A research team has made aluminum look like gold without any kind of tint or stain, possibly almost to the point of fooling a spectrascope (my inference). They use a laser to etch small features into the surface of the metal that alter which frequencies of light are emitted. It sounds to me kind of like the same thing as butterfly wings. This is certainly not restricted to making one metal look like another; I'll bet they could make all kinds colors and patterns once they refine the technique.
It seems like all of the remaining candidates can point to one or two key attributes that distinguish them:
Ron Paul: freedom, principle
John McCain: character, independence
Mike Huckabee: Christian conservatism, "everyman"
Mitt Romney: executive competence
Barack Obama: charisma, "freshness"
Notably absent is one Hillary Clinton. She claims "experience," but that's a pathetic claim. I can't reduce her to two adjectives. Does that mean she's a weak candidate, or does it mean she has a broad appeal1?
I'm sticking by my prediction of Hillary Clinton winning the Democratic nomination and getting Barack Obama as VP. To go slightly further out on the limb, I predict that if Obama does in fact win the nomination, the situation will not be reversed. Hillary's already been a bit player in the big show; she's not going to do it again. Can you imagine Bill Clinton as "Second Gentleman?" I think not. She'd rather wait 4 years (see below) and take another crack at it. My guess for Obama's VP candidate is Bill Richardson. His depth and breadth of experience will provide a nice backstop, and the Hispanic appeal won't hurt 2. I don't think they'll win, though. McCain/Huckabee will hammer Obama's lack of experience, and it will work, because it's such a weakness. I'd go so far as to say that they will crush him.
Now, I would never advise someone to vote based on "electability;" you should vote for the candidate who best represents your views and whom you think would do the best job regardless of what anyone else thinks. However, I recognize that many people won't follow that advice. As such, if you're leaning Democratic, do not vote for Obama in the primaries. He'll lose. In fact, if you truly want Obama to be president, the best way to get him there is by voting for Hillary. That way he can be VP for 4 or 8 years, fixing his fatal flaw of inexperience and making him a much stronger candidate in 2016.
I myself am strongly considering holding my nose and voting in the Republican primary to give Ron Paul another iota of support. I am indifferent to all the other candidates. I think my vote is more valuable going to him; maybe the value of one's vote is inversely proportional to the total number of votes the candidate gets.
I've given some thought to how I'd feel about the various candidates winning. I don't think I'd be too bothered by Mitt Romney winning. I think the accusations he's gotten of being socially moderate are probably right. To me that's a plus. As far as actual competence goes, I think he can deliver, probably to a greater extent than any of the other candidates. I wouldn't freak out over Hillary Clinton winning, either. I'm concerned about McCain; he's a little too unpredictable, and very, very conservative. And he apparently doesn't know anything about economics, which is worrisome because economics are basically the key to everything. I'd worry about Obama as president, and Huckabee is both socially conservative and worryingly weak on policy issues. Ron Paul I'd be fine with because the worst case scenario is that nothing happens; I don't have to worry about him going off and creating some debacle like the Iraq War or Star Wars.
So. to summarize... Clinton/Obama will barely beat McCain/Huckabee in November. Or McCain/Huckabee will crush Obama/Richardson. And vote Clinton if you want Obama for president (someday).
$515 billion for defense? Not including Afghanistan and Iraq? What is that buying? The military isn't growing by that much. Islamic terrorism is by no means the existential threat that the Soviet Union was. This makes no sense.
to use an Internet-connected messaging device while moving one's bowels: Elzar brownberried in the upstairs bathroom to help pass the time while he processed his lunch.
At a New York or Los Angeles cocktail party, few would dare make a pejorative comment about Barack Obama's race or Hillary Clinton's sex. Yet it would be easy to get away with deriding Mike Huckabee's religious faith.
Those things are not the same. Sex and race are not choices. You don't criticize people for things out of their control, especially when there's nothing wrong with them. Religion, on the other hand, is a choice, and a candidate's philosophy and outlook are important. Of course, that also means one can justify voting for the religious candidate based on that distinction more than one can justify voting for the black candidate or the female one based on those ones.
On second thought, I think Obama could win the general election. His self-assured confidence and charisma will overwhelm a boring consideration like weakness.
