Mongering
A reputable British newspaper (The Times) recently ran this very interesting article about corporate disease-mongering. It's a good article to remember when someone is giving you medical advice, especially if that someone is your doctor. And that goes double if you're being told that you need a long-term drug prescription; there are people who make lots of money off of that sort of thing, which is reason enough to be wary.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't trust your family physician--but I am saying that that you shouldn't trust him or her blindly. Everyone is fallible, so you can't get out of thinking for yourself.
Rambling About Music
I heard a really good song today. It's called Stupid Girls, by Pink. I'm not one of Pink's biggest fans, but I've started downloadin...err, looking into her other stuff lately, because this latest song of hers has some substance to it.
The music video is very good, too. Admittedly, some of its appeal is Pink herself, who is not a bad looking woman. Sometimes she's not wearing much (which is ironic given the content of the song) but there's more to this video than just that. It also makes fun of Paris Hilton (sex tapes), Lindsay Lohan (hitting people with her car), and Jessica Simpson (that awful Dukes of Hazzard carwash video.) There's probably some other satire in there that I'm missing, too.
Would it be foolish for me to hope that the world of pop music is finally recovering from its five-year funk? Because frankly it's been a real disappointment lately. I know that's a pretentious thing for me to say; generic complaints about popular culture normally just show everyone that you're a wanna-be sophisticate with little or no critical imagination. But in this case I'll stand by my negative opinion. The last five years of pop music have been lame, with very few exceptions. Eminem was interesting, and I liked 3 Doors Down. But Nickelback? Sure, they have a few decent songs, but you keep hearing that they're 'the greatest new rock band to come along in years.' I think that just proves my point. (Also, the lead singer needs to hire a better hairdresser.)
Maybe I'm just sick of R&B, hip-hop, and sexually explicit rap, but I've decided that mainstream music (the stuff you don't have to look very hard to find) was much better in the late 90's. Why did they have to take away alternative/metal/grunge music and replace it with American Idol winners? Is it just so I can keep telling 15 year-olds that my favorite musicians could kick their favourite musicians' asses? (Except for 50 Cent. I bet even Metallica would lose to him in a fair fight.)
This period of musical lameness--that is, the last five years--perfectly matches with the years when downloading music became popular. Could the two phenomena be related? Maybe. Perhaps I don't value my new music as much these days because I rarely pay for it anymore. Maybe file sharing has cost the record labels so much money that they can no longer afford to hire good musicians! (Yeah right...)
I have a better explanation for the recent decline of music sales: the recent decline of music quality.
Neocreationist Pseudoscience
It's nice to see that an American judge has ruled that it's unconstitutional to teach Intelligent Design (ID) in Pennsylvania science classrooms.
The whole ID argument is tremendously dishonest and insulting. It's only hit mainstream news in the last year or so, supported mainly by the extreme religious right. I'm pretty sure that America is the only country in the developed world where religious extremists are numerous and bold enough to even try something like this.
Also, thanks for encouraging them, Mr. Bush.
ID is a new "scientific" theory that explains the tremendous variety of life on earth. It presumes to challenge the venerable Theory of Evolution, a fundamental pillar of the modern medical and biological sciences. According to ID, evolution is impossible, so the earth's biodiversity must therefore be the direct handiwork of some kind of intelligent, unknown creator.
In other words, the supernatural explanation is a more rational alternative than Darwinism.
The endgame for the ID movement is to get ID taught as science in US classrooms. It would be presented as an equally valid or possibly superior alternative to evolution. Sadly, America appears to have enough intellectually bankrupt people for this absurd plan to actually gain some traction.
It’s Hard to Argue with a Zealot
Over the last few years, I've run into a number of people who take their computers far too seriously. These people define everyone based on what kind of machine they use to check their e-mail. And their blind loyalty to a single company has all the hallmarks of religious devotion (I'm not exaggerating, these folks are practically part of a cult.) For them, a computer is much, much more than just a tool--it's a way of life.
You've probably realized by now that I'm talking about fanatical Mac zealots.
You can divide mainstream computer users into two broad categories: 1) the very large majority, which use PCs running Microsoft Windows, and 2) the small but often vocal minority that use Mac computers and Apple's OSX operating system. In the interest of full disclosure, I should point out that I fall into the first group.
As for the second group, please don't misunderstand; I'm not bashing all of them. Just the condescending, elitist ones. In fact, I count a number of Mac users as friends, and some of them are very smart people. I don't begrudge them their choice of computer, and for the most part they return that courtesy.
Bad Media…Bad!
Here's a good example of how the media distorts scientific findings.
Now, I'm not saying the science that went into this study is bad. If you read the article closely, what little you can learn about the science seems fine. But the conclusion that this article tries to reinforce (i.e. that coffee is good for you) is Absolutely Silly. This is the kind of thing journalists should go to jail for.
What the study says:
1. The average American gets more antioxidants from coffee than from any other single food.
What the article strongly implies:
2. We've discovered that coffee is actually very good for you.
One of those two statements (hint: the second one) is not true and does not at all match the conclusions of the scientist who did this study. Yet many people who read the article will walk away believing that second statement.
I have a pretty obvious explanation for why the average American gets more antioxidants from coffee than from any other single food: because the average American consumes more coffee than any other single food.
And no, I'm not looking to get into an argument with anyone about how good for you or bad for you coffee is, or whether or not it's a good idea for people to be taking daily stimulants for most of their adult lives.
What I'm annoyed with here is that the results of this study are clearly being spun in a way that will appeal to the largest number of readers (since most readers are also coffee drinkers.) I just don't think journalists should be allowed to "spin" the results of scientific studies!
