Topics

This looks interesting: http://qz.com/129879/this-is-the-first-interesting-search-engine-since-google/

So I have a bunch of friends who are Atheists. Some are more into it than others; I tend to avoid the ones who are really into it, because honestly it creeps me out a little.

Maybe it's because I wasn't raised particularly religious, and had almost no childhood exposure to organized religion.

Maybe it's because I was raised in the relatively religion-neutral Pacific Northwest. I don't really have anything to react against.

But I completely don't understand identifying oneself based on something that doesn't exist. I can't even really wrap my head around it. What does it mean? Hey guys I'm not a person who believes in a thing that doesn't exist!

I guess technically I'm an atheist; I don't believe in a god per se, although I do believe in my own existence and the existence of biological systems and therefore I suppose I believe in the great ecosystem of which we are a part, which is, in a sense, god. To me.

I'm not really sure what god is or what it means, outside of the religions which spell out what it means. I don't believe in those. I wouldn't call myself an atheist (because that makes absolutely no sense to me) but I'm not religious. However, I don't generally define myself by what I'm not. There are far, far too many things that I am not than things that I am, and unlike the God that Atheists define themselves by not believing in most of those things actually exist.

One of my friends/rivals, a crazy nascent biologist and slightly scary Atheist dude, is actually taking a class on Atheism this term. I am thinking that maybe I should take that class, it might explain a few things for me, about these people who define themselves by not believing in something that doesn't exist.

Tempers seem to be flaring, and emotions to be running high. I don't know what's happening, maybe the change in seasons, but all of a sudden a bunch of people seem to be pissed off at each other, and people are also pissed of at me. For once I am not pissed off at anyone, just wondering WTF is going on.

It's probably the change in seasons, and the economic insecurity. Things like that.

ITT we bitch about/rejoice in All The Things having to do with our experiences with higher education.

I will start by complaining that I do not give a single wet fig about "understanding architecture", and this book is interminable. I'm only at page 85 and this week's reading is through page 155. I am dying inside with every word I read.

I'm surprised nobody has posted a link to this trainwreck in action yet:

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1n2sua/i_am_romeo_rose_ask_me_anything_92413_hope_to_see/
http://www.dailydot.com/lol/romeo-rose-sleepless-in-austin-ad/

http://tightkitchen.blogspot.com/2013/09/yesterday-i-went-to-sauvie-island-and.html

The brine recipe I used for my vinegar-cured pickles is simple:

2 quarts water
2 quarts white vinegar
1 cup salt
1/2 cup sugar

Bring  the brine to a boil, turn down to low and cover while you prep the jars. Once sterilized (about 10 minutes boiling in the canner) I pulled them out with a jar-lifter and put them on a towel on the counter.

Add to each jar:

2 cloves of garlic (sliced in half)
1/2 tsp mustard seeds
6-10 whole peppercorns
1 dried red chili
5-6 whole coriander seeds
1-2 heads of fresh dill and some dill fronds

Pack with clean cucumbers (I leave them whole if  they're small, and slice larger ones into quarters lengthwise) and top with one or two grape, cherry, or oak leaves (the tannic acid keeps the pickles crisp). Then ladle hot brine over the top. Fill to about 1/2" from the rim, put the 2-part lids on, just lightly finger-tighten the rings, and place in the canner to process for 15 minutes. Remove and let cool, then tighten the rings and place them in your pantry. These will keep at least 2 years.

There's also a lactic-acid fermentation pickle recipe at the link.

This one's for you:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/true-courage-is-knowing-youre-wrong-but-refusing-t,33742/

Courage requires us to remain steadfast in our beliefs. It asks that we stand by the convictions we express and never give an inch, no matter what the cost. However off base, wrongheaded, or patently false a position we've staked out may be, courage nonetheless demands that we blindly pound home our stupid fucking point, never letting up.

True valor is the moment in a conversation when you realize that what you're saying is completely and utterly wrong, but you continue to say it over and over again anyway, only louder.

Bud Light Lime, Franks & V8
Didn't have clam juice so I used nam pla
Turned out pretty good.   

I think this deserves its own thread.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/13/are-blacks-names-weird-or-are-you-just-racist.html

If there is a question worth asking about race and naming, it's not "why do black people use these names?" it's "why do we only focus on black people in these conversations?" Indeed, there's a whole universe of (hacky) jokes premised on the assumed absurdity of so-called "ghetto" names. Derision for these names—and often, the people who have them—is culturally acceptable.