The first few years in my house made me highly reluctant to buy another used house. The plumbing was rotting, we had aluminum wiring, which can cause all sorts of problems, the previous residents half-assed a lot of repairs, etc. Now that we're getting closer to being done, though, I'm thinking it wasn't so bad. For one thing, we're getting things the way we want them. To some extent we've restrained our inclinations because we know we have to sell this house. The next house we won't need to be so conservative because we'll plan on sticking around for a while, so we can use bold colors and more interesting features. An older, already-renovated house will cost more but won't be updated the way we like. New houses will likely have the same drawback, since builders limit what they offer. Doing it ourselves will mean getting exactly what we want, plus it's one of the few expensive hobbies that will keep me out of real trouble. Not to mention I can get some payback off all the learning this house has forced me through, and amortize my investment in tools. Odds are pretty good we'll look for an older, ugly, and above all cheap1 house in a few years. It's weird to have changed my mind like this in such a short time when I thought I felt so strongly about it.
Hyundai should have followed Honda, Nissan, and Toyota's lead(s) and created a new nameplate for its new luxury sedan, the Genesis. Hyundais have come a long way, but I don't think quite enough. They should have gone with something that dripped class, like Leganza. Or maybe just use Genesis for the marque. Then they should have given the car itself a cryptic alphanumeric name. Of the "cool" letters, 'K' and 'N' are the only ones that are still unused. 'K' is superior to 'N' not just because I think so, but because of where Hyundai is from. 'K' by itself is a non-starter because of the ill-fated Chrysler K-class from the 1980s. 'N' by itself would be confusing in use; "I just bought an N!" As a South Korean company, they certainly can't do NK, and KN risks sounding like cane. 'K' plus one number would sound too much like Audi's 'A' plus one number scheme. '300' and '500' are out because of Ford and Chrysler respectively. It's got a V8, but 'K' followed by '8' is hard to say: kay ate. That strikes 'K8,' 'K80,' and 'K800' from the list. Letters after numbers imply a trim rather than a model, so something like 'N8K' is out. It can't be 'N8' because then people would call it "nate." 'N80?' I guess that's the best I can do.
No doubt you've seen Clocky by now. To refresh your memory, it's the alarm clock that runs away so you can't keep snoozing. It's a neat idea, but it doesn't seem so useful in practice because there are much easier ways to achieve the same ends. You could have to type in a code to turn off the alarm. Or the alarm duration could get longer every time you hit snooze. The Clocky has the problem that it must be battery-powered, it can knock stuff over 1, it has more mechanical parts that can break, and your animals might think it's prey. It's a clever idea, but it should have stayed on the drawing board.
1 In its defense, slipping in a pool of water filled with the shards of your water glass will certainly wake you up in a hurry
If you transport a minor from one state to another to another, does that count as two felonies even if it's one trip? You don't have to travel very far to go from, say, Virginia to West Virginia to Maryland to Pennsylvania, or Connecticut to New York to Pennsylvania to New Jersey, or Utah to Colorado to New Mexico to Arizona (Four Corners). Given the aggressive nature of our "justice" system, my guess is they'd pin as many counts on you as they could, regardless of how accurately they reflected the severity of the crime. Or, let's suppose I transported a minor from Texas to Oklahoma and then back. I'll bet they'd try to get 2 separate counts.
It's bizarre how easily otherwise intelligent people freak out about Hillary Clinton. That's why it's nice to see a sober, considered explanation of why she'd be a bad President (scroll down a bit)1. The leadership comments are especially significant; that jibes with what I've inferred from her actions. Too much pandering and triangulating. She doesn't seem like someone who has a coherent set of core beliefs, at least not ones that inform her actions.
Given that there are legitimate criticisms backed by evidence from her record, it's really strange the degree to which people loathe her. The same thing happens with George W. Bush. Let's be clear: Bush has been an awful president. It's hard to think of one worse in the last century, or even longer. That says practically nothing about him as a person. I know some people with rather disturbing beliefs who are great friends. I'm sure there are plenty of people who believe the same things I believe for the same reasons whom I'd absolutely hate. If you've seen "Journeys With George," you know that he can be a charming and pleasant fellow. The personal and political are separate. George W. Bush is a great guy and an awful president.
