It occasionally happens that I go to some site for a quick update on something seen on TV or mentioned in a conversation, and I realize after a while that I've just spent 7 to 8 hours straight following an interminable chain of links from site to site trying to make sense of the mess. The latest example of this for me was last Friday (Winter Solstice 2012) when I wanted to know what the "Georgia Guidestones" are, and ended up sometime Saturday bewildered by the insanity that is conspiracytheory.org and its obsessions.
To save y'all a similar experience their premise is that The Illuminati (an outgrowth of the Freemasons and the Templars, etc.) are behind The New World Order (via Skull & Bones) seeking to establish a technocracy/oligarchy using the "science" of Darwinism (aka evolution and Malthusian dialectic).
And just tonight I came across an article in Cell Biology about how to deal with science denial with special concern to not just condemn the deniers as ignorant. (The key is to realize that they are not necessarily ignorant, but are reacting from a position of personal fear and emotional/social convictions.)
This has given me some personal insights on how to deal with some folks I cannot just ignore (i.e. family, good friends, co-workers). I'm going to write about some points I'm going to try.
First, I will want to draw a distinction between science as an epistemological means of learning, and its handmaiden of application, technology. The method of science is a logical framework used in many fields of endeavor. In the scientific method, facts (in the form of observed phenomena) are examined and related to each other to form a hypothesis. The hypothesis is used to generate predictions, and more observations are gathered to test those predictions (experiments.) This framework is similar to the philosophical method of dialectic, which is used to extend and explore the moral and metaphysical questions of philosophy.
Science makes no particular claims of being infallible or of possessing any particular Truth. Anyone truly versed in the scientific method knows this and can cope with the paradigm shifts that sweep through fields of scientific inquiry every so often. Once a collection of hypotheses gather a large body of evidence, the collected framework may obtain the status of "laws" or theories. This is in contrast to the fields of religion and morality, which have an extremely poor record of dealing with contrary evidence.
One of the most significant organizing paradigms of modern science is the concept of evolution -- which is nothing more than a statement that future conditions come about as a result of changes in previous conditions. That is, there is a cause and effect relationship between conditions yesterday and conditions today. The theoretical framework has a host of attendant mechanisms as to what these causes are, giving rise to the "Theory of Evolution" that is so upsetting to the conservative mindset.
One must draw a distinction between the theory of evolution as a scientific paradigm, and the (deliberate) confusion between the process of natural selection and the phrase "survival of the fittest." The process of natural selection is totally value neutral, there is no consciousness determining what is good or bad in terms of the changes that occur by natural processes. The "fitness" is determined simply by whether or not the changed processes still work or are more efficient than the previous form of the processes; if the new form of the process is less efficient or adversely changes the continuation of the process, it simply will not replace the previous process nor will it continue to exist in parallel with the previous process. The political concept of "Social Darwinism" is not the same as the natural process of evolution.
As a brief digression, I would examine the historical development of this confusion. Charles Darwin did not propound "Evolution" as a complete theory in his seminal work "On The Origin Of Species". It was based on previous work by others, and was refined by many others after him. The reason that Darwin get the credit is that he proposed the mechanism of natural selection in combination with random changes (mutations) in biological organisms as the best explanation for how new species arise from previous species. This synthesis was not possible until genetics and biochemistry showed the mechanisms of mutation; the geological effects of population isolation were observed and formalized; and the process of natural selection was hypothesized and confirmed. It became controversial when non-scientists seized on Aldous Huxley's (unfortunate) use of the phrase "survival of the fittest" in Huxley's promotion of Darwin's theoretical framework.
This phraseology had its antecedents in Malthus and other political and social theorists. Additionally it is apparently close to a Masonic concept of "becoming" which refers to a moral progression of Man towards his destiny of apotheosis and union with the divine. (N.B. I am not a mason although I'm familiar with much Hermetic and occult thought -- my personal belief system is not currently consistent with their membership requirements. I cannot accept or profess a belief in a Great Architect.) William Jennings Bryant used much of this imagery in his prosecution of Richard Scopes in the "Monkey Trial" of the Tennessee's anti-evolution teaching laws.
Clearing out the emotional cruft of the conflation of the scientific mechanism of evolution -- the best organizing principle of modern biological disciplines -- and the morally repugnant concept of "Social Darwinism" which is blamed for the perceived moral and social degeneration -- that seems to be the inevitable result of failing to learn from history -- may allow one to change an argument from a position of "I'm an Evangelical, I can't believe in Evolution" to one of "How may I reconcile evolution with being an Evangelical?"
Evolution is not, however, the only example of science denial currently facing the world. The "anti-vaccination" problem, and the global climate change deniers are two other controversies currently in the American social consciousness. Both of these, as well as the anti-evolution controversy, actually use a misapplication of the methods of science to create a strong "pseudoscience" to support themselves. They misapply the scientific method primarily by excluding from their hypotheses and conclusions any data that doesn't conform to their pre-supposed theories.
The internet, in the form of the World Wide Web and Social media, make this all too easy. I, personally, have seen this happen in the "unfriending" on Facebook by individuals when I throw grit in the workings of their minds by pointing out contradictions. It is all too easy for these people to elect only to read sites and pages and messages that support only the information they want to believe. There is a deep connection between science and faith, in that they rest ultimately on a premise that what we perceive with our senses represents an underlying "objective" reality. This is an debate for philosophy, and therefore not exactly the domain of science qua science. (The "Philosophy Of Science" is another whole realm of inquiry!) However, the scientific method cannot properly use belief as a filter for the data it examines in evaluating the correctness of a theoretical framework.
