Lynn of Reflections in D Minor examines some ways to think like a genius, and asks the obvious question on this one:

"Look at problems in many different ways, and find new perspectives that no one else has taken (or no one else has publicized!)"

Uh... okay. How do you do that?

The answer is simple... stare at the problem until an idea pops into your head. Dismiss it because it's trite and unoriginal.

Repeat as often and for as many hours as necessary until something original hits you.

Normally I don't have to do this for more than 3 or 4 hours max before something clicks, although sometimes - if I'm very lucky - it only takes a few minutes.

You probably think I'm kidding, but it's actually how I manage to do most of my assignment-based humor pieces for the Alliance & the IMAO podcast.

It's a crude, brute-force technique, but it DOES work.

Sucks the life right out of ya, though.

By the way, if you think the jokes that I post are bad, you should see the ones that never made it out of my skull.

Posted by: Harvey at 10:10 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 194 words, total size 1 kb.

Bloggranddaughter ArmyWifeToddlerMom is fussing about her weight & her body shape, so I thought I'd try to cheer her up by explaining how men look at women.

When we initially spot a woman, we give her a quick scan, head-to-toe (usually consisting of hair, eyes, lips, boobs, hips & legs), making mental notes of which parts are good and which parts are... REALLY good.

Then we completely ignore the merely good parts and spend our time rotating between staring at the various REALLY good parts.

Once we've got the short list & the rotation pattern, those merely good parts are completely invisible.

You could have an ass the size of Montana. We don't care. We're too busy alternating between wondering what it'd be like to kiss those lips and fantasizing about going face-first into that cleavage you're showing off.

Seriously. If you've got ONE good feature for a man to lock eyes on, you're beautiful.

Of course, MY problem is that my eye muscles are always exhausted, because - being married to TNT - my rotation pattern contains about 300 stops...

Posted by: Harvey at 05:00 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.

You may have seen the BBC News story about the hospital in West Yorkshire that instituted a "no cooing over babies" policy. The subheading on the story makes it sound like the place has been commandeered by foamy-mouthed baby-rights advocates:

A West Yorkshire hospital has banned visitors from cooing at new-born babies over fears their human rights are being breached and to reduce infection.

I think the BBC news version is slanted a bit to make the hospital look more unreasonable than it is.

The local coverage in the Halifax Courier is a little more in-depth and offers a better collection of quotes from those involved, making it look more like the hospital was primarily concerned with the confidentiality interests of the mothers than anything else.

This tidbit from the Telegraph seems to support that:

Staff there had given visitors a card with a message purporting to come from a newborn baby. "I am small and precious so treat me with privacy and respect," the baby said. "My parents ask you to treat my personal space with consideration."

Still, I'm left to wonder exactly what led to this situation? Were there a lot of mums complaining about people asking questions? Perhaps a rash of unwed mothers who didn't want to discuss how the baby came about?

On the other hand, I can't for the life of me come up with a single sane reason for the "What makes you think I want to be looked at?" sign.

Speaking of not-quite-sane, I find this line from the Telegraph story... odd...:

It is ironic that the hospital seems to have used the Human Rights Act to justify an apparently rigid and unfeeling policy[...]

Why is the word "seems" in there? Was the reporter too lazy to call to find out the reason for the "no cooing" policy?

Overall I suspect the papers may be making WAY too much out of one statement from the hospital's Neonatal Manager, Debbie Lawson: "Cooing should be a thing of the past because these are little people with the same rights as you or me"

Notice that she doesn't specify which particular right she's talking about. Let's see if the FULL quote (from the Halifax Courier link) sheds any light:

"We know people have good intentions and most people cannot resist cooing over new babies but we need to respect the child. Cooing should be a thing of the past because these are little people with the same rights as you or me.
"We often get visitors wandering over to peer into cots but people sometimes touch or talk about the baby like they would if they were examining tins in a supermarket and that should not happen."

Sounds slightly less nuts that way, doesn't it? I can understand being upset about people acting with inappropriate casualness toward a stranger's child.

Anyway, setting aside the one out-of-context quote you'll see everywhere, I honestly suspect that the reason for this rule MAY be related to the fact that the UK government has taken an increased interest in tracking hospital infection rates.

Whichever it is, I'm just a little disappointed in the lack of dilligence exhibited by the press on this one.

[Hat tip to bloggranddaughter ArmyWifeToddlerMom for the pointer to the BBC story]

Posted by: Harvey at 08:42 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 547 words, total size 4 kb.

Thinking about what Ogre said regarding the "fine tuning" of physical constants in the universe being evidence of intelligent design, I think we're having a difference of perspective.

Ogre imagines himself in a pre-universe lawn chair, watching God drawing up plans for a universe capable of sustaining human life.

Me? I come at it quite differently.

I start with the fact that the time is now, the universe exists, and I'm in it. Then I use what I know about the universe as it is to look backwards towards the beginning of time.