But black children aren't the only ones with unusual names. It's not hard to find white kids with names like Braelyn and Declyn. And while it's tempting to chalk this up to poverty—in the Reddit thread, there was wide agreement that this was a phenomenon of poor blacks and poor whites—the wealthy are no strangers to unique names. The popular Netflix show Orange is the New Black, written by a Jenji Kohan (a white woman), was based on the experiences of a Piper Kerman (also a white woman). And in last year's presidential election, nearly 61 million people voted for a Willard Mitt Romney, at the same time that the current head of the Republican National Committee was (and is) a Reince Priebus.

As a uniquely-named brown-skinned individual, I have always wondered about the double standard that seems so prevalent in our culture, where it is completely acceptable to openly mock distinctively "black" names like Shaniquah or Trayvon, but naming your white child Madison or Quinn or Aidyn goes without commentary.

I wrote this for my speech class last term, thought it might be of interest/stimulate conversation.


   Have you ever been to a toy store, or to the toy section in a general or department store? Walk into any toy section in any store in America, and you will find The Pink Aisle. This is where they keep the girl toys.

   You know what I mean, right? The girl toys; dolls, dollhouses, My Little Pony, Easy-Bake ovens, kitchen playsets, hairdressing playsets, pet shop playsets (I haven't figured out why pet shops are for girls, but for some reason, there they are)... all the things that tell girls who they are, and what they're interested in.

   I'm a mother of four – three girls and a boy – as well as a social science research assistant at PSU, and I think the pink aisle is bad for our kids, and for all of us; for our future.  I'd like to tell you about some of the research I've done that has brought me to that conclusion.

   Outside of the pink aisle, the rest of the store is for boys. Oh, I know, girls can play with all the other toys too, but we all know how it goes... usually, girls get stuff from the girl aisle, and boys get stuff from the other aisles, where the colors are dominantly red and blue, sometimes green or yellow. Never pink. Never, ever pink. Because pink is for girls. Right?

   Elizabeth Sweet for the New York Times writes, "If toys were marketed solely according to racial and ethnic stereotypes, customers would be outraged, and rightfully so. Yet every day, people encounter toy departments that are rigidly segregated — not by race, but by gender".

   But what about boys who want to play with ponies or dolls, or cook in a play kitchen, or pretend to be hairdressers? Can't they just... get toys from the pink aisle?

   Sure, in theory. But even if his parents would be supportive, the sad truth is that it doesn't very often occur to most boys, especially as they get older,  that they have that option, because the message they see on TV and in magazines and movies and from other kids is, the pink aisle is for girls, and the toys in the pink aisle, the kind of toys that are about nurturing and helping and cooperative social interaction, are for girls.

   Just for girls.

   The toys that develop spacial skills and engage the puzzle-solving, mathematical parts of our brains are all marketed toward boys by default. So are chemistry and other science kits. They aren't in the pink aisle.

   And although we do have our tomboys, our willful rough-and-tumble tree-climbing little girls who play soldier and cowboys-and-indians and run wild and build spaceships from Legos with the boys, for the most part, girls get that message loud and clear as well.

   The interesting thing is that it wasn't always like this. Sure, dolls have always mostly been for girls and trucks mostly for boys, but there was a time, when many of today's iconic toys were new, when most of the toys we think of as being "for girls" or "for boys" were more friendly to both.

   In fact, many toys, like Lego, were originally marketed as being fun for the whole family, something everybody could do together. Hasbro's website tells us that even though there was a girl on the box, the first Easy-Bake oven, released to market in 1963, was turquoise. Not pink.

   Back in those days, even in the sixties and moreso through the seventies, a lot of the toys we think of now as being "for girls" or "for boys" were marketed to both, to smiling befrocked girls with pigtails and to freckle-faced boys in trousers and button-down shirts, playing together. Although gender divisions were rampant and unabashed in many areas of adult life, it was an era of television and advertising that addressed "girls and boys and kids of all ages" with, shockingly,  significantly more gender equality than they do today.

   Somewhere in the 80's, though, things changed. Maybe it was a reaction to Women's Liberation or maybe it was just a marketing ploy, but the shift came suddenly, and it came hard, with Lego switching to a "no girls allowed" marketing theme and the emergence of Rainbow Brite and My Little Pony, marketed exclusively toward girls, while GI Joe and He-Man were aggressively marketed toward boys. Crossgender marketing for childrens toys virtually disappeared, except for board games, to this day a holdout from the gender-segregated trend.