In my excursion down the rabbit hole of the internets I was struck by the observation that many of the conspiracy theories that I saw on this trip were easily refutable by methods and information that I knew by the time I graduated from my North Carolina High School in 1971 -- not to mention the continuing advance of observed phenomena since then. (One particular strawman for the New World Order technocracy is their postulate that "Science" will become the only government approved source of information. It is already too late for that in that the internet and WWW provide instant access to all kind of "unauthorized" information. Attempts to suppress information at the level required for a NWO regime to succeed is no longer possible. Witness the failures of the "Great Firewall" of China and the attempts by Iran and North Korea, among others, to prevent access to information they deem dangerous. [Well, N. Korea succeeds better than most simply through the lack of access to any network connections.])
So the answer to science denial is simple -- more real information and education in the scientific method. Just as the answer for hateful and ignorant speech is simply more correcting speech. This very weblog is engaged in that "culture war" by making some of that speech. I invite brave readers to become fellow warriors by engaging in the ongoing discussions that are taking place.
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
Saturday, December 15, 2012
We are losing the "War On Drugs"
The United States of America is losing the so-called "War On Drugs."
It is a modern-day echo of the Prohibition Era, when the US tried to ban alcoholic beverages and instead created a permanent criminal class.To be sure, there was "Organized Crime" prior to Prohibition, but they didn't become Big Business until the opportunities of transporting and providing alcohol to the millions of Americans who didn't believe in Prohibition came along.
The first indicator of the failure of ProhibitionII is in the costs associated with it. There is a clock that shows some of these costs at http://www.drugsense.org but even it can't tell the whole story. What it shows are the declared direct costs to the Federal and State governments for this war. It does not show the collateral costs in terms of lives and extra bureaucracy that are required to support the effort. Also not included are the costs to the Defense Department and Department of Homeland Security for equipment and personnel that support this war in addition to their "regular" tasks.
Almost all sectors of the economy are struggling with the results of the Great Recession, except the unrecorded Organized crime sector. The indications are that they have slowed only a little.
There is an easy way to cripple Organized Crime, cut the addiction rates, dramatically lower the number of deaths, and provide a huge economic windfall of income.
Legalize the recreational use of most of the banned drugs -- but require all providers and users to pay the governments for the privilege. Many states regulate alcoholic beverages this way, requiring strict licensing for sales and distribution, or even running the retail outlets themselves. Do not allow the criminal entrepreneurs to simply "go legal" and to keep getting their cut, instead ensure that new people and businesses get first chance at the new opportunities. The information on those who are already involved are mostly available to existing law enforcement agencies (even if not acted upon for "lack of evidence" that would hold up in court.)
Let the new commerce use the law enforcement indications "taint" an applicant and require a 1 year waiting period before granting any "tainted" applicant a license.
This frees up much of the excess expenses used the the current enforcement -- no new licensee checkups would require the use of SWAT teams or excessive force to keep track of their compliance. The new taxes collected would fund the enforcement with much left over to fund treatment programs for the users who are found to be overusing the drugs. (Modern computer systems would be able to track usage and find the excess users, who would most likely be illegally re-distributing the drugs.)
Medical costs for handling overdose or poisoning cases would drop since the drugs would be of uniform quality and purity. Care should be taken to see that the legal distribution channels cost less than any surviving illegal channels. Privacy policies would be established to keep user identities safer then currently is the case.
Real drug education would occur in the schools to frankly explain the effect of the drugs and explaining that their use is available but discouraged for economic and mental health reasons.
Marijuana would be a special case. There is less inherent danger in marijuana -- it does create a psychological dependence, but not a known physical addiction. It is currently a "gateway" drug simply because the dealers have a major incentive to push other drugs on their clients. Experience in California and Spain and The Netherlands have shown that casual marijuana users do not go on to harder drugs on their own. Marijuana should probably be treated less strictly than most drugs in the same way beer and wine are treated less strictly than "hard liquor." It would also be safer, in that there would be no contamination of the reefer with agents like PCP or Ketamine.
Finally, not all currently illegal recreational drugs would necessarily become available to all. Certain drugs would still be more restricted or even be unavailable without special need being established. For example: Ecstasy is popular, but until it is better studied and relatively safe usage level are established it might not be freely available. Also, the "date rape" drugs have no legitimate use at present and could remain banned.
Decriminalisation and regulation of the "hard" recreational drugs would have many benefits and put much of organized crime right out of business. It would provide opportunities for new businesses and new revenue streams for the governments, and would result in less human suffering.
Think about it.
It is a modern-day echo of the Prohibition Era, when the US tried to ban alcoholic beverages and instead created a permanent criminal class.To be sure, there was "Organized Crime" prior to Prohibition, but they didn't become Big Business until the opportunities of transporting and providing alcohol to the millions of Americans who didn't believe in Prohibition came along.
The first indicator of the failure of ProhibitionII is in the costs associated with it. There is a clock that shows some of these costs at http://www.drugsense.org but even it can't tell the whole story. What it shows are the declared direct costs to the Federal and State governments for this war. It does not show the collateral costs in terms of lives and extra bureaucracy that are required to support the effort. Also not included are the costs to the Defense Department and Department of Homeland Security for equipment and personnel that support this war in addition to their "regular" tasks.
Almost all sectors of the economy are struggling with the results of the Great Recession, except the unrecorded Organized crime sector. The indications are that they have slowed only a little.
There is an easy way to cripple Organized Crime, cut the addiction rates, dramatically lower the number of deaths, and provide a huge economic windfall of income.
Legalize the recreational use of most of the banned drugs -- but require all providers and users to pay the governments for the privilege. Many states regulate alcoholic beverages this way, requiring strict licensing for sales and distribution, or even running the retail outlets themselves. Do not allow the criminal entrepreneurs to simply "go legal" and to keep getting their cut, instead ensure that new people and businesses get first chance at the new opportunities. The information on those who are already involved are mostly available to existing law enforcement agencies (even if not acted upon for "lack of evidence" that would hold up in court.)
