I have the right to my own pee, thankyouverymuch

Downtown Grounds
12oz Soy Vanilla Latte
Coffeecake Muffin

If you're one of those people who say that people who receive food stamps or other public assistance should have to pee in cup first, you're wrong.  If you say, "Well, I had to pee in a cup for my job - why shouldn't they have to pee for their check?" I say, none of us should be peeing for a check.  This is an artificial problem with an unconstitutional solution.

In the Bill of Rights we are explicitly protected from unreasonable search and seizure, to be secure in our person and property.  I consider my pee to be both part of my "person" and, once expelled, still my "property."  That is why I believe it is explicitly forbidden for the government to demand the right to search it unreasonably.  So, the question then is, is it reasonable?

No!

I have a right to be presumed innocent, not to be profiled.  The government needs to demonstrate a reasonable belief that I will fail that search, that I have used some kind of illegal drug.  There is no data that has ever been presented to demonstrate such a great overuse of drugs among people seeking government assistance that it is necessary to screen for it.  In fact, in places where this has been implemented, the statistics have shown dramatically less drug use of any kind compared to the greater population.  And that does not appear to be a deterrent effect as the numbers seeking assistance did not significantly drop.  The only thing it did produce was a net loss to the states due to the cost of the testing.

And what is the remedial solution for the people who fail the test?  Does the state then press charges, remove the children, force the person to enroll in a drug treatment course?  To my knowledge, none of that.  The sole purpose is to excuse the rest of us from having to give those morally inferior people any help.  This topic is not discussed with the tone of those concerned that just giving money to addicts is not really going to help them or the rest of us sacrificing our hard-earned money.  This topic is thrown around with hot-blooded contempt at this fictional class of degenerate moochers and scam-artists.

Even if you think that it's not that big of a deal to just pee in a cup and maybe cull a few scammers if we can, then you are not appreciating the real importance of this matter.  It is not just that complying with this mandatory drug-testing would be ceding another constitutional protection, it is also accepting as valid the irrational prejudice against people in financial distress.  It is shaming innocents.  It is another form, if not another facet, of racism.

I am not guilty, and I should not have to be treated as a lesser person, a lesser citizen, just because other people believe that I am.

The only time anyone could be reasonably compelled to pee in a cup to prove they are not under the influence of some intoxicant or other, is if the real concern for public safety is so great that it should outweigh the individual's right to their person and their privacy.  If there is a reasonable concern in your occupation that allowing anyone in that job to conduct their work while impaired would result in the harm of others, then yes, I think you could make case for testing as part of their job.  Some kind of test to reasonably assure the rest of us that the person is fit to perform their duties, even if that doesn't require a specimen - you can make a case for it.  But no citizen should be required to forgo their constitutional rights even in a private employment arrangement.  These rights are there for a reason, and that reason doesn't cease to exist when the people involved stop being members of governmental bodies.

Don't let anyone try to turn you against your fellow human beings to keep you distracted for their own purposes.  Creating this myth of the immoral poor keeps the slightly-better-offs busy condemning their neighbors, investing so much energy in self-righteous hostility, instead of scrutinizing the greater economic structure.  If the so-called middle class are feeling economic strain, it's not because there is a mass movement to exploit the social safety net.  Their financial strain stems from an economic structure that produces massive amounts of people in need of the safety net.

And the truth is that the net is so underfunded that it cannot adequately assist all the people who need it.  It is not really all that exploitable - I know.  I've been in the lines, I've filled out the forms - there is not enough help to go around.  We are grateful for all the help we've received - that's the only reason we dared to have two kids instead of just one.  But we are in a lot more debt this year than in previous years specifically due to the carried-over loss from sequester cuts to food stamp programs.  The money has since been restored, but the legacy of those cuts is carried over at a 20+% interest rate.  And really, why should a working family have to receive food stamps to get by, anyway?

Okay, coffee shop is closing.  Leaving it there.  No edits.  Peace and love, my friends.

No, YOUR opinions on body hair are completely bizarre and stupid.

Mix Bakeshop
12ozDecaf Americano

Boy, nothing kills the mood like finding out your partner finds something about you completely disgusting...

And here's the t.m.i. warning for my squeamish friends and family.  Proceed or turn back now.  It is in your hands.

So, I was in the shower the other day and I popped my head out to ask my husband if he would care if let my pits go for a few more days since the skin has been a bit irritated lately.  His reply gag was almost not comical.  Apparently, he's one of those guys that thinks any body hair below the eyebrows is gross on women.

I already knew that he was surprised to initially discover where I did and didn't preserve my natural hair growth.  And I knew that he was aware of my ever-so-slight fem-stache (does that make me a hipster?), so I made sure to actually don makeup for the sake of our wedding photos.  However, I didn't realize that it was not just new to him among the females he has dated, but that it was actually repellent to him.