   Culture itself is, in part, defined as its message to the next generation about who they are, how to act, how to be. Culture is what shapes society, and what shapes the products of a society. The culture we pass down now to our children shapes the legacy future generations will leave behind. And children turn to their culture to learn how to be the adults they will be in the future. They embrace these messages, because they tell them how to take the next steps into their coming of age.

   So what is the problem, if girls play with girl toys and boys play with boy toys? So what if girls grow up loving pink and cooperation and nurturing, and boys grow up loving camouflage and guns and engineering?

   Is it just that it isn't fair?

   Sure, fairness has something to do with it. It isn't fair that boys whose natural inclinations might be more cooperative and nurturing are not-so-gently nudged toward Star Wars Legos instead of The Littlest Pet Shop. But that's not really the problem.

   The problem is, the world is a complex, growing, exciting place that we are learning more about every day, and we need more scientists, more engineers, more creative thinkers and problem-solvers to help us understand and innovate and discover and create and build.

   According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the crucial fields of science, technology, engineering, and math... the STEM fields... are projected to have hiring growth at twice the rate, over the next five years, as other fields. But we can't keep up; we don't have enough young people graduating with the degrees that would make them ready for those jobs.

   By segregating our toys into toys for boys that tickle the brain's spacial capabilities and generate an interest in building stuff and science and engineering, and toys for girls that very markedly avoid the development of these very same skills, we are in the process pushing half our population away from the very fields we need them to explore, losing half our geniuses, half our innovators, and half of our groundbreaking researchers before they even hit middle school. It isn't just that we don't have enough girls going into STEM programs... we don't have enough people going into them, period, to meet the growing demand.

   Louise Archer and her research team at the Department of Education and Professional Studies at King's College in London cites celf-identification as a key reason girls don't go into STEM fields -- these fields are not seen as feminine. They aren't in the pink aisle.

   The statistics tell an interesting story; according to a Department of Commerce report, although young women enter STEM fields at a percentage far lower than it should be to take full advantage of the intellectual resources that our children offer society, those few who do enter STEM fields tend to thrive. How can we bring more young women into these vital arenas?

   We can start with their toys. With everyone's toys. I am not calling for an end to pink, or an end to ribbons and lace and dolls and cooperation and nurturing. I am not calling for an end to sugar and spice and everything nice. I am just saying – and I bet you'll agree -- that maybe boys need a little sugar too. And maybe girls need to start hearing the message that ladies like science, technology, engineering, and math.

   According to Mary Beth Leibham at University of Wisconsin, an early interest in science, and the self-concept of being interested in science, is one of the best predictors of future science achievment.

   Maybe we need pink Legos and Tinker Toys and turquoise Easy-Bake Ovens, not segregated out into the Girly Ghetto that is the pink aisle, but on the shelves with the other toys so that little boys and girls don't get the message that there are girl toys and boy toys,  girl interests and boy interests, girl careers and boy careers, but rather, that there are toys, interests, and careers, and that they are free to follow their hearts, and minds, and aptitudes, when it comes to each.

   I'm not the only one. Kids themselves are clamoring for an end to the gender segregation. As Emanuella Grinberg for CNN reported, when 13-year-old McKenna Pope's little brother wanted an Easy-Bake oven for Christmas, she discovered that the oven only came in pink, which she felt would discourage her brother. So, she petitioned Hasbro, the manufacturer, and this year they rolled out a gender-neutral black and silver model to satisfy demands from customers like Mckenna and her brother.

   At least one store has gotten the message too; also reported by Emanuella Grinberg for CNN, you won't find a Pink Aisle at Harrods anymore. The department store has revamped their toy department into a new "Toy Circus", where toys are grouped by theme, not by gender.

   It is, after all, hard enough to grow up, and our young people will have to learn, sooner or later, to work together in partnership, whether in homes, in businesses, or in laboratories. We need them to. Why not give them a head start, by doing away with the Pink Aisle and sending the message that girls and boys play, and think, and build our future world together, not apart?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/09/09/george_zimmerman_police_custody_zimmerman_reportedly_in_police_custody_after.html

http://aattp.org/florida-police-chief-accuses-zimmerman-omara-lying/

http://orteil.dashnet.org/nested

http://www.fixthefamily.com/blog/6-reasons-to-not-send-your-daughter-to-college

As for the husband leaving her, the possibility of being left in such a state would make a woman MUCH more careful about the man she decides to marry.  Think about it.  If you know you're throwing your COMPLETE trust and future on a man, you'll want one you can certainly rely on. 

http://boingboing.net/2013/09/10/norwegian-company-launches-e.html#more-254911



EGGS FOR BOYS AND EGGS FOR GIRLS.