Let the new commerce use the law enforcement indications "taint" an applicant and require a 1 year waiting period before granting any "tainted" applicant a license.
This frees up much of the excess expenses used the the current enforcement -- no new licensee checkups would require the use of SWAT teams or excessive force to keep track of their compliance. The new taxes collected would fund the enforcement with much left over to fund treatment programs for the users who are found to be overusing the drugs. (Modern computer systems would be able to track usage and find the excess users, who would most likely be illegally re-distributing the drugs.)
Medical costs for handling overdose or poisoning cases would drop since the drugs would be of uniform quality and purity. Care should be taken to see that the legal distribution channels cost less than any surviving illegal channels. Privacy policies would be established to keep user identities safer then currently is the case.
Real drug education would occur in the schools to frankly explain the effect of the drugs and explaining that their use is available but discouraged for economic and mental health reasons.
Marijuana would be a special case. There is less inherent danger in marijuana -- it does create a psychological dependence, but not a known physical addiction. It is currently a "gateway" drug simply because the dealers have a major incentive to push other drugs on their clients. Experience in California and Spain and The Netherlands have shown that casual marijuana users do not go on to harder drugs on their own. Marijuana should probably be treated less strictly than most drugs in the same way beer and wine are treated less strictly than "hard liquor." It would also be safer, in that there would be no contamination of the reefer with agents like PCP or Ketamine.
Finally, not all currently illegal recreational drugs would necessarily become available to all. Certain drugs would still be more restricted or even be unavailable without special need being established. For example: Ecstasy is popular, but until it is better studied and relatively safe usage level are established it might not be freely available. Also, the "date rape" drugs have no legitimate use at present and could remain banned.
Decriminalisation and regulation of the "hard" recreational drugs would have many benefits and put much of organized crime right out of business. It would provide opportunities for new businesses and new revenue streams for the governments, and would result in less human suffering.
Think about it.
Saturday, December 1, 2012
A Rationale for Spirituality
Religions pretend to care for the spiritual needs of the human family. What they really do is channel and control the energy and actions of their adherents for the accumulation of power over them, and usually to the aggrandizement of some ulterior motive of the institutionalized church. This is effected through the manipulation of the myths and superstitions of the culture by claiming to speak for “god” in all matters of spiritual endeavor. The rational mind is naturally suspicious of this effort and often finds an atheist position that rejects spirituality and religious talk.
My problem with the “hard core” atheist position is that it often rejects the notion of spirituality as part of the human experience, replacing it with a notion of neurobiology and mental discipline. I contend that there is a “spiritual” dimension to the human experience, and its care should be part of the rational life.
So, what is this “spirituality” of which I speak? The best definition I can come up with is that it is the sense of the numinous. I don't mean only some mystical sort of “divine presence” or “wonder and awe” that are the stock in trade of many spiritual hucksters, but a sensible human perception of an inherent “rightness” of some situations and events. The sense of the numinous includes, but is not limited to, these “divine presences” and wonderful times, and also the sense of beauty and rightness that we feel on seeing scenes and situations that make us aware of our connectedness to each other and the universe.
There are clear scientific studies that show that humans are equipped to have this sense. Trans-cranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) can induce the sensation in experimental situations. Certain drugs are also known to induce the sensation as part of their effects. History records many disciplines and methods that may induce it. There is a vast body of art and history that speaks to a universal sense of beauty and wonderment. And I hope that most readers here will have a knowledge of the sensation of rightness that is the surest guide to maximal happiness for the greatest number of people – a principle that is nearly universally recognized as the basis of morals and ethics.
The neurobiological model of the brain minimizes the concept of mind and focuses instead on the nerves and chemical signals, explaining this sense as a merely physical reaction to stimulus and neurochemical release in the flesh. I wonder, however, why these circuits and reactions evolved and remain part of the human body. The science is clear, the sensation and brain circuitry arose via the evolutionary mechanisms of random mutation and genetic serendipity. But what life advantage do they give so that the process of natural selection keeps it in the mix?
We need to examine what happens if this mechanism is eliminated. There are not any studies I am aware of that specifically call out this sense, but I would expect that its lack leads to a severe anti-social personality (because there is no sense of connectedness to other humans) that doesn't reproduce effectively. The genetics of socio-pathology are being studied, and I am willing to predict that some of the causes to be found will include loss of the sense of the numinous.
Given, now, that we have a sense to guide and evaluate “spiritual” situations, what do we do with this knowledge? I, and many of the folks that I feel spiritually kindred to, actively use this sense in our everyday lives to inform and guide our behavior and plans. Some seek the spiritual within the structures of traditional religions and seek to reform religion to be more compassionate and supportive. Others seek practices and solace in non-religious manners, picking and choosing from a wide variety of cultures and traditions. Still others choose to label it as something other than spiritual and construct a lifestyle that affords them a satisfying experience.
I would like to see all good folk recognize this sense and accept the “numinous” label as something distinct from “religious” or “spiritual.” This would allow everyone, religious, spiritual and atheist, to see the basic rightness of the results of this sense and apply this sense in the living of their lives.
My problem with the “hard core” atheist position is that it often rejects the notion of spirituality as part of the human experience, replacing it with a notion of neurobiology and mental discipline. I contend that there is a “spiritual” dimension to the human experience, and its care should be part of the rational life.
