RealMaia's Comments
You know... these are fascinating, no doubt about it, but I'd like to see some niche blogs that are not necessarily based only on images (which these all seem to be.)
(ahem)
(cough cough)
Mine contains nothing but stories about public transit. :) (And cars, if they're somehow related to same. No glorification of the automobile permitted!!)I mean, that seems pretty niche-y to me...
www.talesofpublictransit.com
(ahem)
(cough cough)
Mine contains nothing but stories about public transit. :) (And cars, if they're somehow related to same. No glorification of the automobile permitted!!)I mean, that seems pretty niche-y to me...
www.talesofpublictransit.com
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Why does this look like some kind of Disney film sequence? Help me to understand...
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
"Some smart people have figured out how to get rich while everyone else funds their winnings,"...
How is this different from the way the American economic system works in general? Well, you can remove the word "smart" a lot of the time and substitute something along the lines of "grandpa did the actual work several generations ago, and the dumb kids are living off the inheritance and the family name." That much is true. But OTOH, there are still certain similarities. Only those privileged enough to have received the best educations of an incredibly specific type and-- even more importantly-- to be taken into the secret, exclusive, private groups and clubs are eligible. Everyone else need not apply. People are not going it alone-- if you read the article carefully, you can see that this is all about private, exclusive little groups that few will ever have the opportunity to join no matter how smart they are.
How is this different from the way the American economic system works in general? Well, you can remove the word "smart" a lot of the time and substitute something along the lines of "grandpa did the actual work several generations ago, and the dumb kids are living off the inheritance and the family name." That much is true. But OTOH, there are still certain similarities. Only those privileged enough to have received the best educations of an incredibly specific type and-- even more importantly-- to be taken into the secret, exclusive, private groups and clubs are eligible. Everyone else need not apply. People are not going it alone-- if you read the article carefully, you can see that this is all about private, exclusive little groups that few will ever have the opportunity to join no matter how smart they are.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Since nobody has commented on this yet, I would like to point something out from the original story: the problem wasn't that the photographs were digitized into unreality, although they certainly were. The problem was that this digitization process was done, and THEN the company claimed that these photographs "accurately reflected" the effects that users could get from the product. This was why the ads violated truth in advertising. So the problem wasn't really with the digitizing at all (and airbrushing is a process that hasn't been done in so many years-- I kind of wish people would quit calling it that.)
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
I just do not see any evidence being presented that more rage/anger/hostility actually *exists* at the present time than in any other period in history. What is simple to find, however, is evidence that it is much easier to express, disseminate, and learn about the spread and amount of this kind of hostility than in earlier, pre-mass media times. But anyone who seriously entertains this kind of theory is not very well-informed and does not know their history.
It isn't really fair to expect this, because the history of genocide, for instance, isn't taught in schools from brief, cursory mentions of events such as the Holocaust, and they are never put in any real historical context. But read historian Dr. Leon Litwack's work, for instance, if you want to know more about the unimaginable rage and hatred and violence that people are capable of inflicting on each other for no rational reason at all (*Been In the Storm So Long*, *Trouble In Mind*, *The Long Death Of Jim Crow.*)Actually, I would argue that if anything, expressing this kind of idiocy in internet posts might even keep people from the real violence they might otherwise commit.
It isn't really fair to expect this, because the history of genocide, for instance, isn't taught in schools from brief, cursory mentions of events such as the Holocaust, and they are never put in any real historical context. But read historian Dr. Leon Litwack's work, for instance, if you want to know more about the unimaginable rage and hatred and violence that people are capable of inflicting on each other for no rational reason at all (*Been In the Storm So Long*, *Trouble In Mind*, *The Long Death Of Jim Crow.*)Actually, I would argue that if anything, expressing this kind of idiocy in internet posts might even keep people from the real violence they might otherwise commit.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
I'm sorry, but REALLY... this issue is very disturbing to me. It's worth reading the article (I'm not sure how many people did) because it at least provides one of the very few concrete pieces of evidence that does exist on this subject:
Quote:
As it turned out, it was two unnecessary months of hell. Anamarie didn't improve at all in foster care, and she was returned to her parents. The young girl was later diagnosed with a genetic predisposition.