I just thought you guys might like to know that Kitty Parson finally has a Facebook presence: https://www.facebook.com/poetkittyparson

I don't know where to begin, this is amazing! How did I not know about this until right now?

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120613/03584719300/amazon-deletes-ebooks-automatically-generated-youtube-comments-leaving-many-questions-unanswered.shtml

http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/04/03/2112203/Print-On-Demand-Publisher-VDM-Infects-Amazon

Now she has people all in a tizzy over this video (NSFW):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=My2FRPA3Gf8

They're all "she's sending the message that young women should be sexually available!"

Because, um, all music videos ever don't send that message? 

No, what's pissing people off, though they can't identify it themselves, is that she is sending the message that she has sexual agency, and that the sexual energy of a young woman can be overwhelming and intimidating in its own right rather than merely an accessory for men.

Also it's a pretty great video.

I am about to start the general biology series (FINALLY! It's been hilarious being a "biology major" who hasn't taken any biology ) and I am wondering if I should buy all the companion books:






It is about $90 of optional books, and I figured you would know whether it's worth it.

I can see that there is this space here, particularly when the others are so stereotypical. And I expected pastable and therefore ultimately an illegal, utterly vulnerable record of the rest of my recordable life, much like your recordable life after discovery. Oh lol did you still believe in privacy?

Although I have many times heard the benefits of developing a 5-year plan or a 10-year plan, I don't think I have ever heard of anyone advocating the development of a 20-year plan.

Here is my question: How do you envision yourself at 50? At 60? Or at 70, 80... whatever age you will be at in 20 years?

Do you know anyone who is at that age, or anyone you have known at that age, who exemplifies the person you want to be? Why?

If you don't or can't envision yourself in 20 years, why (please do not use the stereotypical "I won't be alive by then" answer unless you have a very clearly fatal disease, just don't bother answering, seriously, also right now resign yourself to a slow and awkward death by alcoholism while playing video poker well into your 60s, like that isn't completely exactly the definition of hell).

Anyway, basically, my question is...
what do you look like in 20 years?
What do you do for fun?
What have you accomplished in your life?
Who are your friends?
What is your economic status?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb8hOpQqEHk&feature=youtu.be

This is priceless. 

http://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/the-forensic-laboratories-that-are-paid-per-conviction

A disquieting paper has been published in the journal Criminal Justice Ethics, that suggests the decisions of forensic scientists are being influenced by payments for convictions. The authors Roger Koppl and Meghan Sacks, cite as an example one laboratory for which collection of court costs following guilty verdicts is the only stable source of funding. According to the paper, in Washington those found guilty following forensic evidence against them must pay a $100 fee, in Kansas the fee is $400, in North Carolina there is a fee of $600 for those found guilty following DNA evidence, similar rules apply in Alabama, New Mexico, Kentucky, New Jersey, Virginia, Illinois and Michigan.

It's not difficult to see how this situation creates a perverse incentive, but what make this case so incredibly worrying is how intrinsically vulnerable evaluation of forensic evidence is to bias. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that when a forensic scientist is given evidence about a case, their decisions regarding ambiguous fingerprint and DNA evidence can be swayed.

The paper cites a report by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) which suggests that "the opinions of bloodstain pattern analysts are more subjective than scientific", other areas of forensic science that were assessed to rely heavily on subjective judgment included fingerprint analysis, handwriting comparisons, traditional hair microscopy, ballistics and impression evidence (e.g. comparisons of shoe and tyre tracks).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0gBoV0ygJc

OK, I will start with a brief introduction to my current #1 favorite neuroscientist. Robert Sapolsky is pretty much your archetypal biologist; you have probably all seen him on teevee without realizing it, in the savannahs of Africa darting baboons with anaesthetic blowgun darts so he can take samples of their precious bodily fluids. He's been using those fluids to study stress in primates for about 30 years, and he has helped us to learn a tremendous amount about human neurobiology as a result.

He's also an amazing lecturer. He's one of the most engaging, fun, informative lecturers I've ever seen.

And, he's just a little bit of an asshole, in the good way that makes people think and argue and LEARN. He doesn't afraid of walking a little too close to the ugly truth, and that often kind of pisses people off, so you will find lots of angry bloggers on the web talking about things like his take on schizotypal personality disorder. Needless to say, he's my hero.