So, what is this “spirituality” of which I speak? The best definition I can come up with is that it is the sense of the numinous. I don't mean only some mystical sort of “divine presence” or “wonder and awe” that are the stock in trade of many spiritual hucksters, but a sensible human perception of an inherent “rightness” of some situations and events. The sense of the numinous includes, but is not limited to, these “divine presences” and wonderful times, and also the sense of beauty and rightness that we feel on seeing scenes and situations that make us aware of our connectedness to each other and the universe.
There are clear scientific studies that show that humans are equipped to have this sense. Trans-cranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) can induce the sensation in experimental situations. Certain drugs are also known to induce the sensation as part of their effects. History records many disciplines and methods that may induce it. There is a vast body of art and history that speaks to a universal sense of beauty and wonderment. And I hope that most readers here will have a knowledge of the sensation of rightness that is the surest guide to maximal happiness for the greatest number of people – a principle that is nearly universally recognized as the basis of morals and ethics.
The neurobiological model of the brain minimizes the concept of mind and focuses instead on the nerves and chemical signals, explaining this sense as a merely physical reaction to stimulus and neurochemical release in the flesh. I wonder, however, why these circuits and reactions evolved and remain part of the human body. The science is clear, the sensation and brain circuitry arose via the evolutionary mechanisms of random mutation and genetic serendipity. But what life advantage do they give so that the process of natural selection keeps it in the mix?
We need to examine what happens if this mechanism is eliminated. There are not any studies I am aware of that specifically call out this sense, but I would expect that its lack leads to a severe anti-social personality (because there is no sense of connectedness to other humans) that doesn't reproduce effectively. The genetics of socio-pathology are being studied, and I am willing to predict that some of the causes to be found will include loss of the sense of the numinous.
Given, now, that we have a sense to guide and evaluate “spiritual” situations, what do we do with this knowledge? I, and many of the folks that I feel spiritually kindred to, actively use this sense in our everyday lives to inform and guide our behavior and plans. Some seek the spiritual within the structures of traditional religions and seek to reform religion to be more compassionate and supportive. Others seek practices and solace in non-religious manners, picking and choosing from a wide variety of cultures and traditions. Still others choose to label it as something other than spiritual and construct a lifestyle that affords them a satisfying experience.
I would like to see all good folk recognize this sense and accept the “numinous” label as something distinct from “religious” or “spiritual.” This would allow everyone, religious, spiritual and atheist, to see the basic rightness of the results of this sense and apply this sense in the living of their lives.
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Momma Sang Tenor
Daddy sang bass (Momma sang tenor)
Me and Lil brother would join right in there
Singin' seems to help the troubled soul
--Daddy Sang Bass, Carl Perkins, 1968
--recorded by Johnny Cash, 1969
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Eulogy for a Transgender Woman
She was born August 20, 1948.
Thought to be a boy with hypospadias (uretheral defect) was given the name Harry Stinson Finnegan in honor of an uncle. She was tiny, only 5 pounds but not premature. Didn't grow very much either; it was safer to keep her on a pillow rather than in your arms. Other than size, development seemed pretty well normal, sat up, rolled over, walked, talked, etc. at age appropriate times. Just very tiny. The Doctors at John Hopkins didn't say much to the family, but had their suspicions about why HF was so small.
At age 4, they finally did a laparotomy to see what she had inside. Surprise: Uterus and Fallopian tubes, matched with undescended testicles. She was a "pseudo-hermaphrodite" and given a diagnosis of Turner's Syndrome. But she had been raised up to that time as a boy, but was physiologically clearly a girl. So what to do now?
Enter Dr. Frank Money (yes, that Frank Money) a young phychiatrist at Johns Hopkins who was asked for his advice on how to handle the situation. Also, finally the parents were told what was happening and given a choice in the matter. All agreed that she should be a little girl. Dr. Money advised that the upbringing as a bay should be suppressed, and immediately all girly approaches should be applied. This was 1951 after all, and there was no real data on what to do.
The family was advised to move to a different school district, the older brothers and sister were instructed on how to deal with their new sister, and the parents were told to be stern about enforcing a girl's lifestyle on young Harriet Sue. Sue (not Harry anymore) was encouraged to forget/suppress her memories of being a little boy, even if it confused her badly for a while. No more pretend shaving with Daddy, no more hunting games with the brothers, no more cowboys and indians or Daniel Boone hats. Instead there were lots of dolls and makeup and cooking lessons with Mom. And weekly therapy sessions with Dr. Money and the residents at JHU. Still, what to do about her size? Female hormones had been discovered and were applied with vigor, resulting in a major growth spurt that did catch up a great deal of the height; she would be a midget, but not a really small one.
First day of school came, and the bus driver told her to fetch her older sister for school, until older sister explained that Sue really was the one going to first day of elementary school. Fortunately, the bus driver took a liking to Sue and protected and nurtured Sue during bus rides. Most of the kids at school thought her size was cute and liked her, so there wasn't much bullying in elementary school. Sue seemingly settled into being a little girl with few problems.
Then came junior high school, and the family moved back to Baltimore proper for a number of reasons. The brothers and sisters were almost done with High School and no one remembered that there had been a Harry Finnegan. In junior high and high school, the bullying wasn't about being transgendered, but about size and religion (christian in a predominantly Jewish school.) However, Sue never took to liking boys, she was most assuredly a lesbian tomboy. She graduated High School in 1966.
Two weeks after graduation, Mom and Dad separated and divorced. They had stuck together "for the kids" and now the strain was too great. Sue was tossed back and forth between the households a few times, and finally moved to Ocean City, MD with her mother. Thus began her love affair with beach town life. They moved to Carolina Beach, NC and Mom re-married. Sue was pretty much on her own and Fell into (and eventually out of) alcohol and drugs. She worked in Momma's restaurants and developed excellent cooking skills. Step-dad Charles and the police eventually decided that she needed a change of scenery for her to get her life back in order. (Can anyone say "witness protection programs"?) She moved to Durham, NC (three hours inland) and became a Councillor at Goodwill Industries as well as a sort of client of Goodwill.