This left me with a dilemma in the shower because on the one hand, screw you guy, it's normal for female human animals to have hair under their pits and there are innumerable pictures findable on the internet of beautiful women with hairy pits, albeit mostly from other countries who think we are completely weird about body hair, which we are.  On the other hand, wow do I feel fucking unattractive, thanks, hon.

A while ago, I posted a mini-blog (on my old myspace blog) that read approximately:

I have decided to stop shaving my legs.  It's a hassle, it's winter, and they never come out much in the summer anyway.  Am I worried about repelling guys?  Nah.  The next guy to get down my pants will have already accepted backfat, stretchmarks, and a low self-opinion - I don't think hairy legs are going to be the deal-breaker.

Guess I was right.

Finding an unshaven woman unattractive is weird and dumb when you think about it.  As is finding an uncircumcised penis unattractive.  That is unfair to the man possessing that penis because, really, all penises are unattractive.  What if men in this country wanted women to start getting female circumcision?  What we are already expected to do is bad enough - high heels that deform your feet over time, push-up bras and Spanx and plastic surgery.  Imagine parents looking at their infant daughters saying stupid stuff like, "I just don't want men to look at her and be grossed out... let's carve up her cooch, honey!"

I am reminded that I ended a blog with a rhetorical topic question: "Dress tape - your boobs' best friend, or sticky shackles of the Patriarchy?"  The answer is both.  I am using some right now because, if I weren't, I would have to continually scoop my boobs off to the sides since this bra is so low-cut that the girls will, naturally, slide down the path of least resistance, resulting in what I like to call, "front-butt."  Without dress tape holding them back, we'd all be suffering from permanent nip-dysplasia.  If bra designers - or the fashion industry at large - knew or cared anything about real boobs, they would never design crap like this.

Any-hoo.  Back to the shower.

So, I decided to shave the pits (maybe I'll try growing my pit hair out in the winter), but I left my legs snaggly.  I've also been giving my husband crap ever since this (he does graciously allow for female arm hair), but he has also made it perfectly clear that body hair does not get in the way of him loving me, or finding me attractive.  So, while it bothers me that it bothers him, I'm standing my ground more or less, and hopefully, in time, he'll get over it.

No edits - good-night!

The Unprotected Sex

Mix Bake Shop
Americano
Anise Shortbread

I don't know where to start.  I have found myself shouting and/or writing the word "motherfucker" frequently following the Supreme Court's ruling on the Hobby Lobby case.  The anthropomorphic personification of a business arrangement has been granted primacy over my body, my sexuality, and my religious beliefs.  The most sexist, slut-shaming-ist corners of a single religion have been given preference over all other interpretations of a loving and tolerant deity - or a loving and tolerant society, for that matter.  Pseudoscience has been legitimized by the same method as getting Tinkerbell fly: clap your hands and say, "I do believe that a zygote is a person even before a woman is pregnant!"

Motherfuckers.

This is one of the most ridiculous interpretations of the law that I've seen in my lifetime.  First, just because it is "precedent" for corporations to be considered people, doesn't mean the interpretation was ever valid in the first place.  That interpretation can, and should, be struck down at any time.  But even the liberal justices seem disinclined to rock that boat, so it's going to have to take an act of Congress - the most inactive body of government - to explicitly undo corporate personhood.

Second, no person has the right to deny their employee their due compensation, nor to direct them in what they can or cannot do with their wages.  Not for any reason.  You can't say, "I'm not giving Phil his paycheck because he smokes and drinks and I have a deep moral opposition to those behaviors - you can't make me pay for it!"  You don't get to decide.  It's not your money anymore.  If Phil put in his time and did the work, then he is now entitled to his compensation, whatever form it takes.  Withholding it would be illegal.  Unless, apparently, Phil is a Philomena.

Next, by what logic does this particular belief get its special exception?  Logically, how does this differ?  Because this person behind the corporate person thinks that contraception is a form of abortion?  So what?  First, that's not accurate.  There are numerous articles out there circulating that explain the real science behind all these forms of contraception.  Second, abortion is a legal right and should be protected, though it is continually infringed or outright assaulted.

If we all agreed that the abortion of a fetus was murder, then it would not be legal.  But we don't.  Hence, it is still nominally legal for a woman to decide what happens in and to her own body.  To be clear, I don't believe that a fetus is devoid of personhood, but I do not believe that it is of equivalent personhood to that of a born child.  And I certainly don't believe that whatever rights it has are superior to those of the mother carrying it.  I believe that we need special "grey laws" that try to address the interests of the potential person and the undeniably real person carrying it.

