tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10735791854412019962024-02-19T15:41:21.474-08:00Other MusingsShereehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10258976416231029174noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073579185441201996.post-78806919880361212862015-11-14T05:42:00.001-08:002015-11-14T05:43:16.955-08:00Life without.<p dir="ltr">I gave up faith a long time ago. It happened really fast, someone said something that flipped on the "This is bullshit" switch. <br>
It left a void, a hole that used to be "belief" is now "lies". My anger at the continued acts of violence perpetrated by religions gets shoved into that hole.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Life without a god is big and full of love and there's nothing missing from it. Prayers or sermons or worship ceremonies wouldn't add anything to my experience of life. It would just be empty gestures. </p>
<p dir="ltr">If you're really headed this way, get here at your own pace. But know that the faithless are many. They're good people, and they welcome you.</p>
Shereehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10258976416231029174noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073579185441201996.post-21312553681894574162015-08-09T04:54:00.001-07:002015-08-09T05:06:08.919-07:00Litter and Policing<p dir="ltr">Lately, I've been thinking about how to continue to teach my children to trust police in the face of so many police shootings. It feels like a once a week headline:</p>
<p dir="ltr"><i><b>POLICE SHOOT UNARMED BLACK MAN</b></i></p>
<p dir="ltr">This week is no exception.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><i><b>FBI LOOKING FOR WITNESSES IN SHOOTING OF UNARMED BLACK MAN BY POLICE TRAINEE</b></i></p>
<p dir="ltr">It's constant. I know these are the minority of police, and the minority of police encounters, but they have come to represent the public/media face of policing.</p>
<p dir="ltr">For my children, we don't watch TV news. They are fortunate to have a friend who's dad is an officer and often comes out in uniform. So in that way they're both sheltered and exposed to the better side of law enforcement. But they still will hear about the violence, and it's my duty to prepare them.</p>
<p dir="ltr">My 5 year old thinker helped me yesterday to start the conversation. </p>
<p dir="ltr">"Mom? Do policemen ever litter?"</p>
<p dir="ltr">"I think there are probably policemen who do litter. They're people, and some people are jerks. So some cops are jerks too. Most of them are good guys, but some are jerks."</p>
<p dir="ltr">And with that, our first simple lesson in police corruption is done. Enough to spark a longer future conversation.<br></p>
Shereehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10258976416231029174noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073579185441201996.post-77574436890826233762015-08-06T18:31:00.001-07:002015-08-06T19:08:10.247-07:00Breaking Up<p dir="ltr">I'm going through a bad breakup with someone I'm been very close to and relied on for 8 years. I didn't change, but they did, over and over again. They dumped me over <i>Trust Issues</i>. They said they didn't think I was being my authentic self. <br>
It went something like this:<br>
They asked me to confirm my name.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMoYatjJYheU9AjQLoPH3VEaVCSOj0b0RViCHY8QyZEmWtHJ_8OcEsCSdtD7Pxeao3Yd-p7mceE90W04wVb6PrIi46aamFrCHjI3irtWfcXePn5ubC9e_BFuFDs6V06eTr28kjJ6-CsTE/s1600/Screenshot_2015-08-05-07-05-34.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"> <img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMoYatjJYheU9AjQLoPH3VEaVCSOj0b0RViCHY8QyZEmWtHJ_8OcEsCSdtD7Pxeao3Yd-p7mceE90W04wVb6PrIi46aamFrCHjI3irtWfcXePn5ubC9e_BFuFDs6V06eTr28kjJ6-CsTE/s640/Screenshot_2015-08-05-07-05-34.png"> </a> </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">And so I did, that same day.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaUxMQFrV9Q56Ri8NqpiBtNccxBknYVPX4wvV2UVOzHPYOlmDsUTM5YUFv8RrcRJu1sWFYRZFT31i-IWYAHXjZzJMOFdYZgVdYWf5Y7GBsu2H1VjvOy6AZAi9vzYOxajGEVz0R_-0_QQ4/s1600/Screenshot_2015-07-30-17-35-32.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"> <img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaUxMQFrV9Q56Ri8NqpiBtNccxBknYVPX4wvV2UVOzHPYOlmDsUTM5YUFv8RrcRJu1sWFYRZFT31i-IWYAHXjZzJMOFdYZgVdYWf5Y7GBsu2H1VjvOy6AZAi9vzYOxajGEVz0R_-0_QQ4/s640/Screenshot_2015-07-30-17-35-32.png"> </a> </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">Then they forgot, and asked again.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3TAU_ay5j-SsSqsdqPYR_WzZOUJ0RPLr64qD_F72Fqf5JYxTw9SIdZbo-qAf_ZyU8-7t_OrYtriNZAg9UHKxSLVz-WuvNwuw6wX5MXD5foL-7syNEaiVaIujSv2Q_1rl_q3eXGysb44s/s1600/Screenshot_2015-08-05-07-05-34.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"> <img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3TAU_ay5j-SsSqsdqPYR_WzZOUJ0RPLr64qD_F72Fqf5JYxTw9SIdZbo-qAf_ZyU8-7t_OrYtriNZAg9UHKxSLVz-WuvNwuw6wX5MXD5foL-7syNEaiVaIujSv2Q_1rl_q3eXGysb44s/s640/Screenshot_2015-08-05-07-05-34.png"> </a> </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">Meanwhile, trying to reassure me of how much I mean to them.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNK_a7EKhtM8FIwrWn50T-mTtsaVUaOJ9spjngjlgue-FO2sF3nOVRLpgrN_RUrXM4-71qHaZb8dlla95Q-azl0pfkabUPVwC5fGPumVSi7j-DT7eHSr3vylbeM87GUhP5HLokAhonR9A/s1600/Screenshot_2015-08-05-20-19-18.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"> <img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNK_a7EKhtM8FIwrWn50T-mTtsaVUaOJ9spjngjlgue-FO2sF3nOVRLpgrN_RUrXM4-71qHaZb8dlla95Q-azl0pfkabUPVwC5fGPumVSi7j-DT7eHSr3vylbeM87GUhP5HLokAhonR9A/s640/Screenshot_2015-08-05-20-19-18.png"> </a> </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: sans-serif;">And when I didn't respond fast enough, they broke it off.</span><br></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><font face="sans-serif">And forgot that it was over.</font></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgq4SHQTpVgy8t9H_HWFJ10DkoP5bDFJVfZqC7kJui1J4P50vBTZ5fRclEj4E0w6vkDD1s_sDsTGaTspU1KB6YcofA4OLBzclncGrUYN7FgTyuk0rYblDMd8UWfD9o7dmZ1Jnh3OOdsFkA/s1600/Screenshot_2015-08-06-19-25-23.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"> <img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgq4SHQTpVgy8t9H_HWFJ10DkoP5bDFJVfZqC7kJui1J4P50vBTZ5fRclEj4E0w6vkDD1s_sDsTGaTspU1KB6YcofA4OLBzclncGrUYN7FgTyuk0rYblDMd8UWfD9o7dmZ1Jnh3OOdsFkA/s640/Screenshot_2015-08-06-19-25-23.png"> </a> </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">I'm doing something else, sort of temporarily to figure out what I really want out of the relationship. But now I'm the one with trust issues. I may look for someone else: Instagram, Google+, Twitter... I'm also considering getting back together with my ex, blogger. We were really good together, maybe it could work?</div>Shereehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10258976416231029174noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073579185441201996.post-77650190465451410422014-09-15T18:42:00.001-07:002014-09-15T18:42:25.124-07:00The best day of my life<p dir="ltr">"The best day of my life was the day I was born. I bet that was the worst day of mom's life, 'cause that must've hurt!"</p>