She also got religion. Rev. Johnny Godair of the United Pentecostal Church invited her to services a few times, and eventually hooked her into the community. Playing guitar at services, teaching Sunday School, and following all the cult-like rules made here feel as if she belonged finally. She started dating men to find more acceptance, and suppressed her sexuality. Still, her inherent intelligence and liberal mindset didn't quite jibe with the Pentecostals. At one point she moved back to Baltimore to be near her Dad and siblings. The Pentecostals there rejected her and Dad made her actually read and study the Bible for herself. De-conditioned from the Pentecostals, she studied Dianic Wicca, and resumed a lesbian lifestyle. She had romances with various politicians and finally had a lover. She had developed an ultra-butch role, and became a white leather lesbian.
At this point in her life, I met her at a lesbian/mixed bar in Washington DC, as well as the DC Eagle, while I was exploring my leather fetish lifestyle. Just casual acquaintances, we passed each other occasionally. (Well, she did send one of my lovers home in his own handcuffs one evening when he expressed an opinion that "women don't deserve to wear leather" in her presence. She had no idea he and I were an "item" at the time.) Unfortunately, tragedy struck her life, when a trio of psychotic leather lesbians abducted and murdered her partner. She got revenge, but then had to move again for her own safety. Back to Durham.
It was now 1977. Back in Durham, she took a job at Duke Medical Center as a bookkeeper for one of the research programs. She also had a vaginal reconstruction (finally!) and they did the genetic testing to confirm the Turner's Syndrome diagnosis. She was a mosaic, XO/XY', (the Y' being a partially deleted X.) The folks in Physiology taught her to program computers and she learned C and the UNIX operating system. I was working two buildings over in Allergy and Immunology doing systems programming and administration for a variety of small computers in the Med Center. My father was at Duke Computer Science and I was helping him with his research system. I also go an account on the Duke CS UNIX system. Still, it took an intervention by one of my brothers to introduce Sue and I finally and formally.
In 1978, the social climate was cooler again, and after meeting, Sue and I dated to provide social cover for our gayness. We became best friends. After a few incidents that really cemented the friendship (I had a bout of meningitis and her dog had some emergencies) I moved in with her Halloween of 1979. We mutually decided that being best friends was an excellent basis for long-term cohabitation, and decided to get married in December. We planned for a July 1980 wedding and family and friends started planning. But fate intervened; her mother decided that her biological father was going to "do right" by her daughter, and created a furor. To short-circuit anymore fighting, we told folks to meet us at the magistrate's office in Durham on Wednesday noon, January 11, 1980. Her Mother and Step-father, my parents, her would-=have-been maid of honor (my brother's wife) and my best friend, gathered and had a wonderful civil ceremony. This was civil mainly because one of the parishioners at the Episcopal church in Durham impressed on the minister there that a religious ceremony would be a "travesty" and he found some excuse to deny the ceremony. (Now, thirty-three years later, St. Phillips is a major sponsor of the NC pride festival, but it was too late.)
By this time we had discovered and joined the Unitarian-Universalist congregation in Durham, and were active in the CUUPS chapter. I wrote a song for the chapter and at spring equinox 1981 I premiered the song at a public handfasting ritual for Sue and I. (My parents attended, her Mom declined.) The years passed quietly, we acquired dogs, cars, and a house (thanks to my father.) We loved, lived, laughed and cried together, fought and made up, and had occasional flings with same-sex lovers on the side.
The reactions of various folks varied through the years. Many of our LGBT friends understood the situation and remained friends, others thought we were "playing both sides" and rejected us. "Straight" society mostly ignored us, and some (the Pentecostals) thought we were "saved". We were not shy or concealing about our situation, and educated quite a number of folks about gayness and transgenderdness. We went out to bars, both straight and gay, and loved to sing karaoke to each other whenever and wherever we could.
In 1994, we had a car crash that gave Sue a major concussion. In the aftermath of that, she went through a phase of memory problems, and it took several years of therapy and majik to heal.. During this therapy, she recovered her "lost years" of being raised a little boy and finally overcame her internal transphobia. Dr. Money (remember him?) did some followup interviews and ultimately apologized to Sue for not knowing enough in 1951 to properly handle the case. (He had, by this time also learned lots from some of his other celebrated cases.)
In 2004, Sue suffered a hemorrhagic stroke. It was relatively minor, and mostly affected a speech center (she lost the ability to use pronouns for a few months.) But it was a harbinger of things to come. In 2009 she suffered more strokes. Again, they affected her intellect and personality more than her body. She went back to being Roman Catholic and got a strong angry bent. We went back to the Episcopal church to satisfy her needs for ritual and ceremony. I dealt with her abuse, and ended up accused of abusing her at one point. (My first encounter with the NC penal system.) It all got cleared up and dismissed, but she lost her privilege to own guns. In 2010, more strokes ended up with her in a nursing home, and a ward of the state. Wells Fargo "hooked" us with a deceptive second mortgage on our fully paid-for house (2004), and I ended up homeless, living out of my car with the dog. We had already become familiar with the Urban Ministries Community Cafe Soup Kitchen as a result of me becoming disabled in 2005 and losing my job. It took Social Security 5 years to get my disability approved.
The nursing home tried valiantly but Sue was a very difficult patient and refused to cooperate. She developed major bed sores and in July 2011, succumbed to toxic shock and pneumonia. I was at the Duke ED when they brought her in, and she was mostly comatose and barely responsive. I said a few word, kissed her, and then she went into her final coma. Next afternoon, she was gone. A heartbreaking end to 31.5 years of marriage.
