health

Monday various

  • Rats. Terry Jones, of Monty Python fame will be teaching a one-day comedy writing seminar in Manhattan next month. Noted Python biographer Kim “Howard” Johnson will also be on hand to interview him. But it’s the day after my sister’s wedding, and I of course already have plans. I did get to see Michael Palin several years ago, but this sounded like an interesting (if considerably more expensive) event. Even if I must admit I’ve not always been the biggest fan of Mr. Jones’ solo work. [via]

  • On the lie that is CSI: The Shaky Science Behind Forensics:

    Forensic science was not developed by scientists. It was mostly created by cops, who were guided by little more than common sense. And as hundreds of criminal cases begin to unravel, many established forensic practices are coming under fire.

    Eye-opening and more than a little frightening. [via]

  • Vogue model Liskula Cohen wins right to unmask offensive blogger. I have to agree with Bookninja that his sets a potentially troubling precedent — not least of all because the defamation seems to have been relatively very minor. I don’t know the exact particulars of the offending blog, but…well, obviously nobody wants to be called a skank, and it is offensive, but for someone in the public eye, it would seem to come with the territory. Perhaps the vitriol aimed at Cohen went beyond that, but there is a significant difference between name-calling and character assassination, between being mean to someone and spreading lies that defame their character and impede their livelihood. And Cohen apparently isn’t even going to bring a defamation suit against the unmasked blogger. Now that she knows who it is, she’s perfectly willing to let bygones be bygones. Which I guess is big of her, but why couldn’t she have done that when it was just anonymous dickhead making fun of her? Why couldn’t she have sued (or, better, just politely asked) Google to remove the offending material? And, unless I’m missing something, can’t you easily sign up for Blogger anonymously? It’s a free service, so if you give Google a fake name and contact information, what good does unmasking do?

  • Or maybe not. Ever wonder What the Internet Knows About You? [via]

  • And finally, Mark Evanier on health care:

    I have nothing against corporate profits. The heart of this nation’s economy depends on businesses being able to amass moola. But when human lives are concerned, couldn’t that be close to an equal consideration? It doesn’t even have to be more vital than making sure some corporations have their best year ever. Couldn’t it just be, you know, almost as important?

Tuesday various

  • The drugs! They do nothink! The placebo effect appears to be getting stronger. It’s an interesting article, and the whole thing has some pretty far-ranging implications, but I was especially intrigued by this aside:

    One recent afternoon in his lab, a young soccer player grimaced with exertion while doing leg curls on a weight machine. Benedetti and his colleagues were exploring the potential of using Pavlovian conditioning to give athletes a competitive edge undetectable by anti-doping authorities. A player would receive doses of a performance-enhancing drug for weeks and then a jolt of placebo just before competition.

    Using the placebo response to cheat at sports? Hmm. [via]

  • Meanwhile, in other medical news, depression may be good for you [via]
  • Missing Link found in church: both more and less than the headline suggests. [via]
  • Have I mentioned recently how much I dislike Antonin Scalia?

    As a constitutional matter, Scalia is not wrong. The court has never found a constitutional right for the actually innocent to be free from execution. When the court flirted with the question in 1993, a majority ruled against the accused, but Chief Justice William Rehnquist left open the possibility that it may be unconstitutional to execute someone with a “truly persuasive demonstration” of innocence. Oddly enough, for at least some members of the current court that question is now seemingly irrelevant: In Scalia’s America, the Cameron Todd Willingham whose very existence was once in doubt is today constitutionally immaterial. Having waited decades for an innocent victim of capital punishment, the fact that we have finally found one won’t matter at all. In this new America we can execute a man for an accidental house fire, while the constitution stands silently by.

    I think there are several strong arguments against the death penalty, but for me the most convincing has always been that it demonstrably sends innocent people to their death. [via]

  • Maybe I should cast Scalia in this interesting class assignment from Jeffrey Ford:

    In one of my classes this semester, we are reading Dante’s Inferno….Our reading will lead to a number of assignments, but one of them will be a written canto that will deal with the students choosing one of their most despised political, religious, or cultural figures and developing a circle of Hell for that individual, the tortures of which somehow metaphorically fit the perceived sin of the offender. They must also choose some political, religious, literary, or cultural icon to be their Virgil. I put this out to ditch readers who are up to the challenge and ask — Who would be your guide? Who would be the sinner? What would the bole of Hell be like that the sinner is trapped in for eternity?

