Nightmare on Litigation Street


In a heart-wrenching setback for ambulance chasers everywhere, The Edinburgh Evening News reports that contrary to the insinuations of professional alarmist everywhere, cell phones actually don't cause cancer,

In a study of more than 1000 people, Danish researchers questioned 427 people with brain tumours and 822 healthy volunteers about the way they used mobile phones. They found no correlation between cancer risk and the number of years people had used mobile phones, their frequency of use, or length of calls. The researchers backed up their findings with a check on some of the people’s phone bills, to make sure that their reported call patterns were accurate.

In all fairness, the article goes on to quote the scientists as saying,

But the authors of today’s report, which appears in the journal Neurology Today, warned it would still be necessary to gather information about mobile phone use on a more long-term basis. And they advised people to use hands-free kits when using their mobiles, to reduce the level of radiation entering the brain.

I'm the first to concur that it's a subject that merits long-term study. But frankly, I just wanted to point this out as a means of illustrating how the hysteria-driven media promulgate any myth they can (get away with), in order to get you to pick up a paper. I mean, given the fact apples, celery, plums and water cause cancer in lab rats, I hardly considered the flimsy report about lab rats getting brain cancer from cell phones worth putting much stock in. Lab rats seem to suffer from the same hockey stick conundrum that programs for generating global warming models suffer from. Namely, that the introduction of any data/variable will produce a positive correlation.

Rather than be happy, the sad fact is many will be disappointed that we won't have a new bete noir to replace the tobacco, gun, and fast food industry with. After all, don't we all need someone we can all hate?

Woman's what?



For those of us who are students of life, as opposed to self-helping ourselves out in Oprah-Land, the following shall come as no surprise from the Edinburgh Evening News,

NEW research by scientists appears to shatter the myth that women are more intuitive than men. The study... asked people to log on to the internet and look at pictures of smiling faces before deciding whether the smiles were real or fake. Almost 80 per cent of women taking part in the study claimed they were extremely intuitive, with just over half of men boasting they were in tune with their sixth sense. But the results reveal that men were actually better than women at separating the fake smiles from the real ones. More than 15,000 people, aged between ten and 89, took part and after sifting through the first few hundred results, which are mainly from Scots, researchers found male intuition may be undervalued. Men guessed 72 per cent of the genuine smiles correctly while woman were able to identify 71 per cent of the real grins.

Whuddathunk? My own hypotenuse is that women spend so much time bullshitting each other and engaging in their collective ego stroke/backstab dynamic that most wouldn't know shit from shinola, if it had nice enough labelling. I remember from my college psychology book that it stated people use different facial muscles to make a fake smile than a real one. To me it's not hard to pick up on. But I imagine that said groupthink girls engage in probably conditions them to not see it.

Eating shit and Asking for Seconds, Federalism style...
*The New Face of Uncle Sam*


From CNS,

- Seven states announced on Thursday their intention to sue the federal government over the issue of "global warming." The states are seeking to force the Bush administration to regulate power plant emissions containing carbon dioxide, which they maintain is contributing to a buildup of greenhouse gases and the warming of the planet... [S]tate attorneys general from Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Washington state joined in [a] legal effort. The officials maintain the federal Clean Air Act mandates the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to conduct more frequent analysis of air pollutants from coal-fired power plants in the U.S.

I'm sure the founding fathers are smiling on the more perfect union we've managed to forge. Not only do these soviet throw-backs want more federal government interference in their commerce and affairs, they're threatening to make the government do it. Now, imagine if this we're the attitude of the colonials towards King George. I'm not even going to go into the utter mockery of science that man-made global warming is, (google "hockey stick + global warming", or check out national anxiety center)

If it it wasn't true, it'd be funny...

One of the many reasons I'm not a "d"emocrat

Not that it's a news flash, but the FT published a new study on one of the more banal aspects of universal sufferage,

As sophisticated as we might consider ourselves to be, there is some sobering scientific evidence from the realm where psychology meets evolution that shows how easily our decision-making processes can be influenced by that most superficial of criteria-looks...

In short, the study shows that facial resemblance, as an indicator of genetic relatedness, is a cue we humans use to make decisions about trust and lust. DeBruine's work is backed up by a long history of research into the evolutionary basis for our social behaviour which suggests, roughly speaking, that we're positively inclined toward others in proportion to the percentage similarity between their genes and ours. And physical similarity, particularly in the face, is a major pointer.
DeBruine conducted another study that focused even more closely on the effect of faces on trust. In that earlier experiment, she asked students to play an online economics game that involved them making decisions about whether to trust another player purely on the basis of seeing their picture online.

