Month: April 2012

by Chris Bodenner

A reader writes:

I have to say that I feel both Stein and Sanchez's points of view. Nothing drives me more crazy than pop Young Adult books and the movies that have driven people to read them. But when you consider the general lack of casual reading amongst most people, should we really discourage it? Everyone should read more – period, regardless of the subject matter. Despite having zero interest in Twilight or Harry Potter, I will admit to having been sucked into the Hunger Games series and having to deal with the self loathing that went along with it. But at the end of the day, the dystopian storyline dovetails nicely with some of my previous, heavier reading on the subject.

Another writes:

Between work, housework and family obligations I have very little time for reading.  I can pick up Hunger Games, read for 10 minutes until the next crisis occurs, put the book down for three days, pick it up again and re-orient myself immediately.  That's harder to do with a War and Peace.

Another:

As an elementary school librarian, I had to chime in here.

Three years ago I would have agreed with Joel Stein's assessment of adults reading children's books. However, in my education towards becoming a librarian, I took a Children's Literature course that changed my mind completely. There are many "childrens" books that carry deeply emotional and important ideas, not just for children, but for all people.

For example, the novel Bud, not Buddy deals with abandonment, the desire to know one's family, and self reliance. It does this in a deft and touching way, far better than many "adult" novels with similar themes I have encountered. Yes, the language is simpler and the POV is a child's, but adults can still gain much from the reading. Esperanza Rising is another such book. Even less weighty themes, however, can provide stimulation for the adult mind. To this day I enjoy reading Dr. Seuss books, whether to kindergarteners or myself. In my opinion, every American should read Oh the Places You'll Go! at least once a year. Who else could so eloquently address environmentalism (The Lorax), Mutually Assured Destruction (The Butter Battle Book), and courage in the face of Tyranny (Yertle the Turtle)?

Now, if your opinion is that Twilight itself is just trash, that's another matter entirely. To condemn adults for being interested at literature directed at children, however, does a vast body of great literature disservice.

Another argues that teen lit "might also be for engaged, involved parents who are interested in the kinds of books that their youngsters enjoy." Another illustrates that point:

I was one such adult, sitting on an airplane, reading the Hunger Games.  I actually felt a bit of dread when I first opened the book, thinking, "Am I really going to make myself read this?" However, the teenagers in my house won't stop talking about the books and I feel the need to understand this dystopian content that has consumed their minds.  These so called "kid books" affect the way our kids and teens view and relate in the world and I feel that it is important to take a look through their Hunger Games lens, if only that I may understand the kids in my life more.  

Another:

My daughter and I have spent countless hours discussing the Harry Potter and Hunger Games series.  These covered everything from the author’s motivations, why certain plot elements did or didn’t work, or even how the movie casting met our expectations.  I’ll be forever grateful that I have had this opportunity to connect  with her and hope it continues throughout her teenage years.  If I had been a snob about the YA label, I would have missed out on some wonderful books but also so much more.

Regardless, I’m still not reading Twilight.

by Zoë Pollock

A new study tested the effect of caffeine and amphetamines on hard-working rats and slacker rats:

The researchers report that when presented with stimulants, the "slacker" rats that usually avoided challenges worked significantly harder when given caffeine and amphetamines. However, the "worker" rats that typically embraced challenges became less motivated when given caffeine or amphetamine. 

Scicurious sprinkles a large grain of salt:

[T]he tasks that you are going to have to do in a day are a lot more varied than those given the rats, and you will have varying motivations for them. Not only that, the types of tasks you are set could vary a lot based on your profession, and the many decisions you made or what happened to place you there many years before. And finally, the way that humans react to drugs that they take voluntarily may be very different from the way rats react to drugs that are given to them. We have expectations of what drugs will do to our performance that rats (presumably) don’t have.