And a woman is more than just a baby incubator.  That developing fetus that will one day, if all goes well, become a child is altered continually by the conditions of the mother's condition.  And vice versa.  The mother's diet, physical activity, her worries, affect the developing fetus, and the very act of carrying the child alters the woman in profound ways.  Her chemistry, her mental health, her physicality all change in unknown and dramatic ways.  And who best to say whether or not those changes or conditions should be continued for the mother and the one-day-maybe child?

Certainly not the abstract legally-incarnated bogeyman withholding her paycheck.

Here's a little insight for you sexist bosses who want to pretend that depriving a woman of her healthcare will prevent you from being complicit in her "consequence free sex" life.  If she can't prevent her unintended pregnancy from happening through not-actually-abortive contraception, she's going to use the money you give her in her paycheck to pay for the real, actual abortion a few weeks later.  Which is costlier in every possible way...

And I'm just gonna leave this little link here to one of my earlier blogs, wherein I totally demolish any opposition to the idea of contraception: To the new pope...

As was noted by Justice Ginsberg and others, the Pill and other contraceptive devices are frequently used for other medical purposes (right here, guys!).  The not-able-to-get-pregnant feature is a side-effect the woman and her healthcare provider have to take into consideration when deciding whether or not to utilize it.  What about other medical treatments that cause temporary or permanent infertility?  Should we allow those treatments to be denied as well, even if we could cure somebody's cancer?

The day after this decision came down we immediately saw, not just the hypothetical ways in which this ruling would enable "non-favored" (non-Christian) religious beliefs being imposed on workers by for-profit corporations, but the new actual legal challenges by employers trying to deny workers various rights because of "sincerely held beliefs."  Specifically, they're goin' after the gays.

And why is it that sincere religious beliefs are imbued with a variety of protections, but my sincere beliefs founded on reason and empathy get bupkis?  How many people just go along with what they were told to believe when they were little?  Somebody hundreds or thousands of years ago came up with a story full of dos and don'ts and somebody else just said, "Okay," and, ta-da! - you're exempt.  I put years of thoughtful consideration into the guiding principles of my life and it's, "Pay your taxes and burn in hell, hippy!"

Again, motherfuckers.

(Yes, I know many devout people do reflect upon the tenants of their faith.  I'm just saying there are millions mailing it in and still getting preferential treatment.)

I have the right to believe and do as I choose, so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others.  The burden of being an American is protecting the rights of those you disagree with.  It doesn't matter to my employer what I choose to read or watch or listen to, just as long as I'm polite to the customers.  It doesn't matter whether or not I eat a vegan diet and go hiking, or if I love bacon and barely leave the house, so long as I can lift box A and put it on shelf B.  My employer doesn't get to dock my pay if I get drunk one weekend, make out with some random lesbian at a party, and show up on Monday with a new neck tattoo, so long as I show up and do my job - in a turtleneck.

As other great thinkers have said:

If I wanna take a guy home with me tonight
It's none of your business
And she wanna be a freak and sell it on the weekend
It's none of your business
Now you shouldn't even get into who I'm givin' skins to
It's none of your business
So don't try to change my mind, I'll tell you one more time
It's none of your business

But, alas, sex is not a protected right in this country.

Sexism, however, has just been thrown a box of Trojans and a bottle of Viagra.

JQ and Entitlements

Mix Bake Shop
Decaf Americano
Almond Croissant

I should back-up.  I realized after trying to explain the last blog to my mom that I didn't explain things very well last time.  I did ramble the hell on, and made some points, but even I was pretty confused with the flow of thought upon rereading it.  Let me try to be clearer.

The question is, "What are we entitled to?"  The answer depends on the context.  In a state of nature, the answer is, "Bupkis!"  But that is the state of anarchy - of freedom in its purest state.  That's not the democratic answer.  But interpretations of what democracy is differ, so we'll focus on ours in particular.

All men are created equal, endowed with certain inalienable rights, chiefly: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Paraphrasing, but these are our guiding principles.  Everything we set down specifically is derived from this premise.  So, then, what logically follows?

The equal protection part seems pretty obvious.  Equal protection, equal participation in this society and the government created by it and for it.  Should have been obvious from the start.  People keep trying so hard to screw this one up, though.  It should also be obvious that it's not enough to have equality in theory, but in real practice, too.  For example, saying that black people have the right to vote but then creating special rules and circumstances designed to keep them from exercising that right - that directly violates the foundational idea of this social contract.

The harder one is that Pursuit of Happiness part.  Interpreting gets a little more fuzzy, but you can still make arguments that tie back to it.  I think that's where we derive our New Deal type social benefits.  These so-called entitlements - social security, medicaid, unemployment insurance, minimum wage - whether or not they are universal Federal policies, are all attempts to compensate for those anarchic forces that prevent equal participation.

("Naa, naa, naa, na-na-na-nah... hey, Jude..."  The music here is so much better than wherever I was during my last blog.  Much better for thinking.  Where was I?)