What the students didn't know was that there was no other player online, only a computer programme that put up various carefully selected photos, one of which was again subtly made to resemble the student themselves. "When the photo was made to look like them, the students trusted them more," DeBruine said.

In lieu of this, it's real easy to see why political discourse has devolved into whoever has the catchiest meme and whoever can swoon an anchorette. It also partially explains why people aren't so hot on comparitively "ethnic" candidates. I don't have access to the it, but Rush once quoted a study noting that people could discern lies most easily in print, followed by radio and had the hardest time telling rather someone was telling the truth was when they see a candidate on television.

Once again, science proves the sad fact that democracy is the sum of the greatest appeal to lowest common denominator amongst the largest number of people. In this case, the LCD is who has a mug like theirs.

Miscellania


Fucking blogger licks balls once again. I'd just finished a post on tipping, and the piece of shit managed to conviently log me out, hence erasing the fucking post. Thanks guys. You're real helpful like that..

"Cough up a buck, ya cheap bastard!"


First of my trolling from the FT,

The British have a strange, fretful fixation on tipping. It probably stems from the cognitive dissonance derived from the conflicting need to demonstrate good etiquette and being consummate tightwads. The FT begins its dissection of the custom in the usual fashion,

While some claim that tipping was known as far back as the Roman era, and could be even older, the most widely accepted theory, according to Ofer Azar, an economist at Northwestern University in Illinois, is that tipping became established as a social custom in 16th-century England. Brass urns with the inscription To Insure Promptitude” were placed in coffee houses and, later, in pubs. Customers tipped in advance by putting money in these urns. Another theory is that the word comes from the Dutch “tippen”, which means to tap, and refers to the sound of a coin being used to draw a waiter's attention.

Showing their biases, the paper goes on to ponder,

Today, economists view tipping as anomalous behaviour that challenges fundamental assumptions about the rationality of economic man. This is because tipping after a service has been provided cannot affect the quality of the service... This view is reinforced by research conducted by Professor Lynn. He has analysed data involving 2,547 dining parties at 20 restaurants, and established scientifically what many waiters have long suspected - that there is only a very weak relationship between the size of a tip and the quality of service provided. It therefore makes little sense for a waiter to work harder in order to obtain a tip...

Perhaps in Britain, where the average punter on the street wouldn't piss in your mouth if your teeth we're on fire, unless you we're offering 20 pence. Continuing,

Perhaps, then, regular customers to the same establishment tip according to service quality, in order to ensure better service when they return. Indeed, tipping begins, according to the game theory (the branch of mathematics and economics where anticipation of the move of a protagonist is a vital part of current behaviour), to make some kind of economic sense for the regularly returning customer, because both customer and waiter are predicting the future behaviour they will encounter... However, the research again finds that regular customers do not vary tips in accordance with service quality. Also, diners themselves admit that how much they tip is not affected by whether they visit an establishment often or never again. It would seem that tippers are poor game theorists.... Another theory is that tipping exists to compensate for market failure. Because it is the customer, rather than the waiters’ employer, who is in a better position to observe the quality of service, the best results would be achieved if a service contract between diner and server were to exist. Because this is not very practicable, the “norm” of restaurant tipping serves as a substitute.

Actually, it's quite simple. A tip is bonus for for a job well done. It's one of the few free-market institutions left in the western world, hence one worth preserving. Further, I just want to note that having done polling briefly for a living, don't ever believe another fucking one you read. For one, I don't believe there was much in the way of controls for personality types of waiters and the clientele here. General stratified polling methods couldn't possibly give an accurate reflection of the subjective interactions of different people. Further, 2 degree of standard deviation ( that 5 or so percent margin of error in layman's terms), even on the simplest of surveys, is a very rosy forecast. Especially with something as intricate and variable-ridden as why someone leaves a tip or not.

Miscellania



Sup skinny-dippers. Fuck I've had no time at all in front of a computer lately. It's probably not coincidental that I've also managed to scrape up a half-proper job. I'm down to one day a week at Forbidden Fuckhole and hopefully this'll mark the end of a short, sordid career as a touchtone terrorist of the elderly. The further bright side of this is that I'll no longer be playing musical chairs with a paycheck, and therefore will be able to get internet at the crib. So sometime here shortly, I'll be able to post in my PJs and innundate the World Wide Web with my assorted brain-farts and observations. I'll try to pop in Sunday to bitch about whatever I read in the Pink Avenger. Till then, RIP JP da Deuce and have fun.

Your Government, or are you the Government's?