This refers to the very young child who was taken away from her parents several years ago and put into state custody because she was obese. As it turned out, it didn't do any good, and did do a lot of harm. Is this representative of what would happen if this were a common practice, or is it just a nonrepresentative occurrence? We don't know, because we don't have any research on the subject. When the research has not been done, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the null hypothesis has not been disproven (more about this later.)
And that's why this entire thing is-- or should be-- a no-brainer. Social services are *supposed* to be run on the basis of evidence-based practices. This means that if you'd like to use a therapeutic modality or intervention, you actually have to have some kind of proof that it works. (Yes, I'm an MSW-- called a QMHP in Oregon and some other states.)If anyone can actually prove that taking obese children away from their parents does any good at all in terms of the outcomes, then it *might* be justified-- although even then, that's a big if. However, the research has not been done, and there is no evidence base. Anecdotes and vague stories are not enough, although the only case studies we do have go in the other direction, such as the one above. It really says something that nobody ever seems to be able to even come up with an actual, verifiable case study showing that taking an obese child out of the family and into state custody simply on the basis of obesity-- not because of any other confounding factors, such as physical/sexual abuse-- has positive effects outweighing the negative ones. One case study in that direction wouldn't prove much of anything, but when we haven't even seen that,it's really disturbing to see anybody jump on this bandwagon so enthusiastically.
So that's why the only responsible, reasonable thing to do is to go with that null hypothesis, which has not been disproven-- and in this case, that would translate to keeping the family together if there are no signs of anything that has actually been proven to be abuse.It would be grossly unethical to do anything else, and as a social worker, I would do everything in my power to stop it if I found out that it was going on.
Quote:
As it turned out, it was two unnecessary months of hell. Anamarie didn't improve at all in foster care, and she was returned to her parents. The young girl was later diagnosed with a genetic predisposition.
This refers to the very young child who was taken away from her parents several years ago and put into state custody because she was obese. As it turned out, it didn't do any good, and did do a lot of harm. Is this representative of what would happen if this were a common practice, or is it just a nonrepresentative occurrence? We don't know, because we don't have any research on the subject. When the research has not been done, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the null hypothesis has not been disproven (more about this later.)
And that's why this entire thing is-- or should be-- a no-brainer. Social services are *supposed* to be run on the basis of evidence-based practices. This means that if you'd like to use a therapeutic modality or intervention, you actually have to have some kind of proof that it works. (Yes, I'm an MSW-- called a QMHP in Oregon and some other states.)If anyone can actually prove that taking obese children away from their parents does any good at all in terms of the outcomes, then it *might* be justified-- although even then, that's a big if. However, the research has not been done, and there is no evidence base. Anecdotes and vague stories are not enough, although the only case studies we do have go in the other direction, such as the one above. It really says something that nobody ever seems to be able to even come up with an actual, verifiable case study showing that taking an obese child out of the family and into state custody simply on the basis of obesity-- not because of any other confounding factors, such as physical/sexual abuse-- has positive effects outweighing the negative ones. One case study in that direction wouldn't prove much of anything, but when we haven't even seen that,it's really disturbing to see anybody jump on this bandwagon so enthusiastically.
So that's why the only responsible, reasonable thing to do is to go with that null hypothesis, which has not been disproven-- and in this case, that would translate to keeping the family together if there are no signs of anything that has actually been proven to be abuse.It would be grossly unethical to do anything else, and as a social worker, I would do everything in my power to stop it if I found out that it was going on.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
In Portland, apparently NOBODY ever commits ANY kind of crime between 9 p.m. and 3 a.m. Could this somehow be connected with the bizarre, inexplicable traffic phenomena? (absolutely NO way to predict where or when traffic jams will occur, totally illogical, change each and every day, unlike any other city in America I've ever seen...)
No?
I think I possibly spent too much time out in the sun today without a hat at the lavender festival...
(walks off mumbling something about lavender lemonade)
No?
I think I possibly spent too much time out in the sun today without a hat at the lavender festival...