Financial insecurity undermines any individual's ability to participate in society, and to pursue their happiness in a real, meaningful way.  In theory versus in practice, again.  It can also shorten their life, and certainly impact the quality of the life they do have.  So there's two founding principles that demand some kind of action to provide financial stability for any J.Q. American.  And, no, just "creating more jobs" does not provide financial stability, Mr. or Ms. Politician.  Because, as I have said many times now, labor is an inelastic good, you have to take some measures to ensure that those who sell their labor do not have their goods exploited.

Which brings us around again to how minimum wage should be set.  But I think I might be over-doing it again.  Save it for next time.

Rhetorically, this is about where people scream, "Socialism!" and start thumping their copies of "Atlas Shrugged."  Calm your twits, people.  Extreme imbalances of power (such as monopolies, for instance) are undemocratic because they limit or eliminate equal protection and participation.  That means it's appropriate for the government to intervene in some way to mitigate the disparity.  That doesn't mean the government should step in to eliminate all disparity.  As long as everyone is protected from infringement upon their liberties, and as long as they have a meaningful chance to participate.

I'm not well-read enough to have a nuanced discussion of what socialism really is.  I know enough to say that socialism as Marx and Engels envisioned it has never actually manifested.  The governments that have called themselves socialist have actually been authoritarian or despotic.  Submitting to a single party rule without the ability to dissent or challenge or change the policies governing you does not produce a society that is construed for the greatest good for the society as a whole.  Socialism, if it's about anything, is about about caring for all members of society, not suppressing all members but the few in power in the name social good.

I prefer democracy.  I know I'm biased it's what I grew up with.  I like to think it makes the most sense.  With anarchy, there is free will and only free will, and liberty is not guaranteed.  The strong can act upon their will, but if you are the less fortunate, it can make no difference what your will is, if the mighty can keep you from acting upon it.  Likewise, the collective strength of a united society could be used to care for the members thereof, or it can be used to blunt their liberties.  In either case, your well-being is uncertain.

With democracy, we strive for the middle ground.  Enough security gives us the stability we need to exercise our freedom to achieve our will, though we sacrifice just enough that we do not impede the freedoms of others.

That's the idea anyway.

J. Q. American

Starbucks
12oz Iced Soy Mocha

Exceptional Americans get too much damn airtime.  Yes, it's nice that someone accomplished something that the average person has not, or does not that often.  Good for you!  The problem is this nonsensical claim that Americans are inherently exceptional, or at least disproportionately so.  Just because we have ancestors who often had to endure extraordinary circumstances to get here, does not mean all of our ancestors had some extraordinary genetics which they passed on to us.  Desperation and incarceration were also common catalysts for their arrival on these... appropriated lands.  Oh, and let us not forget that even idiots do big things sometimes.

The real exceptionalism is not in Americans but in America.  In the history of the world, America really does stand out as an ideal.  Its essence is not about the select, the elite, the tribe.  It is about the everyman.  All men are created equal.  Period.  America has been failing this ideal since Day 1, but the Idea of America has been too strong, too true, to let the hypocrisy remain unchallenged.  Too many have suffered under this flag, and continue to suffer, but the Idea is stronger and will win out in the end.

Racism, tribalism (America vs the World), classism, sexism, homophobia, religious intolerance... yep, they're still around.  Many Americans still subscribe to those bullshit ideas.  But those are un-American ideas, and the sooner we move past them, the better this country, and the world, will be.

So if the quintessential American is the Everyman, what should our policies look like?  Why does the rhetoric of today berate people who are average?  Why are all of our policies geared towards punishing the Mediocre American?  Sure people who innovate and create things help society in general.  But that's not everybody, and it can't be.  People who argue that all of society benefits when people are forced to achieve more for themselves because we've made minimum wage unlivable have no idea what's going on down at minimum wage level, have no idea what motivates people, and, I guarantee you, are not helping all of society.

We need to set policy based on what we can expect the average American to be and to do.  J. Q. American is an orphan and a C-student.  We can expect him or her to have no legacy, no family to carry him through his struggles.  We cannot expect there to be anyone who will support J.Q. while they finish school, or when they lose their job when they become injured.  We cannot expect him or her to have the skills necessary to rise to the next level of retail.  Trust me, not everyone can handle being a floor manager - there is a skill to getting yelled at for no reason by a complete stranger.  Entry level, or near it, may be the highest J.Q. ever rises, or maybe wants to rise.

What's so wrong about wanting work behind a counter?  It's work!  Often times it seems, it's more work for the one behind the counter than the one counting the cash ever has to deal with.  But it can also be satisfying.  I have enjoyed seeing the regulars, sharing laughs, crafting fine espresso drinks (I have not fully mastered latte art, but I did once make a volcano in the foam, I swear).  If that's what I love, then why make that unlivable for me?  Why force me into a profession I don't love, one I may likely be unsatisfied and unsuccessful at, just to generate more money for the economy?  You know, we need happy, satisfied people to have a healthy society, too.  And we don't have to maximize someone's financial output to have a healthy economy, either.