Here's the thing: you don't know these people. At all. You've almost certainly never met them. If you have, it probably wasn't for very long. You might have seen them in person, but probably at a distance. Most likely, though, you've only seen them on TV or read about them. That's all mediated. What you know has been selected and edited and sliced and diced six ways from Sunday. Furthermore, it's never about anything natural; they're in unusual situations, and they're performing. What can you infer about somebody's personality based on their ability to deliver a speech someone else wrote? Do you think that Hugh Laurie is an American doctor? Of course not; he's playing a part. There's a word for people who can't distinguish between the actor and the character: crazy.
Your judgments about people are calibrated to your normal life. You meet people at social gatherings, in school, at church, or at work. It's usually in intimate, personal settings. How many of your friends hold press conferences? Do they give speeches to the Sierra Club or the NRA? Do they spend hours shaking hands and kissing babies? Of course not. All of your instincts about personality are useless in these situations. The problem is they keep telling you that they're working, even though it's garbage in and garbage out. Actually, it's worse than that. Your instincts can work against you because they are no secret. It's not like the politicians don't know you're watching. They and the media work together 2 to manipulate you into reaching a particular conclusion. Their relationship can be cooperative or it can be adversarial, but the result is still due to their combined efforts. Sometimes that's to make you think well of someone, like George W. Bush or Barack Obama. Sometimes it's to make you think poorly of them, like Hillary Clinton or Al Gore3. Your judgments about a public figure's personality aren't just worthless, they're of negative value because you're being manipulated. You know practially nothing firsthand, and even if you know a little bit, it's swamped by all the junk they throw at you until you can't tell whether you think something because it's your own thought or because it was planted in your head. These people are very, very good at this. They want you to think you know these people because that's an easier way to get your vote than substance.
What can you do? Take the personal completely out of the equation. Aside from the above, just think about it. There are people with personalities that are complete opposites that are identically qualified. Colin Farrell, notorious party boy, casual drug user, and womanizer is a great actor. So is Christopher Walken, who's apparently reserved and has been married to the same woman for almost 40 years4. There are professional athletes who drip charisma, and then there's Ricky Williams. All that matters are the basics: can they work with others? Do they learn from their mistakes? Are the open-minded? The rest is at best a distraction, at worst, well, much worse. Focus on the evidence. Look at their record. Read their speeches; definitely do not watch them or listen to them. Look at their proposals. Look at what's real, and don't let your judgment be hijacked.
1 Actually, read the whole thing. Even if you disagree with the conclusion or the priorities, the method is right. It's an excellent example of how you should go about making a decision
2 This isn't a claim that there is a nefarious conspiracy, just a recognition of the way things work
3 Who, by many accounts, is a genial, relaxed, and funny person (his daughter had to have gotten it from somewhere), which you'd never be able to tell from his public performances in the 2000 campaign, like that awful Tipper kiss
4 And is apparently nothing like any of his characters, not even The Continental
I am increasingly cynical about the way medicine is practiced in this country. The economics and politics are all messed up, and create incentives for the wrong things. You need to protect yourself, both in body and in wallet. I've devised a simple script to follow in case your doctor recommends a prescription drug1, surgery, or other significant medical intervention:
Can I do nothing? If not...
How long can I put off doing something? If the answer is not very long...
Can I address the problem with diet or lifestyle changes, or some kind of behavior modification therapy? If not...
Can I treat it with over-the-counter nutritional supplements? e.g., iron for anemia, cranberry extract for bladder infections. If not...
Can I treat it with over-the-counter drugs? e.g. ibuprofen (works just as well as Vioxx or Celebrex for most people), Benadryl (works as well as any other anti-histamine for most people, so if it doesn't make you drowsy, you're good). If not...
Is there a generic drug to treat? That's not just about cost; generified drugs have been around longer, so they're more likely to be effective and safe. If not...
Can I treat it with an older, more established prescription drug? If not...
When all else fails, ask if there large-scale, rigorous, long-term studies that demonstrate that this is significantly better than alternatives?2
I left off a last question because both it and the desired answer may vary. In some cases you can substitute surgery for a drug or vice versa. There are many kinds of surgery with varying risks and impacts. Ditto for the many kinds of prescription drugs. You'll have to make your own call about asking about substituting one for the other. Devices like stents or pacemakers are similarly ambiguous. Are there any questions I missed?