OK, gooey fangirling part is over. Now, here's a gloriously accessible interview with him on Boing Boing:
http://boingboing.net/2011/11/23/robert-sapolsky-on-stress-an.html

Another interview that I like a lot because it captures his impatience with bullshit:
http://www.scu.edu/visitors/2008speakers/sapolsky_transcript.cfm

If you have not yet seen the documentary "Stress: Portrait of a Killer", you really should. Here's the website, you can usually find the whole thing on Youtube:
http://killerstress.stanford.edu/

Stanford University has been kind enough to put a raft of his lectures online, and this is a good place to start:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA

Also, watch this one on depression:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOAgplgTxfc

Now you all know why I think Sapolsky is so awesome, and hopefully you do too.

I'm sure we've all heard more than we want to hear about Miley Cyrus. I'm pretty much Cyrus-neutral, I've never cared and have no reason to care. However, I did watch that godawful trainwreck of a performance.

When I watched the video I started at "Oh my god this is terrible and she can't sing, that poor thing" and then it just proceeded to get worse and worse, with her tongue hanging out in a way that was utterly unerotic and grotesque, and I was like "HOW IS THIS HAPPENING IT'S SO AWKWARD" and then it got WORSE and I wondered whether she was deliberately making a mockery of the music industry, and then she took off her whatever that was and revealed the hot pants and bra that somehow, SOMEHOW managed to be heinously unflattering on her 20-year-old perfect body, and suddenly, watching her dance with teddy bears and twerk at Beetlejuice, I didn't give a single fuck why or how this monstrosity came into existence, I was merely glad that it had. Well-trolled, young Cyrus, well-trolled.

The interesting thing is that if you view it without the cultural filter that anticipates sincerity, it comes across as a very effective weird and creepy parody of the Hollywood sex-sells ethos, right down to the blatant objectification of black women and what appear to be pedophilia references (Pedobear, anyone?) If that was intentional, it was beyond brilliant. If it wasn't intentional, it epitomizes everything that is grotesque about pop culture.

Either way is kind of a win, and that means that the VMA served an actual useful purpose.

Oh my god, the opportunity for pissing people off with this is TREMENDOUS!

http://www.nature.com/news/just-thinking-about-science-triggers-moral-behavior-1.13616

Public opinion towards science has made headlines over the past several years for a variety of reasons — mostly negative. High profile cases of academic dishonesty and disputes over funding have left many questioning the integrity and societal value of basic science, while accusations of politically motivated research fly from left and right. There is little doubt that science is value-laden. Allegiances to theories and ideologies can skew the kinds of hypotheses tested and the methods used to test them. These, however, are errors in the application of the method, not the method itself. In other words, it's possible that public opinion towards science more generally might be relatively unaffected by the misdeeds and biases of individual scientists. In fact, given the undeniable benefits scientific progress yielded, associations with the process of scientific inquiry may be quite positive.

Researchers at the University of California Santa Barbara set out to test this possibility. They hypothesized that there is a deep-seated perception of science as a moral pursuit — its emphasis on truth-seeking, impartiality and rationality privileges collective well-being above all else. Their new study, published in the journal PLOSOne, argues that the association between science and morality is so ingrained that merely thinking about it can trigger more moral behavior.

Of course, the militant atheist reaction is also sure to be insufferable. 

It has been stewing in the back of my brain for some time now that there is something interesting going on with people who dislike children. I'm not talking about people who are simply uncomfortable with kids, or don't know how to handle them, or who don't want kids of their own. I'm talking about people who express an arbitrary contempt and/or aversion towards all people below the age at which they are able to have articulate adult conversations.

I wonder if it has something to do with self-loathing, with hating their own child selves, rooted in a lack of nurturing, love, and respect shown to them by adult figures in their lives; a sort of self-defensive move. Perhaps their child-selves felt rejected, and to ease their cognitive dissonance and preserve a sense of worth, they unconsciously adapted by forming a belief that it is not that they were rejected because they, individually, were unlovable, but because children are not worth loving. Almost unvaryingly, these same people fail to express liking, compassion, or respect for their own child-selves.

I can't seem to find any research on this, wondering if it's something I should explore at some point.

I found these remarkably good: http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/bestseller.html

The best writing book I've ever read was actually by Stephen King, which is, in fact, the best book King ever wrote, but if you don't want to commit to reading an entire book about writing (PRO TIP: YOU SHOULD) Cliff's tips will improve your writing.

