An observation about babies

In the animal kingdom most species have cute babies. Humans are an exception to this rule; our babies are fat pudgy little things with none of the charm of a kitten or puppy. A select few female human babies do become cute by the age of 18, but even they are rare and their luster doesn't last.



The problem is that human babies all look like Winston Churchill. That is to say they share a lumpy, bald exterior and have the appearance of being drunk on gin just like the illustrious WW2 leader.





After coming to this realization a couple weeks ago I spent a few days patting myself on the back before I googled the idea and saw that I was not the first to think such a thought. Damn.

Now every time a coworker brings a baby into the office I can't not see the wise old Brit in baby form. Speaking metaphorically of course, because any time a baby physically enters the room every single woman within 100 meters goes apeshit and breaks into a dead sprint towards the small Winston, like zombies after untainted flesh. Actually 'seeing' the baby at this point is impossible, but not important because I know whos there under that cloud of estrogen. A great man, a great leader.

China says no beating off

What opinion do conservatives, insecure women, and Communists have in common? A deep hatred of images portraying mutually consenting adults engaged in coitus. This brings me to today's topic:

A Proceedings paper from China came across my desk today, hardly an unusual occurence, but the topic of this one threw me. The paper was focused on the automatic censoring of 'sexual images' via affinity propagation clustering. Essentially what this means is that Chinese censors can run computer programs which analyze thousands of images through a program, and using a detection accuracy ratio, questionable content is highlighted and then compared to a sample database of images deemed inappropriate. If the image fails the test it is censored.

China is automatically blocking porn from the internet. For shame, for shame.

All Natural

People with lots of nervous energy are really big on 'all-natural' things: food, clothing, hair products, etc, but for the life of me, I can't figure out what they are on about. What does natural even mean? Comes from the earth? In that case everything is natural, everything is made of atoms and has a chemical formula when you get down to it. I'm beginning to think that what 'all natural' really means is simply that the product has a sticker which says all natural. Heavy, I know.

Maybe all natural products are just another way to siphon extra money out of the pockets of gullible consumers. Maybe companies who market all natural products prey off the pure, but uninformed intentions of people who think that the world is full of scary bad things that exist in our food and our home products.

Fear does sell right? Conservatives buy up guns because they are afraid dark skinned people might try to rob them. Liberals would rather get robbed by said people than offend them, but are deathly afraid of evil chemicals in their food. Me? I'm afraid of specifics so I prefer to speak in generalities. We all have our vices. My point is this: shouldn't we be skeptical of companies who would sell us products based on non-specific fears of undetermined threats? Are GMO foods really going to hurt us, or are we now able to cheaply feed the world now that we have them. Is a semi-automatic assault rifle really the best protection against an intruder, or would a deadbolt on the door do the trick for a fraction of the financial and legal price. Think about it. Vague threats are a form of product in themselves and too many of us buy into them.

For me, when I see the 'all natural' label on a product I immediately wonder why the company is taking me for such a fool. For example Hansens Soda has the same ingredients as Coke, but Hansens carries an 'all natural' label and a higher price.

The FDA has actually been investigating the issue of vague 'all natural' labeling since 2004 and I'm not sure if they've reached any conclusions. Obviously the issue is subjective by nature, which has led to such gullibility in the minds of Americans, among whom the FDA surveyed that the all natural label is very persuasive. 64% of people polled reported they were more likely to buy products with the subjective label than products without, a reality testified to by the rise of companies like Trader Joes and the emergence of organic sections in nearly every grocery store.
Fear sells pretty damn well. So does sex. Now if Trader Joes could somehow simultaneously make me afraid the unnatural foods while somehow incorporating boobs into the equation they might have a new customer. Barring that, how about having their female workers start shaving their legs and armpits for a start.

Private vs. Public healthcare

I'm not going to pretend I know a lot about the current healthcare debate, but I do think it's important to hear the perspectives of individuals living in countries with alternative systems. Here is a link to what I consider to be a good post on a Canadian's opinion of public vs. private healthcare.

http://www.phdinparenting.com/2009/08/21/public-health-care-canadian-perspective-on-myths-and-reality/

photochop

I was cleaning out a 'My Documents' folder when I came across a couple weird pictures dated to early 2008. You might be tempted to ask why. There is no why.



Gary Busey and the doeman as one.




Natemare the sacred mother

Entitled much?

I watched a little bit of Obama's healthcare speech today. The best part was when some politician yelled from the bleachers, "You Lie!" when Obama said his plan wouldn't cover illegals. I got a kick out of that, it was the highlight of an otherwise rather boring, humdrum procession.

I don't know where I stand on all of this, it certainly isn't on either of the defined sides. I am opposed to any form of single payer, everyone gets covered plan because of how pedestrian it is. Its easy to say you want free healthcare if you aren't currently paying for it, and we have over 20+ million people not paying anything; welfare is dandy for those receiving it, but sucks for those who have to foot the bill. Why should the collective whole have to pay for individuals who may, or may not need care because of their own bad decisions. We have an increasingly sick and stupid country. Give a mouse a cookie... see where I'm going here? Of course people want free things, especially when those free services serve to enable poor life choices.

I'm also sick of all the assholes who rail against the pharmaceutical industry and their 'corporate greed'. I want the big pharma companies to be greedy, I want them to make billions because when they do they have even greater incentives to create newer and better drugs to fight the diseases we humans face. The only reason I'm not 3 feet tall, and my Dad isn't dead from cancer is because a pharmaceutical company devoted decades of research and millions of dollars into R&D on highly technical drugs. If they weren't incentivized by the promise of profits there is no way in hell these drugs would have been produced.

I work in a field where I get daily access to not only the most cutting edge research in medical imaging, but access to the scientists themselves. These people are doing research that is so incredibly expensive that if their parent organizations weren't able to charge what they do the research wouldn't happen, at all. We all benefit from their work.

The only reason AIDs and Brain Cancer aren't death sentences anymore is because of the work of the scientists and companies which profit off the sale of treatments. I have absolutely no problem with this system.

That said, I don't have any love-loss for insurance companies who provide no cures, only headaches to people who are insured (or trying to get insured) and need treatment. If we could figure out a way to manage insurance company profits then we'd have a good system. That said I have no idea how this will happen.

Unfortunately I don't think any conclusions will be reached in this debate; perhaps that is what we deserve as a country. When people take their political opinions from the likes of John Stewart, or Glenn Beck they reap the level of substantive debate that they sow.

Not so bad

I've sometimes thought that college is the the real apex of life; that it can't get any better than that. Late nights, interesting classes, oodles of free time and few responsibilities. But now as I'm a few years removed from college and I find myself challenging this view I've held. Yeah, college was fun, and one of the best times I've had but I don't think it is the apex of my experiences on earth thus far. There are a lot of things I put up with in college that weren't all that great: crappy apartments, a piss-poor bank account, no safety net of any kind, working nearly full time while studying for 15 credits a semester... None of those things were great.

Now that I think about it, being a few years removed from college is not too bad. I have less responsibilities now than then. I've got a good job and no other obligations, which is really my dream. Once I'm off work for the day I can do whatever I want; no kids, no commitments, a significant other who works till late... I've got freedom, and its not so bad.