<p dir="ltr">"Jackson, the day you were born was the worst day of my life for 22 hours. Then you were here, and the last 2 hours made it the best day I could ever have."</p>
Shereehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10258976416231029174noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073579185441201996.post-67717593971903731822012-03-05T20:41:00.000-08:002012-03-05T20:41:46.857-08:00Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice: The political questionMy friend Jennifer posted a question on this topic along with her opinion to Facebook recently. She asked for a thoughtful discussion, so I waded gently into those waters. Here's her question followed by my lengthy reply:<br />
<br />
Ok, this has been on my mind for awhile and it has made me incredibly sad, frustrated, (insert passionate emotion of your choice). You all know what an animal lover I am as is much of the world. What baffles me is how quick "we" (society) are to stand up and fight for animals, their abuse, their rights, their treatment, and are disgusted by those that kill them, dispose of them, hurt them....etc. Why then are "we" so hesitant to stand up for the killing and disposing of so many innocent babies that (like animals) don't have their own voice??? The comments of passionate disgust I read about the senseless killing of beautiful animals and their unborn or newborn young can so easily be applied to beautiful unborn and newborn babies yet it is quickly labeled "political" and the discussion turns ugly fast. I just don't see why we choose to not fight for the rights for our own precious miracles. We (mothers) do not grow spare parts, we give life to separate beings that unfortunately have their "potential" for a productive life already decided before they can have a chance at all. There *sigh* there's one of my "ings" :) Discuss :)<br />
<br />
Reply to Jennifer:<br />
<br />
I think it's good to have public discourse and occasionally redraw the lines. <br />
I think your question was really about right/wrong or morality on the issue vs politics. I think the answer to that is that it's always right/wrong or morality when you make a decision for yourself and always politics when the decision is written into law for the rest of us, sometimes the politics are also right or wrong. <br />
Laws are about drawing lines in the sand, and hopefully the lines represent what most of the citizens agree is the right place to draw the line. Sometimes it's easy to find the right place to draw the line, but sometimes it's not so easy. <br />
Here are a couple of examples that today seem really easy, but were redrawn in recent memory and against majority opinion in some cases:<br />
Equal rights and desegregation, particularly in Southern states; <br />
Womens suffrage; blacks suffrage; elimination of slavery; voting age at 18; prohibition and repeal of prohibition.<br />
Here's an example of something that is current, political, and moral, but the controversy is less heated. Most of us agree we should help feed and clothe the poor, that we have a moral obligation to do so, that it's even religious and mandated for jews and Christians by the bible. The country and the states agreed and do provide for the less fortunate via food stamps, housing, unemployment, and other forms of assistance. Lots of us think that the government should continue to provide the various safety nets. And some people who believe it's the right/moral/religious thing to do individually, think the government has no business acting as a charity. And some people who think the government should step into the role of charity, think the government had no business fulfilling that role by funding religiously based charities.<br />
<br />
The government also has drawn the lines around life and death. Easy/generally agreed upon lines: animals for food (chickens, pigs, cows, but not horses); euthanasia of overpopulated pets or very ill pets; animal cruelty (fights, farming practices, fur). There are disagreements and repositioning, but generally accepted practices.<br />
More difficult Decisions are made surrounding human life. It's a good idea to continue the discussion and occasionally shift the lines here, and the decisions should weigh heavy on our collective souls. Is it ever OK to take a human life? What is self defense, line of duty, involuntary or voluntary manslaughter, homicide, or capital punishment? If someone is suffering from mortal illness, should they be permitted to accelerate death, and if so, can someone like a physician assist them? Does morality require that every means technology provides to preserve and extend a life must be used (mediciation, blood transfusion, life support) or is an affront to god to intervene? How, when, and by whom should these decisions be made? Every person has a belief on these issues, some guided by their own conscious, some guided by religious leaders, and a lot of gray area between the black and white spaces of life and death. <br />
<br />
On the subject of abortion, you site 53% believing it's wrong as a majority who's opinion should be made law. It sounds pretty black and white and simple. But 53% is not a very convincing majority, it's a number that moves with every poll, and when you get into specifics there's a lot of gray space. What if the baby has a severe deformity that compromises quality of life; or that will end it's life by the age of 2 with great physical pain and very limited physical abilities; or if the baby would die shortly after birth; or die before birth? What if continuing to carry the fetus (ectopic pregnancy, cervical cancer, heart disease, so young that her still developing body can't support a pregnancy) would result in the mother's death; and she has other children who depend on her to provide for their own livelihood? What if the <br />
Pregnancy is the result of a violent rape and Constant reminder of the terrifying, horrible experience?<br />
Those are all gray areas with lots of space for disagreement even among the most fervent activists for the pro life movement.<br />
There are other gray areas that some people see as pretty black or white, but a woman in that situation sees differently. Women without stable relationships, women who want to finish school and have careers but aren't there yet, women who are poor and barely able to support the 2 or 4 other children already in their families, women for whom giving a baby up for adoption violates their beliefs.<br />
There's also no consensus on when life begins, or when a life that has begun achieves its humanity. Is it the potential for life in egg or sperm such that sex is only for procreation (twice a month at the time of ovulation and not in between, no hormonal contraception even if it treats another condition, no condoms even if they prevent contagious disease, no masturbation)? Is a 32 cell embryo alive; in the womb; before implantation; frozen in a lab; if it can be grown as stem cells to treat diseases in other humans? what if it has developed a primitive heart that beats, but an otherwise wormlike appearance? What if it has the features of a person in miniature, with no possibility of survival except in the womb it's attached to?<br />