If I didn't have friends willing to live with me. I would have died myself within a month. But I've persevered with a lot of help. It is now a little more than a year later, and the pain of losing Sue is still strong for me and the folks who knew her best. But it is time to tell her story. Index patient HF in the 1965 Textbook of Obstetrics and Gynecology is dead. Long Live Sue.
Thought to be a boy with hypospadias (uretheral defect) was given the name Harry Stinson Finnegan in honor of an uncle. She was tiny, only 5 pounds but not premature. Didn't grow very much either; it was safer to keep her on a pillow rather than in your arms. Other than size, development seemed pretty well normal, sat up, rolled over, walked, talked, etc. at age appropriate times. Just very tiny. The Doctors at John Hopkins didn't say much to the family, but had their suspicions about why HF was so small.
At age 4, they finally did a laparotomy to see what she had inside. Surprise: Uterus and Fallopian tubes, matched with undescended testicles. She was a "pseudo-hermaphrodite" and given a diagnosis of Turner's Syndrome. But she had been raised up to that time as a boy, but was physiologically clearly a girl. So what to do now?
Enter Dr. Frank Money (yes, that Frank Money) a young phychiatrist at Johns Hopkins who was asked for his advice on how to handle the situation. Also, finally the parents were told what was happening and given a choice in the matter. All agreed that she should be a little girl. Dr. Money advised that the upbringing as a bay should be suppressed, and immediately all girly approaches should be applied. This was 1951 after all, and there was no real data on what to do.
The family was advised to move to a different school district, the older brothers and sister were instructed on how to deal with their new sister, and the parents were told to be stern about enforcing a girl's lifestyle on young Harriet Sue. Sue (not Harry anymore) was encouraged to forget/suppress her memories of being a little boy, even if it confused her badly for a while. No more pretend shaving with Daddy, no more hunting games with the brothers, no more cowboys and indians or Daniel Boone hats. Instead there were lots of dolls and makeup and cooking lessons with Mom. And weekly therapy sessions with Dr. Money and the residents at JHU. Still, what to do about her size? Female hormones had been discovered and were applied with vigor, resulting in a major growth spurt that did catch up a great deal of the height; she would be a midget, but not a really small one.
First day of school came, and the bus driver told her to fetch her older sister for school, until older sister explained that Sue really was the one going to first day of elementary school. Fortunately, the bus driver took a liking to Sue and protected and nurtured Sue during bus rides. Most of the kids at school thought her size was cute and liked her, so there wasn't much bullying in elementary school. Sue seemingly settled into being a little girl with few problems.
Then came junior high school, and the family moved back to Baltimore proper for a number of reasons. The brothers and sisters were almost done with High School and no one remembered that there had been a Harry Finnegan. In junior high and high school, the bullying wasn't about being transgendered, but about size and religion (christian in a predominantly Jewish school.) However, Sue never took to liking boys, she was most assuredly a lesbian tomboy. She graduated High School in 1966.
Two weeks after graduation, Mom and Dad separated and divorced. They had stuck together "for the kids" and now the strain was too great. Sue was tossed back and forth between the households a few times, and finally moved to Ocean City, MD with her mother. Thus began her love affair with beach town life. They moved to Carolina Beach, NC and Mom re-married. Sue was pretty much on her own and Fell into (and eventually out of) alcohol and drugs. She worked in Momma's restaurants and developed excellent cooking skills. Step-dad Charles and the police eventually decided that she needed a change of scenery for her to get her life back in order. (Can anyone say "witness protection programs"?) She moved to Durham, NC (three hours inland) and became a Councillor at Goodwill Industries as well as a sort of client of Goodwill.
She also got religion. Rev. Johnny Godair of the United Pentecostal Church invited her to services a few times, and eventually hooked her into the community. Playing guitar at services, teaching Sunday School, and following all the cult-like rules made here feel as if she belonged finally. She started dating men to find more acceptance, and suppressed her sexuality. Still, her inherent intelligence and liberal mindset didn't quite jibe with the Pentecostals. At one point she moved back to Baltimore to be near her Dad and siblings. The Pentecostals there rejected her and Dad made her actually read and study the Bible for herself. De-conditioned from the Pentecostals, she studied Dianic Wicca, and resumed a lesbian lifestyle. She had romances with various politicians and finally had a lover. She had developed an ultra-butch role, and became a white leather lesbian.
At this point in her life, I met her at a lesbian/mixed bar in Washington DC, as well as the DC Eagle, while I was exploring my leather fetish lifestyle. Just casual acquaintances, we passed each other occasionally. (Well, she did send one of my lovers home in his own handcuffs one evening when he expressed an opinion that "women don't deserve to wear leather" in her presence. She had no idea he and I were an "item" at the time.) Unfortunately, tragedy struck her life, when a trio of psychotic leather lesbians abducted and murdered her partner. She got revenge, but then had to move again for her own safety. Back to Durham.
It was now 1977. Back in Durham, she took a job at Duke Medical Center as a bookkeeper for one of the research programs. She also had a vaginal reconstruction (finally!) and they did the genetic testing to confirm the Turner's Syndrome diagnosis. She was a mosaic, XO/XY', (the Y' being a partially deleted X.) The folks in Physiology taught her to program computers and she learned C and the UNIX operating system. I was working two buildings over in Allergy and Immunology doing systems programming and administration for a variety of small computers in the Med Center. My father was at Duke Computer Science and I was helping him with his research system. I also go an account on the Duke CS UNIX system. Still, it took an intervention by one of my brothers to introduce Sue and I finally and formally.