[DOES NOT]

Your incessant psychedelic tripping might not be such a bad idea after all.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130819185302.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Ftop_news%2Ftop_science+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Top+News+--+Top+Science%29

LSD and Other Psychedelics Not Linked With Mental Health Problems, Analysis Suggests

Aug. 19, 2013 — The use of LSD, magic mushrooms, or peyote does not increase a person's risk of developing mental health problems, according to an analysis of information from more than 130,000 randomly chosen people, including 22,000 people who had used psychedelics at least once.

Researcher Teri Krebs and clinical psychologist Pål-Ørjan Johansen, from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology's (NTNU) Department of Neuroscience, used data from a US national health survey to see what association there was, if any, between psychedelic drug use and mental health problems.

The authors found no link between the use of psychedelic drugs and a range of mental health problems. Instead they found some significant associations between the use of psychedelic drugs and fewer mental health problems.

PLEASE NOTE that this DOES NOT mean I want you to talk to me about your drug trip, because I still don't care. Nobody fucking cares.

This is neat and fun: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2013/08/21/can-you-see-your-own-brain-waves/#.UhdRE5LVDka

I highly recommend this search.

Just do it.

I rarely get excited about Huffpo articles, but I really like this one and it relates strongly to discussions we've had here:

Dear Parents of White Children,

I vote that we strike the following from our parental lexicon:

1.   "Everybody is equal."

2.   "We're all the same underneath our skin."

I realize this is counterintuitive. But I'm completely serious.

These statements are so abstract they're mostly meaningless when handed to a 7- (or even 17) year-old. That's at best. At worst, they're empty filler -- stand-ins for the actual conversations about race, racial difference and racism we need to be having with our kids.

Sugar when our kids need protein.

Yet, if white college students are to be believed, these statements are standard in many white households.

My students write racial autobiography papers. It's a pretty straightforward assignment: describe the impact of racial identity in your life -- not race generally, but your race and any significant experiences, teachings and thoughts pertaining to that identity at various life stages. I require that they interview two family members about their experiences of and beliefs about being "x." (As it turns out, this is a really hard assignment for white students for reasons that are important and revealing. More on that in another venue.)

Time and again, my white students write that "everybody's equal" is the "most important" thing their parents taught them about race. Time and again, a not-insignificant number of them then proceed to describe their present trepidation about a.) telling their parents they date interracially; b.) bringing home a Latino/a or black classmate; c.) Thanksgiving break, when everyone will silently tolerate the family member who makes racist comments; or d.) something else that reveals how deeply and clearly these students know this "most important teaching" doesn't mean a hell of a lot to their actual white experience.

Hmmmmm.

Few notice the contradiction they have themselves managed to describe in the space of only four pages.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-harvey/dear-parents-of-white-children_b_3719818.html

...THAT NOBODY UNDERSTANDS BIRDS.

We've all heard it, and we've all said it. The problem is, it doesn't mean what we think it means.

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/08/pop_neuroscience_is_bunk/

By now you've seen the pretty pictures: Color-drenched brain scans capturing Buddhist monks meditating, addicts craving cocaine, and college sophomores choosing Coke over Pepsi. The media—and even some neuroscientists, it seems—love to invoke the neural foundations of human behavior to explain everything from the Bernie Madoff financial fiasco to slavish devotion to our iPhones, the sexual indiscretions of politicians, conservatives' dismissal of global warming, and even an obsession with self-tanning.

Brains are big on campus, too. Take a map of any major university, and you can trace the march of neuroscience from research labs and medical centers into schools of law and business and departments of economics and philosophy. In recent years, neuroscience has merged with a host of other disciplines, spawning such new areas of study as neurolaw, neuroeconomics, neurophilosophy, neuromarketing, and neurofinance. Add to this the birth of neuroaesthetics, neurohistory, neuroliterature, neuromusicology, neuropolitics, and neurotheology. The brain has even wandered into such unlikely redoubts as English departments, where professors debate whether scanning subjects' brains as they read passages from Jane Austen novels represents (a) a fertile inquiry into the power of literature or (b) a desperate attempt to inject novelty into a field that has exhausted its romance with psychoanalysis and postmodernism.

Brains are in demand. Once the largely exclusive province of neuroscientists and neurologists, the brain has now entered the popular mainstream. As a newly minted cultural artifact, the brain is portrayed in paintings, sculptures, and tapestries and put on display in museums and galleries.