Sometimes creativity doesn't lead to the best solutions:

by Chris Bodenner

Some remaining thoughts from readers:

Pot does enhance creativity, particularly in producing music, but it does so in a roundabout way.  Musicians have to practice A LOT if they ever want to become worth listening to.  That can become tedious and you just get tired of listening to yourself. But after a few puffs, all of a sudden the same old routine sounds different, more interesting, and just plain better.  I believe it was Paul McCartney who said something to the effect of "I may not actually play any better when I'm high but it sure sounds a whole lot better."  So I don't think pot gives you any better musical talent by some magical inherent quality in the drug.  It gives you a different perspective and that is entertaining and that creates more engagement and you play around more, thus making you better.

Another writes:

Cannabis can enhance creativity, but a drawback is mental fatigue. For creativity to manifest, it requires energy and persistence for prolonged periods of time. But smoking pot has a point at which foggy imprecision sets in.  And like almost all drugs, pot eventually loses its potency and smoking more of it turns creative energy into sludge.

by Zoë Pollock

A recent study suggests that even exercise won't undo the harms:

[The researchers] found that the more hours the men and women sat every day, the greater their chance of dying prematurely. Those people who sat more than eight hours a day — which other studies have found is about the amount that a typical American sits — had a 15 percent greater risk of dying during the study’s three-year follow-up period than people who sat for fewer than four hours a day. That increased risk held true in the Australian study even if the people sitting eight hours a day spent at least part of that day exercising.

by Maisie Allison

The Romney campaign goes for it in Santorum's home state with a massive ad buy ("We fired him as senator, why promote him to president?"): 

Alex Burns captions: 

It's a negative hit as personal and locally-tailored as the positive sales pitch Santorum's delivering to voters ("You know me") and it's the kind of thing that could either demoralize the former Pennsylvania senator, or infuriate him enough to keep the next two weeks as ugly as ever.

Ed Morrissey adds: 

Since Romney should have little trouble winning in the other four states that go to the polls on the 24th — New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Delaware, the latter of which is a winner-take-all primary — he can spend almost all of his time stumping in Pennsylvania.  That makes the fight uncomfortably similar to Michigan and Wisconsin, both of which Santorum was perceived as having a lead or an edge, and both of which fell to Romney in the end. … Unfortunately for Santorum, failure in Pennsylvania might spell the end of not just the current political campaign, but any future in electoral politics.  

The Romney camp is suspending the attack ad while Santorum attends to his ailing daughter, Bella. Meanwhile, the Obama campaign runs against big oil: 

And the RNC paints the president as a desperate politician: 

Total Super PAC spending now exceeds $86 million. 

Previous Ad War Updates: Apr 5, Apr 4, Apr 3, Apr 2, Mar 30, Mar 27, Mar 26, Mar 23, Mar 22, Mar 21, Mar 20, Mar 19, Mar 16, Mar 15, Mar 14, Mar 13, Mar 12, Mar 9, Mar 8, Mar 7, Mar 6, Mar 5, Mar 2, Mar 1, Feb 29, Feb 28, Feb 27, Feb 23, Feb 22, Feb 21, Feb 17, Feb 16, Feb 15, Feb 14, Feb 13, Feb 9, Feb 8, Feb 7, Feb 6, Feb 3, Feb 2, Feb 1, Jan 30, Jan 29, Jan 27, Jan 26, Jan 25, Jan 24, Jan 22, Jan 20, Jan 19, Jan 18, Jan 17, Jan 16 and Jan 12.

Today on the Dish, I defended good-versus-evil narratives, Chris invited you to ask Tyler Cowen Anything and chuckled at a penguin, and Patrick gave you a moment of Andrew. Romney distinguished between Mormon "doctrine" and "practices," it appeared possible that the GOP might have to defend both in the election, and Gingrich reconciled (sort of) to the inevitable. We debated the Ryan plan's seriousness, listened to reader feedback on the "Social Darwinism" label for it, and dove into the science of ideology. John Derbyshire's firing got more scrutiny here and here, gender roles limited female opportunities in Congress, and journalists prophesied their own doom.