These are all moral questions, decisions that will be very difficult for anyone to make, decisions that leave a lot of space for "what if". Decisions that are so difficult and so personal that the law says it has very little business making the choices. The law has been drawn on a very clear line that at birth, when a baby can survive for a couple of hours on it's own, and when any person can provide the necessary food and love and care, that's the right time for the law to intervene. Before birth, there are laws restricting what stage a pregnancy can be terminated, who will have to give consent, and who will or will not fund the procedure. beyond that, the lawmakers decided they cannot possibly have enough information about each situation to draw the line, and so the most difficult decisions are left to the person who will forever be burdened, for better or for worse, by the choice.<br />
<br />
There are other reasons for abortion to be legal even if we have moral objections. Because Safe and legal abortions prevent injury and infection and death to women who would otherwise risk an illegal and unscrupulous abortion. Because allowing legal abortions doesn't result in there being abortions. Because countries that have legal abortion actually have much lower abortion rates than countries that prohibit abortion.<br />
<br />
I'm pro-choice not because I think abortion is great and wonderful and a good option for first line birth control. I think abortion is generally bad. I'd love for it to be used only in the most extreme cases, but I don't think it should be made illegal. I'm pro-choice for all the reasons I just described. I'm pro-choice because I don't see another clear cut line to draw. I'm pro-choice because I don't have any way of knowing what or why someone else may decide to end a pregnancy. I'm pro-choice because this country plays lip-service to sanctity of life but does so very little to support mothers and families financially, emotionally, or in the work place. And I'm pro-choice because this society so often undermines, bullies, and ostracizes mothers who become mothers outside of the ideal 2-parent, middle class, healthy home.<br />
I'm grateful to be a mother at my own timing, with perfectly healthy children, when my personal goals have been achieved, with the resources to raise my children with financial security in a loving and stable home. I'm also grateful everyday that I haven't had to make the weighty decision between several not very good options, then spend the rest of my days wondering how it might've been if I'd chosen differently. Godspeed to any women making that choice.<br />
<br />
Remember I mentioned my belief that abortion is generally bad and should be all but elimated? I think we have an obligation to do everything possible to reach that goal. That starts with comprehensive, age appropriate sex education--including biology, abstinence, contraception of all types, and disease education. Private, unfettered, and economical access to contraception should be available and also covered by all insurance plans. Pregnant women of any circumstance should be accepted and emotionally supported, not ostracized. Employment protection should be mandated, family leave extended, and financial assistance provided to all mothers at levels that would bring the US up to or exceeding the standards of other developed nations. And that safety net? It should be bigger to ensure that children have full bellies, safe homes, healthy bodies, loving parents, preschool, well funded public K-12 education, and affordable college or vocational training. Sanctity of life shouldn't end at birth.Shereehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10258976416231029174noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073579185441201996.post-50768832998520534832009-04-14T17:55:00.000-07:002009-04-14T18:04:53.493-07:00The American DreamI caught some story somewhere about the growing waistlines of Americans. It was the author's theory that Americans have no food culture and are therefore searching for a food identity, and apparently eating our way to that identify. <br /><br />I think this is bumbkis. Every region in America has a food culture and identity. It may only be 200 years old, but its there. New England has lobster and a whole range of clam chowders. New York has deli's, hot dog carts, and pizza. Maryland eats crabcakes. The southern states have barbecue and sweet tea. It's chili's in the Southwest, avocado sushi in California, jello and funeral potatoes in Utah. <br /><br />What America has is a fantasy about pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, and accumulating stuff--a big house, a fast car, an airplane, jewelry, staff... <br />Food is the literal manifestation of the consumeristic gluttony. Supersized fries are a metaphor for the American Dream.Shereehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10258976416231029174noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073579185441201996.post-46972039881892882782009-03-09T16:31:00.000-07:002009-03-09T17:33:46.957-07:00Questioning a statistics.I saw a random fact quote in a magazine yesterday. (Is that opening as lazy as beginning with "I was sharing a taxi"?) I didn't double check it anywhere, but I have been thinking about it. It said "90% of pregnancies that test positive for Down Syndrome are aborted".<br /><br />Really?! 90%? That seems really high, particularly for such a common birth defect. It's a deformity where the fetus is still viable, the families who include a down syndrome child report being happy, and while the defect results in lower IQ and cardiovascular problems, many affected persons do live out full productive lives.<br /><br />The statistic as printed indicates that 90% of people who find out they're having a child with DS will choose to end it, with an implication that more women should be tested so that they have an opportunity to "opt out" so to speak. I don't think that's the whole story.<br /><br />First, the tests are usually offered to older mothers (over 35 yrs). They're also more likely to be more affluent--women who delayed their families to develop their careers for example, or families that can afford to have the tests. They're usually extras--so insurance often won't cover the cost.<br /><br />The tests also result in a high rate of false positives. So having one test will lead to an extra level of anxiety while the parents wait for the test confirmation.<br /><br />Perhaps its only people who will choose to terminate that have the tests. After all, why go through the extra expense and anxiety if your choice is already made and your actions won't change?<br /><br />The follow on question is: Where along the spectrum of pregnancy outcomes do people draw the line to terminate? Which lives are more valuable? Down Syndrome is something that can be justified either way. Clearly there are other defects where most people would agree to end the pregnancy--I hope that's somewhere on the non-viable end of the spectrum. There are places where the ethics become very cloudy--China for example, where reportedly the decision is made based on gender. Most of us in the US think that's abhorrent.