise Arbour b. 1947 (UN High Commissioner for Human Rights)

[She] proceeded to the Université de Montréal where she completed an LL.L. with distinction in 1970. She became the Law Clerk for Mr. Justice Louis-Philippe Pigeon of the Supreme Court of Canada in 1971-1972 while completing graduate studies at the Faculty of Law (Civil Section) of the University of Ottawa.

---

Shirin Ebadi b. 1947 (Iranian jurist and activist)

Ebadi was admitted to the law department, University of Tehran in 1965 and upon graduation in 1969 passed the qualification exams to become a judge. After a six-month internship period, she officially started her judging career in March 1970. She continued her studies in University of Tehran in the meanwhile and received a master's degree in law in 1971.

---

Sandra Day O'Connor b. 1930 (first woman on the US Supreme Court)

O'Connor attended Stanford University, where she received her B.A. in economics in 1950. She continued at the Stanford Law School for her LL.B, serving on the Stanford Law Review, and graduating toward the top of a class of 102, of which future Chief Justice William Rehnquist was valedictorian. O'Connor briefly dated Rehnquist during this time.

In 1952 she married John Jay O'Connor III, with whom she has three sons: Scott, Brian, and Jay.

...She therefore turned to public service, taking a position as Deputy County Attorney of San Mateo County, California from 1952–1953 and as a civilian attorney for Quartermaster Market Center, Frankfurt, Germany from 1954–1957.

---

Rosalyn Higgins b. 1937 (President of the International Court of Justice)

[She] married the politician Terence Higgins in 1961 (Sir Terence from 1993, Lord Higgins since 1997). ...Higgins studied at Girton College, University of Cambridge receiving her B.A. in 1959 and LL.B in 1962.

---

Empress Theodora c. 500-548

In 523 Theodora married Justinian, the nephew of Emperor Justin I. On his accession to the Roman Imperial throne in 527, he made her joint ruler of the empire, and appears to have regarded her as a full partner in their rulership.

---

Cleopatra VII of Egypt 69-30BCE

Cleopatra and Caesarion visited Rome between 47 BC and 44 BC and were probably present when Caesar was assassinated on 15 March 44 BC. Before or just after the assassination she returned to Egypt. When Ptolemy XIV died due to deteriorating health, Cleopatra made Caesarion her co-regent and successor. To safeguard herself and Caesarion she also had her sister Arsinoe killed, a common and necessary practice of the times.

---

Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit 1900-1990 (first female President of the UN General Assembly)

In 1921 she married Ranjit Sitaram Pandit. She was the first Indian woman to hold a cabinet post.

---

Sonia Gandhi b. 1946 (Italian-Indian politician and widow of former Indian PM Rajiv Gandhi)

[She and Rajiv Gandhi] were married in 1969, after which she moved into the house of her mother-in-law and then Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi. ... The couple had two children, Rahul Gandhi (born 1970) and Priyanka Gandhi (born 1972).

---

Aphra Behn 1640-1689 (English writer, scientist, and spy)

In 1663 Aphra visited an English sugar colony on the Suriname River, on the coast east of Venezuela (a region later known as Suriname). During this trip Aphra is supposed to have met an African slave leader, whose story formed the basis for one of her most famous works, Oroonoko. The veracity of her journey to Suriname has often been called into question; however, enough evidence has been found that most Behn scholars today believe that the trip did indeed take place. ...Shortly after her return to England in 1664 Aphra married Johan Behn, who was a merchant of German or Dutch extraction.

---

Madame Curie 1867-1934 (Polish-French scientist)

Eventually in 1891, having saved up some money earned working as a governess, Maria went to join her elder sister in Paris.

Skłodowska studied mathematics, physics and chemistry at the Sorbonne. (Later, in 1909, she would become the Sorbonne's first female professor, when she was named to her late husband's chair in physics, which he had held for only a year and a half before his tragic death). In early 1893, she graduated first in her undergraduate class.

---

Saint Teresa of Avila 1515-1582 (Spanish mystic)

Leaving her parents' home secretly one morning in 1534, at the age of 20, Teresa entered the Monastery of the Incarnation of the Carmelite nuns at Avila.^{[citation needed]} In the cloister, she suffered greatly from illness. Early in her sickness, she experienced periods of spiritual ecstasy through the use of the devotional book, Abecedario espiritual, commonly known as the "third" or the "spiritual alphabet" (published in six parts from 1537-1554).