Somehow this myth has established itself that minimum wage jobs aren't hard work and don't deserve to be treated as valid worthwhile jobs for a person to hold longterm.  People don't stay in unsatisfying, low-wage jobs because they are lazy.  There may be an element of self-doubt or fear of leaving stability that holds some people back.  It might factor in for some people.  But if you would really rather be studying Slavic languages and maybe dream of being a translator someday, chances are you would go to school and study Slavic languages, and maybe international affairs, if you could.  But we don't make that tenable for J.Q. American.  Maybe a Privileged American with a family who could at least co-sign for a student loan and give them a place to live while they're studying, maybe they could see that dream through.  But not J.Q. who has nothing but their abilities and desires.

And let's ask again, why do we charge kids up-front for their education?  If it benefits all of us for people to achieve the most they can, to follow their dreams to the extent of their abilities, why don't we make that possible?  I just read two bits of data relating to student loans.  First, higher education used to be free or nearly free.  The only cost to the student was their effort.  And the benefit to everyone else was a more knowledgeable, more satisfied, citizenry at least, but who also likely had a better paying job than they would have without their education.  Thus, more tax revenue, more consumption for the consumption-centered economy.  More stable families with better outcomes and less need for assistance.  Wins all around!

Second tidbit, since 1981 the cost of tuition has increased 1200% - without justification.  There have been innumerable excuses given, but none pass scrutiny.  It has gone up that much because it can.  Education is an inelastic good.  It's not just that most of us would rather not work low wage jobs at Taco Bell or wherever and are willing to pay up to educate ourselves for a career we would actually enjoy.  It's because, increasingly, we cannot afford our low wage jobs - even if we do like them - and we will gamble our future (and our parents' retirement, if we have parents who can co-sign) on the hope that we might find some financial stability.  If we can ever get ahead of our student loan debt.

(The baristas have cranked up the overhead play and it's clashing with the Radiohead on my headphones, making me very distracted.)

So let's take a step back and ask how things should be structured for J.Q. American...  First, education provided from PreSchool through doctorate, if that's what he or she is up for.  All the outcomes for everyone are better.  Safety provided - police, paramedic, fire services.  No profiling, either, people.  And if there's a region where those services are lacking, then we all step in to make sure they are provided adequately, because it is inexcusable that any J.Q. American should be expected to live without basic safety.

Equal and affordable justice provided without bias.  No more of this mass incarceration... crime, there's no other word but crime to describe what has happened to our prison system.  Except exploitation and Jim Crow, of course.

Healthcare - provided.  We need to either treat it as a single-payer public service - fully-funded - or we need to treat it as an inelastic industry, regulate the hell out of it (compared to what it is like today), uncouple it from employment, and make it a non-profit industry.  (PS non-profits in general should be under much stricter compensation and profit caps than they are today.  No CEO of a non-profit organization should have a 7-figure salary).

Safety, justice, healthcare, and education...  All these things have to be fully funded and provided without bias for America to call itself America.

And these services are not inherently at the mercy of markets, no matter how much people with full bellies and gated communities will try to convince you otherwise.

Remember that the value of a dollar is arbitrary.  What is not intangible are our resources.  So let's ask - is there enough room for all of us?  Sure, if not all in the same place at once.  Is there enough food for all of us, enough clean water?  Currently, the answer is still yes.  Are there enough people willing to do the work that is necessary to feed and shelter us?  More than enough.  We've even got enough people left over willing to educate our children, treat our sicknesses, even provide our digital distractions and our lattes (if that's your thing).  So if the natural resources and the human resources are there, why are so many people going without?

It's because we have a distribution problem.

We have to start with the appropriate wage equation, and then we'll work on unraveling the convoluted tax system that has been crafted expressly to allow the wealthy to have even more wealth.

Crap! They're closing.  I'll have to pick this up later, specifically for how minimum wage should be crafted, and did I mention J.Q. is agnostic?

Ta for now!

Print isn't dead, damn it.

Home
Almondmilk Cafe Mocha
Super Salad (minus the avocado)

If you follow me on Facebook, then you've probably already seen this.  I went on a mini rant a few days ago so I'm just mailing it in this week.  And then I shall go to conquer the Junk Drawer Room!  All hail the hanging file box!

Before I paste and format, however, a little update...  I have printed up all my blogs through mid-April with intentions of making a book out of them.  Or most of them.  With possible supplementing from journals.  I think.  My working title is, "Philosophist."  I would greatly, greatly appreciate any feedback, things you'd like to see, things that could go, suggestions for getting it published/marketing it.  I'm ready to go bookstore to bookstore with galleys or extracts to try to get booksellers (my brethren and sistren) to fall in love with it and promote it through staff selections.