<br /><br />There are other traits that are might be cloudy even here--autism, mental illness, diabetes. There are traits that are desirable, and a few people might be willing to select for--athleticism, charisma, IQ, height. (No, I'm not joking--apparently there are a number of Little People who are selecting for dwarfism and a number of deaf people selecting for deafness so that their children will share the same types of life experiences.)<br /><br />Where do you draw the line? Do we as a society want to allow people to select against birth defects? Conversely, should we allow families to select in favor of birth defects where the parents are already affected? Should we even try to set limits, or is it best to leave those decisions--all of those decisions--with the future parents?Shereehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10258976416231029174noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073579185441201996.post-72582012929684002472009-02-10T19:47:00.000-08:002009-02-10T22:29:01.959-08:00CarbonPop vocabulary is full of 2 types of buzzwords right now. It's either Obama_____ (as in Obama-mama, Obama-mania, Obama-nation, Obam-ination) or Carbon_________ (carbon-footprint, carbon-balance, carbon-impact).<br /><br />There's a [gold]rush to minimize one's carbon-footprint by buying carbon-offsets. The way it works is that 1-you fly to Spain 2-Booking online, you see a popup add telling you (gasp) how many carbon-units you're releasing into the atmosphere on the flight as a per person basis 3-The ad suggests you buy carbon-offsets, in the form of trees planted in the Amazon Rainforest to soak up the carbon you just released. 4-You do, and receive a warm feelgood that your trip is carbon-neutral.<br /><br />That all seems fine and good, but here's the rub.<br />1--The newly planted trees will indeed be soaking up atmospheric carbon. You can think of it as "Yours", but its more likely offsetting the carbon released by the slash and burn activity going on deeper in the forest to make way for cattle pasture. There will still be a net release of carbon to the atmosphere during your flight.<br />2--The Amazon Rainforest's natural state is, in fact, forest. By that I mean that after the land has been spent on pasture and abandoned, it will eventually return to forest. This process will take a while--the soil will have been depleted, and it takes time for trees to grow, but eventually the forest will return. (Over the last 100 years, New England has reforested from the slash and burn practices of the colonists. New England was >95% forest at one time, the settlers had converted it to >90% pasture by 1800, and in 1990, it was >75% forest again--numbers are approximate. The forests returned without the efforts of Peace Corp volunteers with shovels. Similarly, the Western US is now being irrigated so that the deserts will blossom like the rose. It's a temporary situation. If the people of Salt Lake were to abandon their lush lawns, the sagebrush would return.)<br />3--The trees you've paid to have planted may upset the balance of the forest. How? It's likely that the trees that are planted (if they are actually planting trees, and not just scamming Al Gore and the American tourists) will likely be of just a few species. They were probably selected based on one or two traits. Perhaps they were chosen because those species have marketable qualities--exotic furniture lumber, useful for paper, straight for building material, who knows--maybe they're just easily propogated. Worst case is that the trees you are paying to have planted as a carbon offset are actually becoming a giant agricultural project, subsidizing the corporatization of the Amazon. At best, the trees were nursery grown and are all seeds from a small number of mature trees, so they have limited genetic variability. A natural forest is made up of a tremendous variety of species. The seeds may be blown in on the wind or carried in by bird droppings. However they arrive, they'll possess a great deal of genetic variability which will contribute to the general health and vigor of the forest.<br /><br />I want to replace the concept of carbon-footprint with a more practical concept. Let's call it the carbon-1/2 life. That is the time it takes for 50% of the CO2 released into the atmosphere to be absorbed back into the earth. So, if an activity has a carbon-1/2 life of 10 years, and 100 grams of CO2 are released, in a decade, 50 grams of CO2 will still remain in the atmosphere. After 20 years 25 grams will remain, after 50 years 6 grams will remain. It will take 80 years for 99% of the released carbon to leave the atmosphere.<br /><br />Here's an example. I live in the temperate forest of New England. My heating sources are 1-solar gain through the windows, 2-Onsite and sustainably harvested wood, 3-propane.<br /><br />The heat from the sun really is carbon-neutral, or to be more accurate carbon-free. No carbon is released or exchanged, so the carbon-1/2 life = zero days. I neglected the energy used to fabricate, ship, and install my windows, but you get the idea.<br /><br />The heat from the wood is also carbon-neutral. By that I mean that as trees are cut, they are replaced by seedlings. It's a natural process, and eventually, the seedlings will absorb enough atmospheric CO2 to offset the cut trees. Therefore heat from the wood is carbon-neutral, but its not carbon free. In fact, the CO2 released into the atmosphere through combustion will persist for approximately 50 years, until the seedlings grow to the size of the trees that were cut down. Perhaps it takes 5 years for the young trees that sprout in what had been shaded by the cut trees to reach 1/2 the size of the trees that were cut, so the carbon-1/2 life is 25 years, and it will take 200 years for 99% of the carbon to be removed from the atmosphere. This is simplified a bit--I ignored the gas it took to power the chainsaw, but its a fair approximation.<br /><br />The heat from the propane will have a very long carbon-1/2 life, millenia. There is no easy way to remove it from the atmosphere. A partial list of suggested approaches follows:<br />1-store the carbon deep in the ocean waters. This is a natural process, but it too is a delicate balance. Storing excess carbon in the seas will acidify the waters and have repercussions that I won't detail here. 2-Store the carbon in the earth, possibly using it to fill the voids created by drilling for oil. Maybe, but this is a very expensive process. 3-Plant trees--see my above comments.<br /><br />Realistically, the only way to remove the carbon released by burning fossil fuels is to grow large amounts of biomass, bury it deep in the ground where the products of decay won't release the CO2 into the atmosphere negating your efforts. Wait for the heat and pressure of the pile to restore the fossil fuels. Keep in mind that there is limited cropland available for growing the biomass (you could create more by slashing and burning some rainforest, but I again direct you to the above comments), it will take a large amount of biomass to resorb the amount of CO2 resultant from the use of fossil fuels, and there is not a convenient place to store the biomass while waiting for gas and oil to form.