(walks off mumbling something about lavender lemonade)
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Heterosexual marriage must be the true, genuine building block of any worthwhile society! That's because... um... oh, okay, let's just come right out and say it. It's the Christian thing to do. Well, I'm glad we got THAT out in the open. Now, where did we get that from? If we try to justify it on the basis of, say, passages in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, we'll find ourselves imposing the death penalty for doing things like gathering firewood on the Sabbath and wearing clothes made of mixed fibers. Oh, wait I know! It must be somewhere in the Gospels! Yup, we're going to find the prohibition against gay marriage in the words of Jesus.
(flips through Bible)
I just KNOW it's got to be in here SOMEWHERE....
(flip flip)
Well, Jesus MUST have said SOMETHING nasty about GLBT folks..
(flippety flip)
WHAT DO YOU MEAN there's nothing in there??!?
That's right, y'all, Jesus Christ never had ONE word to say about homosexuality. Not one! So that attempt to use actual Christianity to justify prejudice is, as usual, a case of fail fail fail. We'll see you next time on the next episode of Name That Human Prejudice Masquerading as God's Word.
(flips through Bible)
I just KNOW it's got to be in here SOMEWHERE....
(flip flip)
Well, Jesus MUST have said SOMETHING nasty about GLBT folks..
(flippety flip)
WHAT DO YOU MEAN there's nothing in there??!?
That's right, y'all, Jesus Christ never had ONE word to say about homosexuality. Not one! So that attempt to use actual Christianity to justify prejudice is, as usual, a case of fail fail fail. We'll see you next time on the next episode of Name That Human Prejudice Masquerading as God's Word.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
My grandmother didn't have a single gray hair on her entire head until she was over 70, and my dad still doesn't have one. I definitely don't have any. OTOH, we've all got other problems...
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
I wish that they had a link to the full text of the article, but from the abstract, it doesn't look like the optimism is warranted. It still looks like it's pretty far from having a practical application. But did anybody else think that comment in the Daily Mail article was weird?? "Most Britons find their first gray hair by the age of 25"??!? What are they doing over there?
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
As interesting as this all is, I do feel compelled to point out that the authors of this article are indulging in the same old logical fallacy-- the incorrect idea that evolution is "leading somewhere", happening *for* something, or going *towards* something. Hasn't anybody ever read Stephen Jay Gould? We don't know if OR why "mental time travel" happens, because it hasn't even been properly defined, to begin with. So we don't know if "cognitive time travel" even exists as a human function, much less whether it was "selected for." This kind of sloppy thinking occurs with such mind-numbing regularity. I am just going to start publishing the link to the Gould/Eldredge paper "The Spandrels of San Marcos" every single time I see it. (stomps off mumbling vague, incoherent things)
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
I have to admit, I was not impressed. I'm still not sure I saw the supposed effect after a few viewings. Almost every optical illusion I have ever seen on the web is much better.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Doesn't it seem that there's something wrong with this study? They thought about sex only eighteen times?? That's basically only once an hour. Am I some kind of bizarre freak? Anyway, I'm not very impressed.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
The glaringly basic problem with this story made me so mad that I actually decided I was going to drive myself nuts (yet again) by trying to change my password on this site so that I could log in and leave a comment. (Amazingly, it worked this time.)
Homosexuality IS an orientation. Being transgender/transexual is NOT, NOT, NOT a sexual orientation. There are both straight and gay transgendered people. How did this slip past? I guess you could say that maybe it's understandable for the moderator of a website to not catch it, but what kind of researcher would make such a mistake? It really makes you question the validity of the entire thing.
Homosexuality IS an orientation. Being transgender/transexual is NOT, NOT, NOT a sexual orientation. There are both straight and gay transgendered people. How did this slip past? I guess you could say that maybe it's understandable for the moderator of a website to not catch it, but what kind of researcher would make such a mistake? It really makes you question the validity of the entire thing.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
(flippety flip)
305.90, Caffeine Intoxication, 292.89, Caffeine-Induced Anxiety Disorder, 292.85, Caffeine-Induced Sleep Disorder, 292.9, Caffeine-Related Disorder NOS. It all starts on pg. 231, right after amphetamine-related disorders.
The point is, this is NOT exactly a cute story...