It could happen.

Anyway, here's my former bookseller rant about e-books...

Print is not dead.
 
There will always be a market for the tangible read, be it a magazine, book, or newspaper... or birthday card, or menu, or save-your-soul pamphlet handed to you on a street corner.  Yes, the technology is shifting things towards digital, but it's not eradicating the desire for print.  Not for all of us.
 
It is a fundamentally different interaction to read something on a digital screen instead of reading something from the bounced light off a page.  Even the color of the page, the sheen, the gloss of it, makes a big difference.  Digital screens are wonderful for a range of reasons, but they can only emulate that analog interface so much.  The brain just responds differently, we have a different emotional sense depending on whether we are reading a story in a magazine on a train, or reading the same story on our smartphone (possibly on the potty).
 
And it matters more or less for different people.  For instance, some folks I've known with learning disabilities can barely process anything that is printed on white paper and have had to use special blue paper for their class assignments.  Still, many of us will take what comes and roll with it and be fine. 

I'm just saying that it's not exactly the same story as with the music industry and the advent of digital music.  You might make an argument that the quality of the recording is affected by the recording medium (vinyl, CD, 8-track, wax cylinder), but you are ultimately listening to music the same way: through speakers.  Crappy speakers, Bose speakers - but still speakers.  Reading on a device, however, beyond the lighting, is just very different than a book in the hand.
  
And a digital dog-ear is not going to placate me, thankyouverymuch.
  
The bottom line, though, is that the costs are changing and the business model has to change with it.  It is sad that, in so many cases, print media is being dumped instead of adapted.  It would be depressing if the print market that survives becomes a novelty for the wealthy.  The sticking point, to me, seems to be the cost of publishing as it has been done.  What we need is a technological advance in one-off publishing.
 
Imagine walking into your favorite bookstore...  Maybe the shelves are stocked with "review copies," or maybe they have kiosks where you can browse digital editions.  Maybe you can bring in your Nook or whatever and get a digital sampler.  And if you decide to purchase ye old fashioned paper book, the bookstore can then ring you up (first!) and go to the back and print off a decent Trade Paper or Mass Market edition of the book for you.  Or do it up front in the display windows, like when they make fudge in a candy shop.  With everything those 3D printers are making, you figure there's got to be some way to make it happen for books.
 
I don't know how things will have to change.  I don't know how to manage the costs to make it all cost-effective.  I do know that resources for printing are going to become more and more scarce, and publishing tens or hundreds of thousands of books per run (especially when so many titles die each year) is just not feasible.  But I also know that, while many of us are content to live a life of mixed media, we don't all want to go all-digital.
 
Thank you.  Curmudgeon, out!

Dereliction of Science

Mix Bake Shop
Soy Cappuccino
Anise Shortbread

I think I've talked about this already but I only have half an hour today, so I don't have time to check...

My younger brother asked me last night, for a paper he's writing for his English class, if I had vaccinated the boys.  Apparently, he read that there's a school here in town just for unvaccinated kids.  I hadn't heard about that but I have seen message boards advertising kids parties designed to expose other kids to a sick kid to help the other kids get sick, and thus, build up their immunity.  I think they are called "booster-pop" parties, or some kind of "pop" parties, because the parents have the kids share popsicles or lollipops or something, to increase the exposure.

I assured my brother - the boys have been vaccinated.

That doesn't mean I wasn't lobbied hard by both sides when they were born.  And on the one hand, I had my strong love and respect for science, while on the other I had my unconventional upbringing and a deep skepticism of blind adherence to authority.  Respecting science also means remembering the errors of scientists and the corrupting effects of both arrogance and money.

It is not beyond belief that there could be unintended harm from a scientific cure - it's happened before.  It's not at all unbelievable that the manufacturers making money off the cure might want to believe there's no connection, no harm.  And it stretches no credulity to believe political officials that have extolled the virtues of these cures might want to downplay any adverse side-effects.  It's also the task of the human mind to find answers, and it is our burden to distinguish truth from fitting fiction.  On the one hand, there's the staggering rise in autism cases, and while we're seeking to find a link, along comes a preliminary study that suggests a link.  It fits!  Ah-ha!

But a preliminary study is not science, and correlation is not causation.  The next step is to repeat the experiment, broaden the population sample, rule out confounding factors.  And, in the meantime, wait.  You don't know anything until you know it.  But that's not what happened.  There was already an anti-vaccination movement when the autism link was put forth, but it was mainly confined to old hippies like my dad.  But I think it was the foundation that allowed the misinformation to flourish.  Sadly.  For the record, none of the studies since have found a link between any vaccines and mental illness.  And, the most important thing, if you have doubts about the study you can and should look into how the study was conducted to satisfy yourself about the strength of the conclusion.