---

Hannah Arendt 1906-1975 (German philosopher and political scientist)

She married Günther Stern, later knowns as Günther Anders, in 1929 in Berlin (they divorced in 1937).

The dissertation was published the same year, but Arendt was prevented from habilitating, a prerequisite for teaching in German universities, because she was Jewish. She worked for some time researching anti-Semitism before being interrogated by the Gestapo, and thereupon fled Germany for Paris.

---

Aspasia c. 470-400BCE (Milesian sex worker, philosopher, and political strategist)

Being a foreigner and possibly a hetaera, Aspasia was free of the legal restraints that traditionally confined married women to their homes, and thereby was allowed to participate in the public life of the city. She became the mistress of the statesman Pericles in the early 440s. After he divorced his first wife (c. 445 BC), Aspasia began to live with him, although her marital status remains disputed.Their son, Pericles the Younger, must have been born by 440 BC.

---

Christine de Pizan 1364-1430 (French writer and philosopher)

She successfully educated herself by immersing herself in languages, the rediscovered classics and humanism of the early Renaissance, and within Charles V’s royal archive that housed a vast amount of manuscripts. De Pizan did not, however, assert her intellectual abilities, or establish her authority as a writer until she was widowed at the age of twenty-four.

Christine married Etienne du Castel, a royal secretary to the court, at the age of fifteen. She bore three children, a daughter (who went to live at the Dominican Abbey in Poissy in 1397 as a companion to the king's daughter, Marie), a son Jean, and another child who died in childhood. De Pizan’s familial life was threatened in 1390, however, when Christine’s husband, while in Beauvais on a mission with the king, suddenly died in an epidemic (Willard 39). Following du Castel’s death, Christine was left to support a large household, and to pay off her husband's extensive debts. When she tried to collect money due to her husband’s estate, she faced complicated lawsuits regarding the recovery of salary due to her husband. In order to support herself and her family, Christine turned to writing.

---

Isabelle Allende b. 1942 (Chilean novelist and activist, related to assassinated Chilean leader Salvador Allende)

From 1959 to 1965, Allende worked with the United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organization in Santiago, then later in Brussels, Belgium, and elsewhere in Europe. For a brief while in Chile, she also had a job translating Romance novels from English to Spanish. However, she was fired for making unauthorized changes to the dialogue of the heroines to make them sound more intelligent as well as altering the Cinderella endings to let the heroines find more independence and do good in the world. Her daughter Paula was born in 1963. In 1966, Allende returned to Chile, and her son Nicolás was born there that year.

Canada tokes at 4 times world average: UN

Canada tokes at 4 times world average: UN

Hahaha...okay, this time the answer is clearly "amused."

Canadians use marijuana at four times the world average, making Canada the leader of the industrialized world in cannabis consumption, a recent United Nations report found.

The 2007 World Drug Report by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime says that 16.8 per cent of Canadians aged 15 to 64 smoked marijuana or used another cannabis product in 2006. The world average is 3.8 per cent.

I wonder, can't you sort of assume people under-report drug usage?

But to be perfectly honest, I have trouble getting worked up over people smoking pot. Not that I recommend it, per se, but I think it's a pretty clear-cut instance of malum prohibitum, rather than malum in se. On the other hand, I found this disturbing:

The report found that Canada also had a high rate of usage for cocaine, at 2.3 per cent of population, ranking it third behind Spain and England.

Cocaine bothers me. Why? Because it melts your face, people!

According to WebMD, Marijuana causes the following problems:

• Regular use of marijuana can cause problems with memory and affect problem-solving and learning. It can cause mood swings, anxiety, and depression.

  It can damage the lungs, which may lead to breathing problems (such as wheezing and bronchitis).

  It contains many cancer-causing chemicals.

  When under the influence of marijuana, a person may have reduced inhibitions and impaired judgement. They may take risks or have an auto accident.

  It can cause lower sperm counts and increased breast size in males (gynecomastia). In females, it can cause menstrual problems.