<br /><br />You still have to keep an eye on so-called carbon-free options. Solar and wind are carbon free excluding the energy used to manufacture equipment, ship it, install, and maintenance of the solar collectors or turbines. The carbon-1/2 life of such energy sources is very low, but its still not zero. Corn based ethanol has a higher carbon-1/2 life when you include the energy required to process corn into ethanol. By some calculations, it takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than is available in the ethanol. The carbon-1/2 life of nuclear energy doesn't fare much better when you consider the enormous cost of building a nuclear powerplant and consider the environment impact of the cooling tower: fish killed during water intake (carbon-1/2 life equals decades), fish/plankton/seaweed killed from heated water released from plant (carbon-1/2 life equals decades) energy used operating and guarding the nuclear plant (carbon-1/2 life equals millenia).<br /><br />Bottom line--no matter who makes a buck from your desire to reduce your carbon impact, fossil fuel consumption is going to adversely impact the atmospheric CO2 balance. Renewable combustion also has an impact on the atmospheric CO2 balance, but a gallon of vegetable option has a much lower carbon-1/2 life than a gallon of gasoline. Some renewables like solar and wind power are relatively carbon-free, with a carbon-1/2 life close to zero.<br /><br />The term carbon-1/2 life gives a much more rigorous comparison of our energy options than carbon footprint. It's also a catchy phrase for everyday conversation.Shereehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10258976416231029174noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073579185441201996.post-31428337236161237802009-01-07T15:29:00.000-08:002009-01-09T15:39:12.104-08:00Subgenius SightingLast weekend, I caught this story on NPR <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95166854">Our Digital Lives, Monitored By A Hidden '<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Numerati</span>'</a> .<br /><br />Read it, or buy the book. It's a compilation of the Big Brother data mining habits of the credit card companies, grocery stores, websites, government agencies, and pathologists.<br />Some of what Mr Baker outlines in the book I already knew, some of it I imagined, some I feared, and some of it was a surprisingly positive reaching use of data mining (like the translation of spam deterring software to HIV mutation predicting models).<br /><br />It's also a great segue into something I've been thinking about for a while. Privacy, who has a right to our personal information, and when or how should we protect it.<br /><br />There's a wave of fear about online security and how to protect yourself from the dread online predators. This "protection" is usually directed at teens and preteens, particularly the girls. The big tools in use are 1-parental controls on website (easy for determined youth to <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">supersede</span>) and 2-police officers posing as young kids who trolling for a meet and sleep with middle aged men (Seriously, does anyone really think they'll find an actual sweet young thing in a chat room? It's seems a little incredible to me. I wonder if someone could wage a defense based on the probabilities and claim they were looking for a brush with danger in the form of a high speed car chase with the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">SVU</span>.) Are either of these effective tools? Since I'm not part of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Numerati</span> myself and too short of time to actually research it, I'll speculate that they're ineffective. I suggest that the best way to protect your children online is to develop a trust based relationship with your kids and encourage them to use the modicum of common sense that I'm sure they possess.<br /><br />The new trend in online security is blog protection--word verification, sign in to post, or in the extreme--taking your blog private. Some of you are using these tools now. I hope they give you peace of mind. For now, my blog has no protection. Why? Well, first off, while my blog is public, I don't have the readership of the New York Times. I am comfortable with the assumption that my 20 or so readers are close friends or casual associates that find we have something in common (probably <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">younguns</span>). There are exceptions of course. I have received comments from someone wanting to sell me T-shirts with my blog posting (in Spanish) and someone making elaborate, inedible cakes--perfect for dieters birthdays. (If you want to dig for those comments, you can find them. I didn't delete them because of the sheer novelty of it.) I think its a little cumbersome to decode scribbles and always sign in to be able to post, and so I don't burden my guests with the trouble. If someday I receive multiple computer generated blog spam, or vicious anonymous posts, well then I'll look at ways to protect myself. But I view the protections the way I view antibiotics. Why give the germs something to build up resistance to? I'll save it for when I need it and hope it works then.<br /><br />I basically think its a lot of trouble for someone to seek me out electronically as an individual. I share the philosophy of <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">shoaling</span> fish. There are a lot of people out there, and someone randomly looking for a victim will probably miss me and catch someone else. If I'm ever targeted by a perpetrator, I expect it to be someone I know, and any blanket defense won't be effective.<br /><br />The predecessor to the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Numerati</span> is the market researcher. I actually like the market researcher. As an example, I think the car companies should ask consumers where to (and where not to) put cup holders. Even better if they ask me, and I decide where they should be. For a while I had a Nelson Ratings box on my TV. I loved it! I like my market research old style--based on broad demographic characteristics--the shoal.<br /><br />I'm wary of tactics that try to go beyond demographic pools and go directly to the individual. I cherish my anonymity. I give fake names at the lunch counters (only partly because mine is difficult to spell and pronounce). I resist any suggestion at work that I should get a security clearance for govt programs. Sure that's partly because I don't want to spend all day in a windowless room and be searched on my way in and out, but mostly its because, while I don't have anything to hide, I don't feel like inviting the FBI to keep a file on me. I have a wallet full of grocery store customer cards, but the stores think its Regina <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Phalanges</span> buying 2 gallons of whole milk a week. I am well aware that my credit card companies are keeping track of all of my purchases, and I consider becoming a cash only entity, but that's not really practical.<br /><br />I don't mind market research, but I am very much opposed to data mining that targets me directly. I would like limits set on the corporate information gathering. Even more alarming is government data mining.