    Hmm.

Sunday various

  • True Tales of Conversational Vengeance. I think the closest my own job has brought me to anyone famous is talking on the phone with someone who worked with Fred Rogers, and e-mailing Desmond Tutu’s assistant, trying unsuccessfully to get a book endorsement. [via]

  • I can’t say I’ve never used any of these “lies from a publisher’s argot,” but we try to keep the out-of-control superlatives to a minimum. [via]

  • Domestic violence as a “pre-existing condition”. Seriously, how can anyone not think health care is fundamentally broken in this country? This is just nauseating.

  • Meanwhile, on a lighter note, Chuck Klosterman’s tongue-firmly-in-cheek look at the Beatles:

    Pop archivists might be intrigued by this strange parallel between the Beatles and the Stones catalogue—it often seems as if every interesting thing The Rolling Stones ever did was directly preceded by something the Beatles had already accomplished, and it almost feels like the Stones completely stopped evolving once the Beatles broke up in 1970. But this, of course, is simply a coincidence. I mean, what kind of bozo would compare the Beatles to The Rolling Stones?

  • And finally, a game: Canabalt. It’s like a pixelated parkour. [via]

Sobering thoughts

Roger Ebert writes eloquently about his struggles with alcoholism and the long road to recovery through AA:

You may be wondering, in fact, why I’m violating the A.A. policy of anonymity and outing myself. A.A. is anonymous not because of shame but because of prudence; people who go public with their newly-found sobriety have an alarming tendency to relapse. Case studies: those pathetic celebrities who check into rehab and hold a press conference.

In my case, I haven’t taken a drink for 30 years, and this is God’s truth: Since the first A.A. meeting I attended, I have never wanted to. Since surgery in July of 2006 I have literally not been able to drink at all. Unless I go insane and start pouring booze into my g-tube, I believe I’m reasonably safe. So consider this blog entry what A.A. calls a “12th step,” which means sharing the program with others. There’s a chance somebody will read this and take the steps toward sobriety.

I hope so.

Saturday various

  • I have to say, even on a simple design and aesthetic level, I pretty much hate this new Twilight-inspired cover for Wuthering Heights. And that’s even before you throw in all the kind of sad cross-marketing with Stephanie Meyer’s books — which, as near as I understand these things, are pretty bad:

    Quite what Emily Brontë would make of it all is anyone’s guess, although she would probably be quite gratified to actually have her name on the latest editions of Wuthering Heights – like her sisters, in her early career she adopted a male-sounding name, Ellis Bell, to overcome the prejudice against women writers. There’s a fair chance, though, that she might be spinning in her grave at the thought that her work is best marketed with the intimation that it is a pale imitation of Stephenie Meyer. And that’s not a course of action which is to be encouraged, given the latest publishing fad for mashing up classic texts, re-inventing them as gory horror stories, and flogging them to the Twilight generation.

    I must add, however, that I have no great fondness for Wuthering Heights, which I quit reading about halfway through. Like Jessa Crispin, I worry about young girls swooning over Heathcliff just about as much as over Edward. These are not exactly healthy relationships, ladies.

  • I liked Eat Pray Love both more and less than I expected to. It’s often wildly self-indulgent, whiny, and desperate in its new-agey-ness, but those are all complaints the book levels against itself throughout, and it’s often incredibly engaging, so… But honestly, I don’t know if I’m up for a sequel.
  • I can’t say I agree with all of Quentin Tarrantino’s picks for top 20 films (since 1992) — I think Unbreakable is underrated, and arguably Shyamalan’s best movie, but masterpiece of our time? Not hardly — but he thinks intelligently and not at all pretentiously about movies. Here’s a man just madly in love with the medium, warts and all. (Also a man, if I’m not mistaken, physically morphing into Charles Nelson Reilly.) [via]
  • Every time I read an interview with director Eli Roth, I feel like I’m getting one step closer to breaking down and finally watching Hostel. The movies he makes don’t really appeal to me, at least on the immediate and visceral level, but he speaks passionately and intelligently about them and the genre.
  • And finally, via Gerry Canavan comes this (I wish) surprising statistic: 62% of Republicans say the government should stay out of Medicare. Which really does “[illustrate] the profound levels of ignorance that currently interfere with the debate over health care…”