The prospect of solving the deepest riddle humanity has ever contemplated—itself—by studying the brain has captivated scholars and scientists for centuries. But never before has the brain so vigorously engaged the public imagination. The prime impetus behind this enthusiasm is a form of brain imaging called functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), an instrument that came of age a mere two decades ago, which measures brain activity and converts it into the now-iconic vibrant images one sees in the science pages of the daily newspaper.

As a tool for exploring the biology of the mind, neuroimaging has given brain science a strong cultural presence. As one scientist remarked, brain images are now "replacing Bohr's planetary atom as the symbol of science." With its implied promise of decoding the brain, it is easy to see why brain imaging would beguile almost anyone interested in pulling back the curtain on the mental lives of others: politicians hoping to manipulate voter attitudes, marketers tapping the brain to learn what consumers really want to buy, agents of the law seeking an infallible lie detector, addiction researchers trying to gauge the pull of temptations, psychologists and psychiatrists seeking the causes of mental illness, and defense attorneys fighting to prove that their clients lack malign intent or even free will.

The problem is that brain imaging cannot do any of these things—at least not yet.

Oh god why 

http://orteil.dashnet.org/experiments/cookie/

http://www.ocweekly.com/slideshow/the-lovely-juggalettes-of-the-2013-gathering-nsfw-40152583/8/#1

You're welcome.

A friend of mine posted this on FB: http://cjredwine.tumblr.com/post/57670817509/a-letter-to-jake-vale-explaining-rape-culture

A Letter to Jake Vale Explaining Rape Culture

Dear Jake Vale,

Today, I saw the videos you posted where you "pranked" teenage girls by running up behind them, grabbing them around the waist, and then running away with them while they were trying to get into VidCon. I'm one of the people who was instantly upset and disgusted by your behavior, especially after a girl screamed at you to stop and you laughed at her and refused, and then even more when three girls stood up to you and told you that it was wrong to touch girls without their permission, and you argued with them.

I, along with many of my friends, began discussing your video on Twitter. None of us had difficulty understanding how your "prank" was wrong. Or why it was upsetting. You, on the other hand, posted this tweet:

Jake @thejakevaleshow

People have no sense of humor these days... Or no when to shut their trap

Well, I not only refuse to shut my trap, I'm going to tell you why what you did isn't funny. It's called "rape culture," and you're perpetuating it.
...

So I looked up the video in question on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol7bzs1b4uQ

WHAT IN THE LIVING FUCK, HOW DID ANYONE EVER THINK THIS WAS OK?

The creepiest part; it isn't just some dumb kids, apparently the FORTY YEAR OLD (SELF-DESCRIBED "FAMILY MAN") DAD gave it his blessing. And then, they had to have WATCHED THE FILM, and STILL thought it was funny, and then posted it to Youtube.

AMAZING.

AND IT DOESN'T WANT ANYTHING MUCH, REALLY.



My son just said "stuff is so 20th-century".


I actually got chills. Fucking prophecy.

WHERE THE FUCK ARE YOU AND WHAT ARE YOU DOING, DUDE?

Link is safe, links in link not so safe:
http://boingboing.net/2013/08/07/ikea-catalog-made-from-found-h.html#more-248264

A tumblr called just another ikea catalog [VERY NSFW] consists of clips from hardcore pornography in which Ikea furniture appears, converted to animated GIFs with catalog-style product names and pricing superimposed as appropriate.

An article in Neue Westfälische (machine translation to English) quotes a German trademark specialist who believes that Ikea may be able to have the site censored under a German legal doctrine that entitles companies to protect their "business honor" ("Geschäftsehre berufen"), which is not something I've heard of.

Meantime, just another ikea catalog [again, VERY NSFW] remains as a testament to the ubiquity of Ikea furniture, which has become a kind of modern default background in just about every interior, including porn sets. (via MeFi)

Because FUCK YOU, that's why.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bco4xBelLWw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lE2B8PfsvGk

You're welcome.

http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/a4e.html

Ask for evidence

Evidence matters in many of the decisions we make - as patients, consumers, voters and citizens. If you want to know whether a claim made in a policy, newspaper article, advert or product is backed by scientific evidence, ask the people making the claim to provide it.
- See more at: http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/a4e.html#sthash.KyveImr5.dpuf

Works for me.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=absence&defid=7105792

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2w02QxQZGQc

Dude:

i would be HAPPY to get to know you. interested?