The important thing about this debate is really the way we talk to each other about it.  People are getting angry because people are starting to die from these diseases again.  But it is wrong, and counter-productive, to talk to people who hesitate or refuse to vaccinate as if they are crazy, stupid, or uncaring.  The entire reason I would hesitate is because I do care so much.  When you look at the tiny, tiny fragile little infant in the crib, you are terrified of everything hurting them.  You're afraid of stuffed animals that might smother them in the night.  You're afraid of a gust of wind blowing a plastic bag across the house and landing on their head and strangling them.  You're terrified that if you stop watching them as they sleep, that regular rise and fall of their little chest will just... stop.

Okay... so that's me.  Maybe most parents are too exhausted to be quite that paranoid, but still...

The thought of injecting something that used to kill people into this tiny little body that can barely roll over is itself terrifying.  And guilt-i-fying.

So all I could do was try to listen to both sides and read as much as I could stand to read.  First, the vaccines of today are not the vaccines of the hippy children.  They are almost all inert and contain far, far less of the viruses.  They have also now had decades of testing to verify their safety, and overwhelmingly adverse reactions are mostly mild and sever reactions are exceedingly rare.  Not so are the adverse reactions to the diseases these vaccines have all but eradicated.

(Day 2:
Mix Bakeshop
16oz Soy Chai
Sweet & Salty Doughnut)

There is a "however," however.  As I tried to do my due diligence and learn about the nature of the vaccines, and more specifically about the manufacturing, I found almost zero useful information.  I tried to find out who was the supplier, how they were made (whether incubated in eggs, for example), what other chemicals were present that might cause some kind of adverse reactions.  Things like that.  I had a particular interest in researching is the manufacturer had had any violations or red flags, as there have been bad batches of flu vaccines in recent years, for example.  I wanted to know if the same people were going to be supplying our regular vaccines.  When I tried to ask any of these questions, the health workers at the county offers looked at me like they had no idea what the hell I was asking or why I would want to know.

After all, you either are doing what we who know better told you to or you're some crazy anti-vaccer hippy who's going to get us all killed.  They could not process that I was for vaccinations but not in a submissive manner.  They could not understand why I would question what was being done to my child's body and who was doing it.

I just stopped asking after that and hoped for the best.

I think there is a healthy middle ground in this discussion.  I do think it is urgent that people be persuaded to start getting vaccinated once again.  However, I think it's crucial to listen to what those people have to say, because there are definitely things we could do to improve both the information about the vaccines and the vaccines themselves (do we absolutely have to use formaldehyde?).  For a culture that is so obsessed with treating everything as a marketplace, this is one area where we are not respected as consumers who might want a say in what they are consuming.  I recognize that there is a good reason to defer to trained scientists in this regard, but I do not think that trust should translate to complete ignorance.

Lastly, I want to be clear that, while I am pro-vaccinations, I am against mandatory vaccinations.  At the end of the day, I have the right to consent.  The right to my body - and in this case, my right to protect my child's body - is fundamental beyond any other right.  I have to retain the right to determine what is done to my body, what is put into it.  Period.  If my choice is seen to compromise the health of others, I understand the concern that would cause.  But to force me to have a foreign substance injected or ingested against my will is tantamount to rape.  Seriously.  That's not a word I would use lightly.  So, I believe it is for us to figure out the best way to respect each person's right to their body with the rightful concern for the safety of all people.  I don't know if that means segregating the unvaccinated children, or limiting the percentage of vaccinated to unvaccinated in public schools.  If we force parents to homeschool their unvaccinated kids, should we help them financially to be able to accomplish that?

This is all stuff for each community to evaluate, and hopefully, we can look to each other for the things that work best.

And that's about where I thought I was going to leave it, but the past couple weeks since starting this blog have been loaded with science vs pseudoscience crap.  Here's a taste...

The other night on the Daily Show, Jon Stewart interviewed a scientist warning about the overuse of antibiotics.  His concerns focused on the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics and over-prescribing by doctors for parents who are a little too nervous and have a little too easy access to health care.  He recommended utilizing our growing knowledge of genetics to develop narrower, more focused antibiotics.  You know what was not mentioned once?  Factory farms.  Exactly zero reference to the massive amounts of prescription drugs that are given to livestock because of the horrific, disease-inducing conditions in which we raise our food.  I haven't heard the argument that we are unaffected by consuming antibiotics already consumed by the animals we eat, but it is unarguable that the conditions of factory farming at the regular use of non-treatment levels of antibiotics in the animal feed creates antibiotic-resistant diseases.

But too much healthcare is our problem?

Fuck you, venerable science dude.  Of course, I think his premise is reasonable about pursuing more focused antibiotics instead of the slash and burn broad-spectrum kind.  Has there been an over-prescribing trend?  Sure.  To a point.  But to not even mention the dangers of factory farming on antibiotic-resistance is a dereliction of real science.