We also weighed in on pink slime, took in advice on getting out of food ruts, examined how to prevent human extinction, zoomed in on the secret life of plankton, and learned about human society from an octopus. Posthumous marriage and child conception posed ethical issues, homophobia came from repressed gayness (shocker, that), a (potentially false) coming out story moved us, and monogamy worked for many. The deluge on Big Football continued, tackling Saddam was expensive, our energy crisis needed to be solved socially, your dollars went to office workers, and the government had more to do if it wanted to improve our economic situation. Laughter bonded and Korean pop spread. Ask Charles Murray Anything here, View from your Airplane Window here, VFYW here, MHB here, and FOTD here.

– Z.B.

by Zoë Pollock

We may be able to prevent it:

We humans need not wait, like dinosaurs, for the next big rock to drop. We have an advanced understanding of the heavens and a spacefaring technology that could soon enable us to alter the orbits of any celestial object on a collision path with us. That capability just might come in handy. We got a taste of the challenge in December 2004, when scientists at NASA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), in Pasadena, Calif., estimated there was a nearly 3 percent chance that a 30-billion-kilogram rock called 99942 Apophis would slam into Earth in 2029, releasing the energy equivalent of 500 million tons of TNT.

That’s enough to level small countries or raise tsunamis [PDF] that could wash away coastal cities on several continents. More recent calculations have lowered the odds of a 2029 impact to about 1 in 250 000. This time around, Apophis will probably miss us—but only by 30 000 km, less than one-tenth of the distance to the moon. But let’s not rejoice too quickly. We know next to nothing about that asteroid’s porosity, composition, and tensile strength. It’s possible that tidal stresses during its 2029 approach could cause it to break apart, adding to the odds of an Earth impact during another rendezvous further down the line.

by Chris Bodenner

Dan Savage, monogamish guru, ran a series of emails last week lauding successful examples of monogamy:

My husband and I are in a successful monogamous relationship. We go out together and flirt (with girls – helps that I'm bisexual), and when we get home we use all the excitement stored up from our adventures on each other. We watch porn together. And we have continuous discussions about sex – what we like, what we might want to try, what new fantasies we've recently come up with. Being monogamish is also not off the table. We both would rather let the other have an open affair – one that we could know and feel secure about – rather than be on the end of discovering an illicit one. But we've really found that monogamy works for us. When it comes down to it, I don't want casual sex on the side (sex outside of a relationship doesn't work for me, as I learned in college) and I don't want to invest in creating a relationship with a third person, and neither does he.

But I'd say the reasons monogamy works for us are three-fold: 1. Open and honest discussion about sex and fantasies. Continually, even after many years. Oh yeah, and having lots of wicked hot sex (role-play, BDSM, copying ideas from our favorite porn movies, etc). 2. Open and honest discussions about opening up our relationship – periodically "checking in" with each other to see how we feel about it. 3. Something deep in both our psyches that says, "I can't have sex without a relationship, but I don't want to start a relationship with someone who's not my spouse."

Continued here. More accounts of kinky commitment here, here, here and here.

by Zoë Pollock

Marine biologist Tierney Thys employs some fancy camerawork to show how "a teaspoon of sea water can contain more than a million living creatures":

by Patrick Appel

Noah Millman, who counts "John Derbyshire as a friend," points out the myriad flaws in Derb's now infamous article. The central one:

[The point of the column], I take it, is to argue that just as African-American parents have to brief their sons on how to keep themselves from ending up like Trayvon Martin, white parents have to brief their sons on how to keep themselves safe from personal violence at the hands of African-Americans. But there’s a profound lack of parallelism between the two conversations. “The Talk” is about how you are perceived by others, and how to comport yourself so as to counteract that perception. Derbyshire’s talk is about how you should perceive others. There’s no analogy. They have nothing to do with each other.