<br /><br />I have more thoughts on this, but no more time to commit to it now. Read the book and form your own.Shereehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10258976416231029174noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073579185441201996.post-54876767667258712252008-10-07T20:02:00.000-07:002008-10-07T21:51:28.822-07:00What's your ideology?I think that the 2-party election process is not so much about any specific candidate and what they want to bring to the table. It's really a conflict over idealogy. On the one hand is the idealogy of helping the disadvantaged, regulating corporations for the public good, positive environmental policy, progressive taxation that attempts to correct for the unequal distribution of wealth, and trying to preserve individual rights. On the other is the idealogy of bootstraps, trickle down economics, deregulation of industry, fighting wars to ensure corporate access to the resources of other nations, and a dominant religion influencing public policy at the expense of personal liberty.<br /><br />For those of you who are undecided because your ideology is split or some other reason, I offer a simple reason to vote for Barack Obama. He offers a message of hope. We are a country burdened by a poor economy, 2 wars, trememdous debt, 8 years of negativity and having been manipulated by fear. It's time to replace the fear with hope. With a belief that we hold the power to change our fates, and a willingness to make that happen.<br /><br />For the rest of you, struggling with the ideologies, if you look at the whole list, it seems pretty obvious which party has the best interest of the American people in mind. It's easy to focus on just one point, rather than taking the list as a whole. For those of you who are voting republican based on economic policy, I direct your attention to this excellent article in the NY Times "Would Obama's Plan be Faster, Fairer, Stronger?" <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?scp=1&sq=Obama" st="'cse">http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?scp=1&sq=Obama</a>.<br />It reports the history of the US economy from 1948-2007, and summarizes the nations economic health according to which party held office. Turns out trickle up economics is better for EVERYONE! Even the wealthy. Gross national product rose an average of 2.78% annually per capita during Democratic administrations versus just 1.64% with the Republicans in the White House. Family income growth rose for the wealthiest 2.12% annually with Democratic presidents versus 1.9% with Republicans (a smallish, but significant), and for the poorest 2.64% with a Democratic President versus 0.43% while under Republican dominion (Wow! That's where the huge wage gap and impoverization of the nation came from!). This shows that the pocketbook vote ought to go the the Democrats, regardless of your current wealth.<br /><br />I see the heartland of this country foregoing their best interests on issues of public safety and economics because they have narrowed their focus on what they belief is a moral issue.<br />Faith is a powerful motivator. The ideology of "sanctity of human life" strikes the emotional response. If you are motivated to base your political views on that issue, I sympathize. I also offer an alternative. I believe that the best way to prevent abortions is to prevent unplanned pregnancy. Provide access to affordable birth control, educate people (especially the youth) on how to protect themselves from unplanned pregnancies and disease. Of course let them know the safest way is not to have sex, but accept that atleast 1/2 of them will ignore that advise (Yes, 1/2 of them, at age 16, its 50%). Those people need to know their options, and the reliability of each one. I believe the next best way to prevent abortions is to improve a person's socio-economic standing. Education is the number 1 way to do this. Employment with a fair wage is number 2. By and large desperate people take desperate actions.<br /><br />I believe that a woman with an unwanted pregnancy has a choice between several bad options. In most cases, any choice with irrevocably change that woman's life, and likely leave her with regrets and heartache. Option 1--Keep the baby. We are a society that judges people first. Someone who is pregnant without meeting the normal conditions (adult, married, steady income) is ostracized. Add to that the burden of raising children without adequate financial means. That's a recipe for regret. Option 2--Give the child up for adoption. This choice must be a terrible emotional burden. Carry a child within one's body for 9 months, suffer the wear and tear of the pregnancy, develop a relationship with the unborn child, then right after birth, give that child to the unknown and spent the rest of your life wondering what became of him. Option 3--Make the problem go away. Avoid the 9 months of discomford, stares and whispers of strangers, and dramatic farewell. Try to come to terms with the decision. In some cases, make this decision under diress with the additional burden of severe defects, risk to personal life, or pregnancy resulting from assault.<br /><br />If it were me, I would not want to decide which of those fates to take. It would be some small assurance to atleast know that the consequences were my own making. I feel lucky that I was armed with the education necessary to avoid having to make that decision. I hope to have the courage not to judge another's choices and support their decision.<br /><br />It's beyond my comprehension how "sanctity of life" surpasses every other idealogy when applied to a tiny budding embryo that resembles a bean or a tadpole, but is no longer part of the conversation on the issue of foreign policy. I think someone who was true to the ideology of preserving life must by definition be a pacifist. Dropping bombs on poor people overseas is reprehensible, should be avoided, and never taken lightly. Capturing people overseas with scant evidence of their political leanings, holding them in secret locations, and torturing them in an attempt to extract information to justify our actions is reprehensible. It shows a disregard for others life, liberty, and human dignity. Cloaking this activity in a robe of patriotism and national security seems to have blinded the nation's apparent moral fortitude.<br /><br />The 2 party system gives an indication of what a candidate brings to the table. But it gives voters a false sense of security that a candidate from their "Party" will share their belief system. It's an excuse not to educate one's self on the issues. I think we'd be better off with a non-partisan system with a primary, followed by a run-off between the 2 highest vote getting candidates. With such a simple system, voters would be encouraged to learn about the candidates, and it would be much harder to conceal bad ideology behind a curtain of single issues.Shereehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10258976416231029174noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073579185441201996.post-44972068885514839122008-10-07T18:01:00.001-07:002008-10-07T21:56:26.047-07:00Some debate #2 Politi-talk.So I promised some politi-talk, which I haven't come through on yet. At Kristin's request and to vent my frustration watching tonights debate, here are a few words. I'm watching the CBS newsfeed because for the 1st debate, both candidates were always on frame. There was an annoying billowing flag between them, but I want to watch John McCain's eyebrows arch and the vein on his forehead pop, so I'm sticking with them. My other reason for chosing CBS, is I've decided (after my Sarah Palin rant) that I have a responsibility to support women who have achieved success on their merits. While I've never been a fan of The Today Show, Katie Courick does fit that description.