In 1978, the social climate was cooler again, and after meeting, Sue and I dated to provide social cover for our gayness. We became best friends. After a few incidents that really cemented the friendship (I had a bout of meningitis and her dog had some emergencies) I moved in with her Halloween of 1979. We mutually decided that being best friends was an excellent basis for long-term cohabitation, and decided to get married in December. We planned for a July 1980 wedding and family and friends started planning. But fate intervened; her mother decided that her biological father was going to "do right" by her daughter, and created a furor. To short-circuit anymore fighting, we told folks to meet us at the magistrate's office in Durham on Wednesday noon, January 11, 1980. Her Mother and Step-father, my parents, her would-=have-been maid of honor (my brother's wife) and my best friend, gathered and had a wonderful civil ceremony. This was civil mainly because one of the parishioners at the Episcopal church in Durham impressed on the minister there that a religious ceremony would be a "travesty" and he found some excuse to deny the ceremony. (Now, thirty-three years later, St. Phillips is a major sponsor of the NC pride festival, but it was too late.)
By this time we had discovered and joined the Unitarian-Universalist congregation in Durham, and were active in the CUUPS chapter. I wrote a song for the chapter and at spring equinox 1981 I premiered the song at a public handfasting ritual for Sue and I. (My parents attended, her Mom declined.) The years passed quietly, we acquired dogs, cars, and a house (thanks to my father.) We loved, lived, laughed and cried together, fought and made up, and had occasional flings with same-sex lovers on the side.
The reactions of various folks varied through the years. Many of our LGBT friends understood the situation and remained friends, others thought we were "playing both sides" and rejected us. "Straight" society mostly ignored us, and some (the Pentecostals) thought we were "saved". We were not shy or concealing about our situation, and educated quite a number of folks about gayness and transgenderdness. We went out to bars, both straight and gay, and loved to sing karaoke to each other whenever and wherever we could.
In 1994, we had a car crash that gave Sue a major concussion. In the aftermath of that, she went through a phase of memory problems, and it took several years of therapy and majik to heal.. During this therapy, she recovered her "lost years" of being raised a little boy and finally overcame her internal transphobia. Dr. Money (remember him?) did some followup interviews and ultimately apologized to Sue for not knowing enough in 1951 to properly handle the case. (He had, by this time also learned lots from some of his other celebrated cases.)
In 2004, Sue suffered a hemorrhagic stroke. It was relatively minor, and mostly affected a speech center (she lost the ability to use pronouns for a few months.) But it was a harbinger of things to come. In 2009 she suffered more strokes. Again, they affected her intellect and personality more than her body. She went back to being Roman Catholic and got a strong angry bent. We went back to the Episcopal church to satisfy her needs for ritual and ceremony. I dealt with her abuse, and ended up accused of abusing her at one point. (My first encounter with the NC penal system.) It all got cleared up and dismissed, but she lost her privilege to own guns. In 2010, more strokes ended up with her in a nursing home, and a ward of the state. Wells Fargo "hooked" us with a deceptive second mortgage on our fully paid-for house (2004), and I ended up homeless, living out of my car with the dog. We had already become familiar with the Urban Ministries Community Cafe Soup Kitchen as a result of me becoming disabled in 2005 and losing my job. It took Social Security 5 years to get my disability approved.
The nursing home tried valiantly but Sue was a very difficult patient and refused to cooperate. She developed major bed sores and in July 2011, succumbed to toxic shock and pneumonia. I was at the Duke ED when they brought her in, and she was mostly comatose and barely responsive. I said a few word, kissed her, and then she went into her final coma. Next afternoon, she was gone. A heartbreaking end to 31.5 years of marriage.
If I didn't have friends willing to live with me. I would have died myself within a month. But I've persevered with a lot of help. It is now a little more than a year later, and the pain of losing Sue is still strong for me and the folks who knew her best. But it is time to tell her story. Index patient HF in the 1965 Textbook of Obstetrics and Gynecology is dead. Long Live Sue.
Friday, July 20, 2012
Vaccination Myths Debunked
Whooping Cough, or Pertussis, is making a comeback big time.
Why?
Because people are being misled by the anti-vaccination lobby and not getting the medical treatments that can easily, and safely, prevent a wide number of communicable diseases.
1. Vaccines do not contain dangerous mercury: Since 2002, thimerosol is no longer used as a preservative in childhood vaccines. Furthermore, there are NO valid scientific studies that support the linkage of thimerosol and autism (the one previous study was withdrawn due to proved fraud by the authors.) Then there is the fact that thimerosol, while containing a mercury atom in the molecule, is not the same as free metallic mercury such as appears in fish and shellfish. One would get more dangerous mercury from one tuna fish sandwich and from all the recommended vaccines.
2. Vaccines are safer than they used to be: Some older vaccines were made with attenuated whole virus particles, and occasionally could cause low-grade infections in some individuals. Modern vaccines are more often made now with only protein extracts of viruses that contain only the parts necessary to induce the immune system to recognize the virus and to cause it to generate antibodies to the virus.
3, Vaccines cause less side effect than they used to: As medical technology has advanced, vaccines are cleaner and more specific in their effects, due to more precise control over the production and purification of the antibody-inducing proteins used.
4. Vaccines work: The currently available vaccines work well against their targets and confer specific immunity to a variety of highly communicable diseases. The recent outbreak of epidemics of Whooping Cough in the USA show this clearly. Where folks are up-to-date on their vaccinations, or get the vaccine as soon as possible, the rate of Pertussis is low; where folks are not vaccinated, the rates are higher.