Trouble is, there's a wall that I can't see past.

If I remember my Hawking correctly, the physical constants on which I'm basing my mental time-travel assumed their current properties at 3x10^-14 seconds after the Big Bang. Before that, they were... different... and there's no way of knowing - under current theory - HOW they were different.

So my vision is limited. Any pronouncements by me of what things were like before that would be speculation of the "guess what's in the mystery box" sort.

Ogre says it's God.

Me? I'm not even sure there IS a box.

Anyway, if such guesswork intrigues you, here's an interesting (if somewhat dry and acronym-laden) essay on it.

Posted by: Harvey at 07:57 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 222 words, total size 2 kb.

Ogre of Ogre's Politics & Views mulls over the possibility of the universe arising by happenstance, crunches some numbers, and concludes.

"In other words, according to physics and mathematics, there is absolutely no possible way that this universe was created through random chance -- it's simply not possible."

I beg to differ. There's a big difference between "infinitesimally small" and "non-existent".

What he's calculating are the odds of getting it right on the first try.

To calculate the probability of the universe as we know it getting created, you'd need to know the number of trials that were attempted.

As the number of trials approaches the inverse of the odds of occurrance, the likelihood of success approaches certainty. Not knowing the number of trials involved, though, there's no conclusion to reach about how much of a long-shot the universe is. There may well have been a Googolplex of failed universes before a functional one popped up.

For the record, I'm agnostic about any particular theory of universal creation. The rules of physics changed at the (moment of creation/big bang), and without consistent rules, there's no way to deduce what happened before that moment.

So if you want to say "God created it", fine.

Me, I'm just going to say "I don't know, and I don't think I ever will".

I'm only an atheist about the stuff that happened afterwards.

Posted by: Harvey at 10:04 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.

Via Lynn of Reflections in D Minor, I found this disapproving review of CSI at Plugged In. This quote pretty much sums it up:

Twenty years ago on Quincy, Jack Klugman described the murders he uncovered each week. CSI shows theirs. From every angle. Over and over again. A drug-crazed raver strangles his friend. A woman caves in a manÂ’s skull with a rock. A man shoots himself in the head. A teenager stabs an entire family to death with a kitchen knife. The detectives are fond of saying that blood "talks." It also flies, drips, runs and pools on the floor. CSI is ugly, exploitative, gross, [and] disrespectful of the dead [...]

True.

But what they don't mention is what turns me off the most about this show: the detectives' antiseptic indifference to what they see.

When Quincy described the autopsies he did on his victims, there was always a suppressed undertone of outrage in his voice, as though - even after all his years as a Medical Examiner - he was still mortified at the inhumanity that was shown to the bodies he was examining.

CSI? They couldn't care less. They're cold, emotionless... practically bored. It's just another classroom exercise to them. Whatever.

Mostly I avoid the show, although I occasionally peek in just to see if someone is going to feel something.

I'm still waiting.

Posted by: Harvey at 07:23 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 236 words, total size 2 kb.

(cross-posted from IMAO)

Some folks are upset that the Flight 93 memorial "Crescent of Embrace" resembles an Islamic crescent.

Me, I'm ok with making a point of reminding people exactly what religion those murdering terrorist shitbags thought justified their actions.

And if it's true that it's oriented toward Mecca, then it's also handy for showing which way to aim our ICBM's.

Posted by: Harvey at 10:42 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.

Ogre opened a can of worms, so I'm going to pull out some nightcrawlers.

Intermediate and transitional forms.

Observed instances of speciation.

Finally, don't forget to check what Darwin actually wrote in Origin of Species, with - perhaps - special attention to Chapter 6, where he addresses some of the objections that he thought people would raise to his theory:

Difficulties on the theory of descent with modification -Transitions-Absence or rarity of transitional varieties-Transitions in habits of life-Diversified habits in the same species-Species with habits widely different from those of their allies-Organs of extreme perfection-Means of transition-Cases of difficulty-Natura non facit saltum-Organs of small importance-Organs not in all cases absolutely perfect-The law of Unity of Type and of the Conditions of Existence embraced by the theory of Natural Selection

WARNING: The above links contain prodigious quantities of dry, technical language. Do not attempt to read without having a caffeine source handy.

Posted by: Harvey at 09:46 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 155 words, total size 2 kb.

(reposted from 9/11/04)

Higher, please.

(click to enlarge)

The following text appears at the first link:

The following letter was written by Quent Cordair on Friday, September, 14, 2001, to our mailing list:

Dear friends, family and associates,

As a former U.S. Marine, I once carried a rifle in our defense. I've two younger brothers in the military who now stand ready to cover that end of things. The firemen, doctors, rescue personnel, blood donors, the brave New Yorkers and others on the scene are giving what they have to give to the effort. Philosophers are fighting with the pen. The artists' tools are uniquely valuable as well.