Me:

Are you in the Alberta Arts/Mississippi neighborhood? I want to clarify that I am not looking for dating or hookups, just expanding my neighborhood social circle.

Dude:

I live in my 1978 Dodge Xplorer 18.5ft HouseCar (a classic with sunken floor), so I find myself in many areas. Alberta / Mississippi areas are indeed great to visit and street camp.. So YES. As well I fully understand your interest is social network expansion NOT dating nor 'hookups'. I myself am OPEN TO, though not searching for beyond the getting to know and allowing for highest good / integrity etc at any given moment.

Today will be a good test as well for the HC as the drizzle i hope stays OUTSIDE....

So, from here?

http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/bthesite/bs-ae-brony-culture-20130730,0,4181814.story

"My Little Pony" is no pop culture newcomer. It began as a television series in 1983 to help sell My Pretty Pony Hasbro toys to young girls. An animated film followed, along with several generations of the show. "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic" is the latest — and the first to draw the attention of both girls and grown men. Launched in 2010 on cable's Hub Network, it is now the network's top series for girls ages 2-11, households and men ages 18-34, according to network publicist Dupe Bosu. The show centers on six magical ponies, who battle evil.

Donnie Weiss, an 18-year-old who lives in Rockville and plans to attend BronyCon this weekend, likes brony culture because it defies expectations.

"The whole idea of going against the social norm is kind of exciting for us," he said. "We found that by supporting each other and not letting anyone put us down for liking the show, it's kind of rallied us together."

Many bronies say their obsession centers on the show's cast of well-rounded, relatable characters. Weiss said he's most like Fluttershy, as they are "both kind of socially awkward but we both like to muster the courage to speak out when we need to." And Max Stahman, a first-year graduate student at the University of Maryland, is drawn to Rarity, a pony who is "somewhat snobbish and can rub people the wrong way, but ultimately has the best intentions and is a nice person."

That is all.

Apropos of nothing; studies indicate that, although the belief has long been that people lose influence as they get older, because people become gradually less likely to give weight to what they have to say, there is evidence that what may be happening is that as people age, their sense of confidence and self-esteem often erodes due to their reduced perception of sexual attractiveness and vitality, causing them to present themselves to others with less authority and confidence, in turn creating a self-reinforcing feedback loop wherein others respond to them according to their reduced confidence, and so on. Evidently, people who don't think people take them less seriously as they age are right, and people who do think people take them less seriously... are also right.

I am hopelessly, shamelessly addicted to media narratives of visiting the Gathering of the Juggalos.

http://www.vice.com/read/land-of-juggalos-v14n10

"Every year there's some sort of swimming hole at the Gathering," Daff told me, "The guys from Twiztid dubbed it 'Lake Hepatitis.' I'm not sure what happened with the fish, but they weren't floating like this the first day."

Maybe runny face paint had thrown off the ph balance, I suggested.

"Maybe. Folks were slapping each other with them when they first started surfacing."

I was having a bit of a hard time reconciling all the weird spiritual and individual-empowerment business with the general adolescent dumb I'd been basting in all day. The few people I'd talked to so far had been really well-spoken and thoughtful, but it seemed like everyone around me was inarticulate to the point of it being sort of endearing. Daff was able to put it into concrete terms:

"The thing with ICP is there are very few sort of 'casual fans.' I'd say people who like the music but don't consider themselves Juggalos make up maybe five to ten percent of their overall fanbase. The rest are the type of kids you see here."

I was momentarily distracted as we passed by a pavilion full of ninjas bouncing a beach ball to the strains of "Help Me, Ronda."

"Oh, that's Violent J's Beach Boys Blowout Beach Blast, or some other alliteration," Daff informed me. "He's really into the Beach Boys."

After I regained my composure, he resumed his explanation.

"Then there's five or ten percent of Juggalos at the other end of the spectrum who are the sort of people I like to hang out with. They're the type who really think about the whole Dark Carnival and are into things like the Quest for Shangri-La and Morton's List." He took a minute to choose his next words. "There's sort of an opinion about Juggalos, that a lot aren't very bright—"

There was a sudden eruption of cheering down the hill from us, where the Love Train had just rolled behind some trees.

"You know what that is, right?" Daff asked me.

"Titty-flash?" I hazarded as a guess.

Daff nodded gravely.

...but damn. And I bet they make a FORTUNE off this. I wish I'd thought of it first!

http://www.jewelscent.com/howitworks