USA Today informs us that,

"U.S. citizens will be required to show a passport to re-enter the United States from Canada, Mexico, Panama, Bermuda and the Caribbean by 2008, the departments of State and Homeland Security announced Tuesday.... The change, which will be phased in over the next three years, is part of an ongoing effort to tighten border security after the 2001 terrorist attacks. Canadians, who now are the only foreigners allowed to enter the United States with only driver's licenses, also will need passports to head south across the border."

Yeah, I remember slinking back in from Canuckistan and getting grilled by some bored-shitless Border Patrollers. Ironically, the first time I crossed and had only a Native American (you know, an Injun) in the front seat and a black man in the back, I got across with only 10 seconds of bullshit. The second time, when I had the black man in the front and a white kid in the back, we got searched for drugs.


Needless to say, we got searched and grilled for who knows how long. Despite drugs being somewhere on one of them or hid in my truck, we managed to get away. Yet another loss of for the ol' government on the battlefields of the War on Drugs. At any rate, don't mistake this as Condelezza Rice alleges that it's merely to screen out, "people who want to come to hurt us." I mean come on, if my meathead friends can slip one past are supposedly "profressionalized" federal BPA with a valid ID, then what good will it do against a fanatic hellbent on bringing a chemical bomb across the border with an equally valid ID. Like I said, this isn't about procting us. It's just about any excuse for let the federal government's fingers slither further around liberty's throat. Then again, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about, right?


Naturally, USA today doesn't bother questioning or quoting anybody who questions the logic in this. This is a staunch legacy media outpost here. There only concern is for poor bureaucrats forced to do their job.

*Dispatch from Edutopia*

"Only one thing wrong, and it's a trip. Inner city schools don't teach us shit. Got us stuck on stupid, straight S.O.S. Can't get nothin, but they payin the rest of them fools all around the world in the other countries. They should be spendin that money right here in the state of California. You graduate and can't spell diploma " -Too Short 1993

From the SF Chronicle, via Rense,
(I wasn't planning on blogging today, but a chance to quote Too-Short can't be missed!)

"Fewer than half the freshmen who enter Oakland public high schools - - just 48 of every 100 -- stick around long enough to graduate... The study estimated that dropouts cost the state $14 billion a year in lost wages, crime and jail time... In Oakland, 68 percent of the 50,400 public school students are poor enough to qualify for the federal lunch program. Their odds of getting a diploma are worse than the 50-50 chance of winning a coin toss... "

Whudda thunk, eh? Of course, the typical response of, "They need money." was issued by Oakland's mayor. Indeed. The article goes on to note,

"Problems are not confined to the students. In 2002, the Oakland schools went bankrupt. In 2003, the state ousted the superintendent, suspended the school board and appointed state administrator Randy Ward... Intent on restoring solvency, Ward has cut spending and slashed programs -- and in the process alienated teachers and parents. With the focus on survival, tension is palpable. Ward relies on a bodyguard for protection."

The author of the article goes on to hand-wring and ponder?

"And that makes Oakland schools emblematic of one of society's most vexing dilemmas: How to educate children growing up amid violence, poverty, drugs, single parenthood, teen pregnancy and unemployment?"

Actually, there's a pretty simple answer to all of these.

1. Stop interfering with people's right to carry arms
2. Stop debauching the money supply and reduce net tax rates to something more sensible- say 5 to 10%
3. Legalize them and take the 1000% black-market mark up out of the price
4. Get rid of the welfare state that subsidizes and strips away the consequences of it
5. End the minimum wage which drives up the cost of employing people, and perhaps more importantly, drives up prices of goods and services far above what they would be, left unhindered

Man, I love it when I can solve society's problems without even being unstoned. In all seriousness, no business would ever survive running on the model the American public school model runs on. In Britain, where secularist-fundamentalists haven't (yet) had the chance to ravage their education system, state, public("private" in American), and catholic schools operate side by side in towns across England and the Celtic periphery. Often the Catholic schools still receive public monies to for education. The peoples of Britain managed to get their children satisfactorily educated by 16, at which point they can do what they should be doing, which involves getting into the job market or going on to further education. Yet for some reason, in America we are stuck with the notion of being wards of the state until and over 18.

I won't delve into the French model of education (no, actually, it's pretty damn rigorous and damn near nigh the Jungian shadow-opposite of their occupational work-ethic). All and all, my point is this- Having lived outside the U.S., one of the surprising benefits to it is the fact that you can really see that there are demonstrable solutions to such seemingly intractable and corrupted government institutions like public education. After all, if a bunch of cheese-eating, surrender-monkeys can get it right, you can bet it be done at home.