<br /><br />I won't keep a time-linear commentary, I'll skip around to try to keep themes the same, but I'm sure this wil come out kind of scattered. Many topics will be broached tonight, and I've got to vent.<br /><br />I'm looking forward to John McCain agreeing profusely with Barack's answers. What Obama's got going has worked for him. McCain is already trying to co-opt the themes of change, reform, and the state of the economy being not so strong. Since when can the encumbent party, and a campaign platform that agrees vehemently with the failed policies of the current administration be the agent of reform? (Maybe they should get themselves one of those little people, even smaller than the other guy's.) Oh, there's one--taxes. Keep the tax code as it is (does that mean keeping the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy? I'll bet it does.) and give the middle class a tax cut by doubling the tax break for having a kid.<br /><br />Ahh. There's that familiar inch thick billowing flag, but they're being a bit stingy with it tonight.<br /><br />Here comes a topic of conversation. Mr. McCain's suspension of his campaign in order to solve the bailout, er, I meant to say "rescue". Apparently it took him a full 22 hours to get his private jet from NYC to Washington, making stops with Katie Courick (to try to diffuse some of Mrs. Palin's shocking display of inadequacy), a fundraiser, a hotel stay, and finally arriving at Washington late in the afternoon after Congress had come to an agreement. In the meeting he convened, he had nothing to say, and the key players walked out no longer in agreement. He did cancel his visit to Dave Letterman--now that's sacrifice. Calling off campaigns to attend to something urgent has been a historical theme for the campaigning John McCain. Remember the hurricane last month during the Republican convention? The convention was called off Monday (convenient to keep the wildly unpopular president off the premises), the press went to Louisiana, but the Republicans partied like it was 1999 (or January 2001). I learned that John McCain has a history of calling off campaigns when the going gets tough, he's been doing for years. Is that what we want in a President? Someone who ready to call a time-out whenever the going gets tough?<br /><br />Oh, by the way. Fannie & Freddie weren't the perpetrators of predatory loans, that was mostly unregulated private enterprise at work.<br /><br />Does John McCain know how long it takes to get a productive new domestic oil well or build a nuclear power plant? It's decades. That's the same time frame (or more) necessary to get clean, carbon neutral, domestic renewable energy sources on line at significant levels. Thirty years of the drill and mine and war mentality of gaining energy indepence has gotten us more and more dependent on an energy supply provided by cartels. Ripping the solar panels off the White House roof in 1980 may've been a great publicity stunt, but it didn't help the nation's energy dependence one whit. I appreciate Barack Obama's commitment to reduce the CO2 emissions of this country drastically, quickly, and to levels that even me, the environmentalist, was surprised to hear. (Don't get me wrong, I believe its possible, but I'm a realist--I don't expect my government to make big steps.) Investing billions in renewable energy like a 21th century New Deal is the path to real energy independence. As a bonus, its an investment in our country's infrastructure, technology, and business. Innovation is the way to ensure the US economy is strong. Investing in the old way of doing things will keep us in the dark ages and in short time, allow the rest of the world to surpass the US. Investing in technology and innovation will ensure that we have both energy independence, and a strong business community with a desirable, marketable product (you know, like the way Japan has clobbered the US auto industry by making a reliable, fuel efficient, economical fleet of vehicles).<br /><br />McCain is against defense spending? Someone should let my company's PAC know.<br /><br />Let's talk about regulation. First, I'll start with my own belief system. I believe that government should regulate corporations on issues of food safety, environmental regulations, worker's rights, public safety, and risk management. As we've seen recently and many times over, when the sole motivator is profit, and the public's well being is at stake, it must be tempered by rules. I also belief that the individual should be de-regulated. If someone makes a decision that affects only that person, its not the government's business. The government has no place in the consenting bedroom. the government has no ability to regulate an individuals substance use, it doesn't work (of course operation of a vehicle under the influence of any substance, legal or otherwise, absolutely must be regulated). A bunch of old white guys has absolutely no business deciding which medical procedures young women should have access to.<br /><br />John McCain has a 26 year record (except for the last 2 weeks) of eliminating regulation on corporations whenever possible. That's a policy that has gotten us an economic stock market, credit market, and housing meltdown. Deregulation has resulted in precipitous increases in energy prices, still cripling those of us who's state's deregulated, and at the extreme resulted in the pillaging of California's electricity budget and ultimate collapse of Enron.<br /><br />We are dependent on government regulations (and appropriate enforcement) to ensure the safety of food, pharmaceuticals, and consumer products. Regulations should be keeping melamine out of baby formula and lead out of their toys. Regulations give us a 40 hour workweek in a safe work environment. Regulations give us confidence that our insurance company will come through when our car or our health fail. Regulations have taken us from a nation where our rivers were so pulluted that some of them caught fire, to a nation where we have parks on the riverbanks and feel safe taking a kayak out (Next step is mercury and PCB free fishing!!).<br /><br />I will give John McCain credit for his position on earmarks. I haven't seen a challenge to his claim of not taking any for Arizona during his tenure in the senate. That is a good thing. I believe that the congress has a responsibility to act in the best interest of the nation. Re-election hinges on pandering to the constituents back home, and for much of the congress, the secondary requirement has been priority 1. Earmarks have been abused to fund pet projects back home for many representatives. The biggest example of this is Alaska, with the aptly named "Bridge to Nowhere" (Yup, Sara Palin campaigned on that and still took the money for other highway projects, plus funding for another bridge to Nowhere Wasilla, AK). This is one McCain idea that Barack Obama has co-opted, and while he didn't claim an egregious amount of money to send back home, he has pledged to stop requesting specific funds for IL projects.