As a gallery owner, I offer what I have -- a single image to inspire, to counter the endless images of the destruction which we've all endured over the past days. This image stands in lucid contrast, in defiance of those who would destroy. It is a re-affirmation of who we are, of what we've created, of what we've built, of what we will rebuild and build higher yet, with unthwarted and unconquered determination. Those who would destroy us have not touched our essence.

My thanks to the artist, Bryan Larsen, who during the months in which others were plotting to destroy the World Trade Center, was busy creating, featuring the towers in an artwork which identifies and celebrates in theme all the towers stood for. The creation of this painting while others were targeting the painting's subject for destruction was no coincidence; there is no irony in the timing. Each side identified the WTC as a vital symbol of America in these times; one side sought to destroy that value, the other to celebrate it and build on it. In retrospect, the artwork stands in memorial. The World Trade Center was not fully appreciated, by many, until it was gone.

May this image serve as inspiration as we recover and look to the future. Please feel welcome to share it with all, to remind ourselves, and the world, of who we are, undaunted and unbeaten. God bless America, those who built it, those who will build again, and higher.

Quent Cordair

Again, I say...

Higher, please.

Posted by: Harvey at 08:00 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 430 words, total size 3 kb.

President Bush ordered US flags to be flown at half-staff "As a mark of respect for the victims of Hurricane Katrina".

I understand that the President has broad discretionary powers in this arena, but I don't think it's appropriate in this case.

Half-staff should be reserved for honoring the death of specific individuals who, by their government service, did much to honor this country. Presidents, Justices, Congressmen, etc? Yes. I have no problem with that.

To honor international allies facing the loss of one of their great names? Sure. That's what friends are for.

And perhaps even honoring some victims who lost their lives during battles in the War on Terror. Individual soldiers or those who died on 9/11.

But I draw the line at people killed by weather.

Yes, I know President Bush also ordered half-staffing for the victims of the Asian tsunami. He was wrong about that, too.

I think he should keep the lowering of the flag as a gesture of honor - reserved for people and events which define us as a nation.

Using it as a mere "mark of respect" cheapens it.

[Thanks to Beloved Wife TNT of Smiling Dynamite for bringing this to my attention]

Posted by: Harvey at 02:54 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.

Why? Because the alternative is shortages.

Future supplies of gas (and more regionally - other consumer goods) are uncertain. It could very well be that needed items will not be able to be sent to where they can be easily purchased through normal channels. Nobody knows.

Uncertainty makes consumers panicky, and panicked consumers start hoarding.

Jacking up the prices is the only way to keep these panicky people from buying up everything in sight and causing shortages.

Meanwhile, the high prices are also an incentive for freelancers to load up their station wagons to bring in more supplies, helping to ease the supply crunch until the regular distribution channels are back to full capacity.

It's a temporary spike and temporary price spikes let people do their own rationing. People can decide for themselves if $5/gallon gas is worth buying, or if they should wait a couple days. Prices will drop after people take a few deep breaths, and things will get back to normal a lot quicker this way.

However, as a cheap political stunt, some government officials try price controls. Since there's now no incentive to not buy stuff, panicky consumers start hoarding, leading to shortages and more panic.

There's also no profit incentive to return capacity to previous level, nor is there any encouragement for freelancers to help bring in supplies, outside of organized charity.

If there were any brains in government, they'd get the hell out of the way and let anyone help who wanted to, even if they DO make money off it.

Posted by: Harvey at 03:11 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 269 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Gee, but letting capitalist market forces take over is never politically expedient. The politicians are perceived as not doing anything to SAVE us! can't have that.

Posted by: tbflowers at September 01, 2005 04:18 PM (XdNW/)

2 I hope you are right, Harvey. I have a feeling, though, that the oil companies won't be so anxious to let the price fall back to where it used to be in a matter of days. I'm guessing more along the lines of months.

Posted by: SeanS at September 02, 2005 04:03 AM (cEjQ0)

3 There's no such thing as PRICE GOUGING in a free, capitalist society. It simply doesn't exist. What is the value of a glass of water in the Sahara? What is it's value in New Orleans right now? Any government intervention can only have disasterous results -- absolutely assured.

Posted by: Ogre at September 02, 2005 06:13 AM (/k+l4)

4 Also, there's nothing the gas stations would like more that to start undercutting each other to draw in customers, and any given gas station would do it if they could afford it. Not to mention that a lot of states have minimum mark-up laws which prevent gas stations from selling buck-a-gallon gas and making up for it with inside sales. From what I've heard, most gas stations make more money off of inside food & beverage sales than they do off gas, anyway. They don't want to sell expensive gas as much as they want to get you inside the store.

Posted by: Harvey at September 02, 2005 09:57 AM (ubhj8)

Hide Comments | Add Comment