And speaking of the dereliction of science - Antarctica!  You've probably heard that the melting of its sea ice shelf thingy is irreversible now.  But this time, it wasn't because the near entirety of the scientific community hadn't told us that it was happening, that they had massive amounts of data to assure us that we were doing exactly the wrong thing to stop it.  With climate change, it only took a handful of liars and kooks to persuade us to do nothing, to keep doing all the wrong things.  As with anti-vaccers, I don't blame the duped - I blame the people that have known better all along, and who use them like tools for their own greedy ends.  Those fuckers can burn in hell.  They have wasted my entire lifetime pushing us past the point of no return.  And climate deniers at this point in time, even those who have been deceived, should know better by now.

But what about GMOs?  We just banned the growing of GMO crops in this county.  Where do they fall on this spectrum: hysteria or deception?  Part of the reason 2/3rds of use voted to keep them out of this county had nothing to do with the merits of genetically-modified foods, but of property rights.  There is no way for GMO crops to co-exist with the organic crops next door without cross-contamination.  The consequence is that the organic farmer not only loses his right to grow organic food, for that season and the next since he can no longer save his seed to replant, but he can - and most often will - be sued for patent-infringement by the multinational seed/chemical manufacturers.  Imagine someone taking a dump on your lawn and then suing you because now you have their property on your lawn.

The other problem with the GMOs is that they increase pesticide use - since they are often made to be resistant to the pesticides the same seed manufacturers are selling - thus increasing the amount of pollution in your water supply.

But do they deserve the title "Frankenfood"?  Aren't they going to save us from starvation? which is coming because of the climate change we helped nurture along?  Isn't the anti-GMO crowd just like anti-vaccers and climate-deniers?  They are certainly trying to be discredited by being lumped in with those crowds.  There is a difference, though.  Climate change has decades worth of data.  Massive amounts of data.  Likewise, with vaccines.  Lots of data.  GMOs, on the other hand, are more recent, are not required to be peer-reviewed by independent scientists, and are virtually untrackable because these massive multibillion dollar companies have succeeded in defeating all efforts to label them.  So not only are their indirect effects - their post-processed, post-animal-feed effects - not being tracked, but their direct effects are not being studied, not in human health, not in the environment at large.  Not by the whole scientific community at any rate.

None of that is good science.

There's also the element of consent again.  I have the right to consent to what goes into my body.  If I want nature's food instead of man-altered food, shouldn't I have that right to nature?  I want my strawberries not covered in chemicals, and I want them to taste like fucking strawberries, damn it.  I also want to know that they were developed through the long-balancing process of evolution and not the tweak and pray and "...seems alright here," method.  Not to disparage my geneticist friends... 

Also, what if I go the full-bodied, no animal-exploitation vegan?  Wouldn't a fruit or vegetable that has been altered with animal genes violate my conscience?  But how am I to avoid it if I have no way to know what is normal and what is altered?

Our fundamental problem here is that we do not have good ambassadors when it comes to the dissemination of scientific information.  News is not news.  It is hyper-ADD, sensationalist, and self-serving.  It's a business and not a public service.  It will give equal time to the climate deniers in a completely not-representative way and give people the perception that there is something disputable about the science.  It lets pseudoscience go uncontested, even if they're not actively promoting the claims.  It will also squash and trivialize real concerns at the behest of wealthy advertisers.  I've watched it happen.

Organizations that are supposed to operate objectively and for the public good have been bought, bullied, or infiltrated.  There are organizations calling themselves universities or Journals of this or that that are deliberately trying to sound legitimate to mask their PR or pseudoscience objectives.  And even legitimate institutions, colleges and universities, have been taking money from donors who insist on stacking the faculty to suit their ideology, or who refuse to donate if certain kinds of studies are conducted.

All that is bad enough.  But I have a personal peeve with another trend that I have noticed among my science-loving friends.  Like me, they hate pseudoscience and denialism and just bad science.  But that has engendered a certain kind of arrogance and hostility that is unwarranted and unproductive.  Just because something has not become part of the science Canon, that doesn't immediately make it pseudoscience.  And sometimes, even the crackpots get it right.  Yes, I might have reposted a few things from less than reputable websites - I blame internet grazing, where I don't always click all the links to properly vet the source or the methodology.  (And, yes, little sister, you are right to point it out when you see it).  Nonetheless, even these people might be arriving at the right position, even if they've gone about it the wrong way.  And even good scientists reach very wrong conclusions.

And that's why any good teacher makes you show your work.

Okay.  It's time for me to wrap it up.  Thank you to anyone who made it this far down.  I promise to try to talk about something shorter next time, like...

Dress tape: Your boobs' best friend, or the sticky shackles of the Patriarchy?