<br /><br />Diplomacy. Barack Obama has been a proponent of diplomacy with all countries regardless of their standing in the international community. John McCain wants to follow the lead of Bush/Cheney policy and shoot first, never bothering to ask questions. I believe in diplomacy. I'll use China as an example. It's an old style communist country with a long history of oppressing their people. We've chosen to chastise the policies we disagree with, but embrace China as a trade partner (maybe we'll put some regulations into that agreement someday and ask for worker's rights or consumer and environmental protections). Having China has a trade partner has given us access to cheap goods, and has given the people of China access to our culture, consumerism, and democracy. They get it in a censored form, but they still get it. As a result, China is making steps toward personal freedoms and has become a player on the international stage. In contrast, Iran is a country the US currently refuses to talk to, and has been threatening for the last 6 1/2 years. It is led by a theocracy and a prime minister that spews vile, threatening, nonsense. The young people of Iran on the otherhand are largely educated and hungry for freedom. I believe we should foster their desire. Issueing our own threats and refusing to engage Iran, while we burden the country with sanctions (restricting access to cheap Chinese goods, media, and food) will not serve our country well in the future. Leaving a vacuum of positive idealogy in Iran helps foster extremism and ultimately terrorism.<br /><br />Some thoughts on the follow-up analysis.<br /><br />I don't understand what the press calls "Scoring the debate". Apparently, its about quick soundbites, not about 1-addressing the actual question that was asked, 2-educating the voters on the campaign platford 3-honesty. You win or lose on a one-liner that might be delivered by someone like the Govern-ator himself. I just don't get it.<br /><br />Who is this lady in with the "I can't say who had the better plan, but I firmly believe its every American's right to health care, and the children, and blah blah blah" Was she listening at all? The question was more than answered tonight.<br /><br />Token black Republican. 'Nuf said.Shereehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10258976416231029174noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073579185441201996.post-48859004484836043592008-09-09T20:20:00.001-07:002008-09-09T20:40:56.807-07:00"I'll be praying for you"What does this phrase mean? Do they people who use it sincerely intend to kneel down by their bedsides and ask their God to look after the person they uttered it to? Will they remember to bow their heads before the evening meal and ask for an other's blessings? Perhaps. I know many people who say those words with sincerity of heart and follow up on the promise. However, I think most of the time, its a cliche`, something that is said because it will sound reassuring.<br />I want to repeat those words when I hear of someone who has experienced a loss. I think people will be reassured by hearing it. Instead I hold back, knowing that I won't be going home to plead on their behalf. I think it would be disingenuous to use the phrase under false pretenses.<br />I've been pondering this phrase for sometime, and recently, I started polling my friends (3 of them, and now you--leave a comment) for their opinions. So far, there are 2 other votes that share my opinion. <br />The third offers the following viewpoint: People do mean it sincerely, and then follow through by saying a little silent prayer on the spot. In this view, the silent prayer doesn't have to start with "Father in Heaven, we give thanks for our many blessings". "Prayer" instead has a less conventional meaning, and can be fulfilled by whatever constitutes a prayer to the person who thinks it. It may be a traditional Judeo-Christian request, a Wiccan spell, or simply wishing the person well in one's heart. <br />I find this new definition reassuring and liberating, especially since I've used the broad definition of prayer to legitimize alternative belief systems for a long time. Yesterday, I used a version of that phrase for the first time in memory. I used in sincerely, and just saying it was reassuring to me.Shereehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10258976416231029174noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073579185441201996.post-68629498185941228522008-08-25T19:28:00.001-07:002008-09-09T20:41:42.641-07:00A few months back, a study was published about the bacterium endemic to the human inner elbow. The news feeds all spun the news with great surprise that an organisms would have such a specific habitat, and that the human body was segregated into microclimates, each with their own unique fauna.<br /><br />I hail the news as important scientific verification. But I stop short of surprise. It should be apparent that the organisms that inhabit and pollute the underarm do so in a microclimate and with results far different than those who create the foot stink 4.5 feet away. It wouldn't take much to verify that there are quite a different set of inhabitants beneath the toenails producing the clumpy white hubris.<br /><br />I am curious and would like to see the investigation of how much the inner elbow microbiota have in common with those of the inner knee, or whether the population of the upper arm has relatives on the upper thigh. These spaces appear to have a similar ecology.<br /><br />I would like to know more about the symbiotic relationships. If the inner elbow bacterium process raw fats into moisturizers, is dry skin caused by hypervigilant bathing? Could it be treated by rubbing elbows (so to speak) with another's perfect complexion? Do we receive some unknown benefit from the microbes that cause tooth decay?<br /><br />What about the organisms that thrive in body parts that are of recent creation such as the orifices created by piercings. I haven't heard evidence of other species or even prehistoric man intentionally piercing the skin, I believe it started with the ancient Egyptians. That's just a few thousand years for the bacteria to migrate from some other skin fold and evolve to favorably inhabit the earlobe. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/23/science/23gene.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss" rel="nofollow">Read the whole article</a>Shereehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10258976416231029174noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073579185441201996.post-85920909407444886222008-08-25T19:23:00.000-07:002008-09-09T20:42:14.958-07:00That blog is for things familial.<br />This new blog is for ideas. <br /><br />No more borrowing the babies blog. Ideas now have their own space. Perhaps they'll soon have their own readers.Shereehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10258976416231029174noreply@blogger.com0