I don't expect this to blow your mind. Instead, I wanted to compile a complete list so that you don't have to think about the questions to ask when you're on the spot. More importantly, I want you to understand that you are in charge of your health, and that you cannot trust our medical system to do what's best for you. The individuals involved may have the best of intentions, but the system is broken. Even in the best of situations, there is rarely a single best course of treatment. There are always tradeoffs, and some of them can be pretty tricky 3. You have to make up your own mind about what's best. Only you can know what's best for you.
1 Especially if it's a long-term thing, like an anti-depressant, a cholesterol drug, or prophylactic antibiotics.
2 You'd be surprised how often there aren't. Bleeding edge medicine can be disturbingly unempirical. Update: John says I need a citation here. Some of this comes from various articles that have come out recently about pharmaceutical companies cherry-picking data. Some of it comes from the book "Overtreated," which I recently read but have not posted about.
3 Meaning highly personal. Sometimes you have to choose between a single major surgery or a prescription drug for the rest of your life. Or maybe a treatment will extend your life, but reduce its quality. Different people are going to have different answers to such questions.
I've found this Google Maps app to be pretty useful. All it does is overlay colored areas designating different ZIP code areas. Note that ZIP codes to map perfectly to geographical areas as they are defined as "delivery routes," but I doubt you or I would run into any problems because of that.
Remember the vaunted Patriot missiles that protected Israel and Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein's Scud missiles? The ones that George H.W. Bush claimed had a 97% success rate (41 of 42)? Well, that rate is lower. It might even have been zero. Mind you, that's with 3 or 4 fired against each Scud. Zero shot down. Zip. Zilch. At $1 million to $3 million a pop, even.
She may still have an edge in delegates, but Obama has won 6 primaries in a row, and by no small margins. That O-mentum is going to influence voters, even if it's something of a distortion of the actual level of support. This could be settled by Ohio and Texas on MArch 4.
Am I the only one who thinks that the 40 members of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee have better things to do than to find out if Roger Clemens is a juicer? Maybe they can switch to something involving oversight and reform of, you know, the government. I tell you, next time any one of those Representatives claims that we need to make sacrifices because "we're at war" or anything like that...
The premise: two artists battle back and forth, each concocting a super-hero that trumps the others. So far they've come up with 134 funny, clever, silly, and occasionally lame super-heroes in their battle. Who is the superest hero of them all? Nobody knows yet. But we know the least super (the Superlest?). Start there.
Kevin Kelly1 is "Senior Maverick" at Wired Magazine. Um... If your company has a structured seniority ladder for a position, it's not exactly being a maverick now is it? Not to mention the title just smacks of trying too hard.
There's Billary and Bennifer, Brangelina and TomKat. For John McCain and Mike Huckabee's presidential campaign, I'm hoping for Huckain, or, even better, McAbee. Barack Obama and Bill Richardson give me nothing to work with. The best I can do is Barichardson, which even I admit is pretty weak.
I've been alarmed by gaps in the knowledge of otherwise well-informed and sensible people. I'm going to make it a minor mission to fix those deficits as I encounter them, at least for my small cadre of readers.
Antibiotics are medicines that work on bacteria. They don't work on viruses. That means they can help with a sinus infection or an ear infection, but are useless against the common cold, influenza, or other viral diseases. Different antibiotics have different degrees of effectiveness against different bacteria. That can vary even within a species of bacteria. That's where a big problem lies.
Suppose you have a staph 1 infection. Your doctor prescribes 10 days of the antibiotic Methicillin to treat it. You take it for a few days, and then stop when you feel better. Guess what? You just helped to breed the bug that will kill us all. See, you haven't killed off all the bacteria. Furthermore, you've only killed off the bacteria with a weak natural resistance to Methicillin. The ones that are left are more resistant. They're in a weakened, vulnerable state. You need to take the full dose for the full duration so the levels of the antibiotic in your blood build up high enough and wipe out enough of the bacteria that your immune system can wipe out the rest. If you leave them alone, they'll regroup and recover. The next time you might not be able to use Methicillin on them.
Not finishing a dose is just part of the problem. Some people hoard antibiotics for the next time they get sick. Not only do they fail to wipe out the first infection, but the next time around, they expose the bacteria to low doses of the antibiotic. There are bacteria in and on you all the time. Most of them are beneficial. There are some that are dangerous, but they are often kept in check by your immune system, competing bacteria, or simply not being somewhere dangerous 2. These bacteria will acquire a resistance to the antibiotic; the vulnerable ones will get killed off, leaving the strong ones to form the base of the next generation.