So, okay, none of those are good things, alsothough some of them are sort of negligible. Everything causes cancer-causing chemicles, and the whole "reduced-inhibitions-impaired-judgment" thing is of variable danger. Compare that to these:

• ...the delusion or false sense of grandeur, known as cocainomania.

  Dilated pupils, nausea, vomiting, headache, or vertigo (the sensation of your surroundings or yourself moving or spinning).

  With or even without increased amounts of coke, these can progress to excitement, flightiness, emotional instability, restlessness, irritability, apprehension, inability to sit still, teeth grinding, cold sweats, tremors, twitching of small muscles (especially of face, fingers, feet), muscle jerks, hallucinations (cocaine bugs, snow lights, voices and sounds, smells), and cocaine psychosis. Cocaine psychosis resembles paranoid schizophrenia
  and can bring on paranoia, mania, and psychosis.

  Many users complain of nasal irritation, nasal crusting, recurrent nosebleeds, nasal stuffiness, facial pain caused by sinusitis, and hoarseness.

  The mucous membrane of both sides of the septum (the cartilage that separates the nostrils) can be damaged by decreased blood supply, along with drying, crusting, and nose picking. This results in a perforation or hole in the septum with more crusting, foul secretions, nosebleeds, and whistling with nasal breathing, the so-called coke nose.

  Utilizing the technique of deep inhalation and breath holding to maximize the amount of cocaine inhaled and absorbed can cause the lung to collapse. These cocaine users will complain of sharp chest pain, often worse with deep breathing, neck pain, difficult or painful swallowing, and air under the skin in the neck that feels like Rice Krispies under the skin when touched (subcutaneous emphysema). Though unusual, the user’s lungs can fill with fluid (pulmonary edema) causing extreme shortness of breath, sometimes respiratory failure, and death.
  

Lebanon's Sticky Politicians - The Middle East Blog - TIME

Lebanon's Sticky Politicians - The Middle East Blog - TIME

So you think Lebanese politics -- based on a sectarian system of 17
recognized religious groups with ever-shifting alliances and antagonisms -- are
confusing? Well so do the Lebanese. Which is perhaps one reason why a
collectible sticker album launched last month called "Parties and Colors" has
become so popular. Supposedly aimed at educating young Lebanese about their
government, the album has pages devoted to each of the country's 14 main
political parties -- from Iranian supported Hizballah to the American supported
Future Movement -- with space reserved for adhesive portraits of their leaders
and founders.

Hmm...amused or horrified...amused or horrified...so hard to choose.

But I'm a cynic at heart, I guess, because I'm going with amused.

"Pope's move on Latin mass 'a blow to Jews' "

Pope's move on Latin mass 'a blow to Jews' World The Observer:
Obnoxious and ignoring the point:

'We are extremely disappointed and deeply offended that nearly 40 years
after the Vatican rightly removed insulting anti-Jewish language from the Good
Friday mass, it would now permit Catholics to utter such hurtful and insulting
words by praying for Jews to be converted,' said Abraham Foxman, the group's
national director, in Rome. 'It is the wrong decision at the wrong time. It
appears the Vatican has chosen to satisfy a right-wing faction in the church
that rejects change and reconciliation.'

Actually getting the point:

The liberal French Catholic magazine Temoignage Chretien published an editorial
in Latin explaining that it was not concerned about the language in which the
mass was celebrated but by 'the view of the outside world held by most
supporters of the traditional rite ... of a church that sees itself as the sole
holder of the truth. Forty years after the Second Vatican Council, this stand is
untenable'.

Thank you, French magazine I'd admittedly never heard of, for actually discussing the problem rather than having a typical knee-jerk reaction.

Although, I must admit to a bit of eye-rolling over the whole thing. Wait...the Pope is giving a tacit okay to the conversion of Jews?!?!?! Why, that's....the reason for his religion! How perverse can you get? Come on, people...criticize Ratzinger's dogmatism or Nazi past or unwillingness to acknowledge anti-Semitism. His evangelism is a stupid target, since, hello, basis of the Christian doctrine. Which is not to say that I agree with it, but I am utterly unsurprised and unperturbed by it, assuming it accords with other doctrinal principles like not burning people and generally not making an ass of oneself.