The scariest thing I've left till last: bacteria can swap fragments of DNA. Your use of antibiotics may only directly spawn resistance in some benign bacterium, but that bacterium can contribute those genes to a completely unrelated nasty. That's another way to create a bug that could kill us all. There's no way to avoid these risks, but there are ways to reduce them. Don't take antibiotics based on your own judgment. Take them only for what they've been prescribed for, and finish the dose. In my experience, doctors have not been emphasizing those steps enough. There are only so many antibiotics out there, and the bacteria are evolving resistance faster than we're discovering new ones. Don't be the one who creates the superbug that wipes out the human race.
Addendum: The elephant in the room I'm leaving out is antibiotics in meat supplies. The animals are fed bad food, kept in bad conditions, and are given megadoses of antibiotics in lieu of humane treatment. That means you probably get antibiotics in your meat, and they definitely flood the ecosystem from animal waste. I'm doing some part by not eating meat at all, and tending to buy organic animal products. I don't think there's much more you can do at an individual level without significantly amping up your commitment.
1 Genus Staphylococcus. Staph species cause skin infections, wound infections, catheter infections, etc. They reside in the soil, on your skin, and even in your mucous membranes, often doing little harm
2 Intestinal bacteria can be devastating in the bladder, for instance
First, name all the United States. Eliminate the ones you've lived in for a while, like more than a year. Then try to name as many cities, towns, villages, townships, etc. that you can in each state. It doesn't matter how big or small they are; if it's on a map (and incorporated), it counts. I noticed a wide variation in the number I came up with for each state. Some of the ones I could come up with little for were obvious, others it was appalling. I was pretty impressed by the number I knew in our largest (by population) state; maybe it's because of my industry. Here's a freebie: Springfield.
Not everything can go in the trash. Batteries and fluorescent bulbs/tubes contain nasty stuff; they need to be disposed of properly. I know the City of Austin's web site tells what to do. Supposedly electronics retailers will take back batteries, and I've read that both Home Depot and Lowe's take back fluorescents, though I have not tried any of those.
Hillary Clinton might become the first female President of the United States, but who will be the second? Where are the female politicians with the national stature and appeal to run in 2012 or 2016? Few other potential candidates have had the luck of being married to a President, so they'll have to make their way the old-fashioned way, through their own careers 1.
Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, and Dianne Feinstein will all be too old, not to mention they're probably too liberal; Elizabeth Dole and Kay Bailey Hutchison will also be too old. Barbara Mikulski is too old and too obscure. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine are too moderate to get the Republican nod. Also in the Senate are Lisa Murkowski, Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu, Debbie Stabenow, Amy Klobuchar, and Maria Cantwell, but none of them has attained any kind of national recognition.
There may be better candidates among the state governors. Republican Sarah Palin of Alaska is already rumored to be a desirable vice presidential candidate2. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan was born in Canada, so she's out. In our shallow media culture, Janet Napolitano of Arizona won't get anywhere. M. Jodi Rell of Connecticut will likely be too old, and Ruth Ann Minner of Delaware definitely will be. Linda Lingle of Hawaii is Jewish, not to mention being from Hawaii, a freak state. Christine Gregoire of Washington barely won the first time, so who knows where she'll be in 4 or 8 years.
Personally, my money is on Kathleen Sibelius. She's a blue governor of red Kansas, and generally well-respected for her ability. She attained office by being directly elected, rather than falling into office as Lieutenant Governor. She also won a convincing re-election in 2006, with 57.8% of the vote to her opponent's 40.5%. She's already been rumored to be a potential VP candidate, is chair emeritus of the Democratic Governor's Association, and is a supporter of Barack Obama 3. Furthermore, Kansas has term limits, so she'll be looking for a new job in 2 years anyway. Watch out for her in the future.
1 Although even Hillary Clinton had to go through the Senate, first.
2 And could make a good choice for McCain if Hillary is the nominee to appeal to undecided women
"The candidate for (modest amounts of) change." If people really wanted change, they would vote for Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich or a third party.
Used to be that living in Texas meant avoiding political advertising during the presidential campaign. The state was irrelevant in the primaries and unshakeable in the general election. *sigh*. I miss those days. Stop calling me already.