5. Vaccinations are NOT linked to the increasing incidence of Autism Spectrum Disorders: The ONE study that claimed to show a linkage between vaccination and autism has been withdrawn because it was discovered that the researcher fraudulently invented the statistics used and presented. Independent analysis of the original data, and numerous other studies looking for such a linkage can find no correlations in the data. Additionally, other research is indicating that autism is much more likely to be caused by other factors, such as obesity, water and air pollution, and genetic factors. To repeat: there is no indication that vaccination causes or is linked to autism.
For a very small number of people, with certain specific conditions, vaccination may not be recommended. And an exceeding small number of folks may get other reactions from vaccinations. For most average infants, children and adults, vaccination is safe and effective.
Getting vaccinated as recommended is the socially responsible thing to do; it protects you, it protects your children, it protects the community, and it protects the nation and the world.
Why?
Because people are being misled by the anti-vaccination lobby and not getting the medical treatments that can easily, and safely, prevent a wide number of communicable diseases.
1. Vaccines do not contain dangerous mercury: Since 2002, thimerosol is no longer used as a preservative in childhood vaccines. Furthermore, there are NO valid scientific studies that support the linkage of thimerosol and autism (the one previous study was withdrawn due to proved fraud by the authors.) Then there is the fact that thimerosol, while containing a mercury atom in the molecule, is not the same as free metallic mercury such as appears in fish and shellfish. One would get more dangerous mercury from one tuna fish sandwich and from all the recommended vaccines.
2. Vaccines are safer than they used to be: Some older vaccines were made with attenuated whole virus particles, and occasionally could cause low-grade infections in some individuals. Modern vaccines are more often made now with only protein extracts of viruses that contain only the parts necessary to induce the immune system to recognize the virus and to cause it to generate antibodies to the virus.
3, Vaccines cause less side effect than they used to: As medical technology has advanced, vaccines are cleaner and more specific in their effects, due to more precise control over the production and purification of the antibody-inducing proteins used.
4. Vaccines work: The currently available vaccines work well against their targets and confer specific immunity to a variety of highly communicable diseases. The recent outbreak of epidemics of Whooping Cough in the USA show this clearly. Where folks are up-to-date on their vaccinations, or get the vaccine as soon as possible, the rate of Pertussis is low; where folks are not vaccinated, the rates are higher.
5. Vaccinations are NOT linked to the increasing incidence of Autism Spectrum Disorders: The ONE study that claimed to show a linkage between vaccination and autism has been withdrawn because it was discovered that the researcher fraudulently invented the statistics used and presented. Independent analysis of the original data, and numerous other studies looking for such a linkage can find no correlations in the data. Additionally, other research is indicating that autism is much more likely to be caused by other factors, such as obesity, water and air pollution, and genetic factors. To repeat: there is no indication that vaccination causes or is linked to autism.
For a very small number of people, with certain specific conditions, vaccination may not be recommended. And an exceeding small number of folks may get other reactions from vaccinations. For most average infants, children and adults, vaccination is safe and effective.
Getting vaccinated as recommended is the socially responsible thing to do; it protects you, it protects your children, it protects the community, and it protects the nation and the world.
Thursday, July 5, 2012
In praise of the light bulb
Electricity is not a recent phenomenon to humankind. The ancient Greeks knew about it and essentially named it. They didn't know what caused it, but they clearly recognized it.
During the Renaissance and since, with the development of the modern scientific method, the mechanics or rules of how it operates began to be recognized, and many of the famous names of electricity studied it. Volta, Ampere, Ohm, Faraday, Weber, etc. This first phase culminated with James Clerk-Maxwell developing the equations and formulating the mathematical basis of electromagnetic theory.
The second phase of advancement in electric theory came with the rise of particle physics and the development of quantum theory. This elucidated the actual mechanisms and causes of electricity, magnetism, and atomic phenomena. The original work on mathematical formalism for electricity has become the basis of quantum theory, relativity (Einstein won his Nobel Prize for work on the photovoltaic effect) and lead to recent developments leading toward a Theory Of Everything.
But all this theoretical work would be for naught were it not for the work of Thomas Edison in making electricity the most commonly used physical theory in the world today. And this huge use of electricity would not have happened except for the development of the humble incandescent light bulb. The whole electricity infrastructure underlying industrial society is a direct result of wanting to use and enjoy the light bulb.
The history of the development of industrial infrastructure is easily found by reading from Wikipedia, but the impetus and impelling factor in extending electric power to everywhere in the developed world is that folks want light.
The light bulb, since its invention, rapidly settled into its most common form: the incandescent tungsten filament in a glass enclosure. It stayed that way for decades without much fundamental change in the technology. As high tech developed, the original low technology was always present right alongside. Can you imagine them building the Large Hadron Collider without having light bulbs around to illuminated to construction and operation?
Even now, you are reading this blog (in all probability) somewhere where there are light bulbs providing illumination. Most likely, the basic technology behind the light bulb is providing the screen on which these words are being displayed.
But now the simple incandescent light bulb is in danger of extinction. This is because the basic incandescent process is too inefficient, converting only about 9 percent of the power consumed into desired light. the rest of the power is consumed in resistance to current flow and the production of waste heat.
The short-term successor to the incandescent bulb is the fluorescent bulb. However, it has to be short term for a variety of reasons. The chemicals involved in the fluorescent effect are toxic and will have long-term affects on the environment if they are not quickly replaced with less adverse alternatives. (It is worth noting that the fluorescent technology still uses heat producing filaments and plasma production in generating light.)
The longer term replacement is, it seems, the Light Emitting Diode (LED) technology, which efficiently produces photons with very little waste heat. The main disadvantage of LED technology is that current means of production involve low efficiency methods and more toxic chemicals. There are changes in the production technology coming along that may sufficiently mitigate these environmentally-unfriendly affects.
However, if the environmental disadvantages cannot be overcome, the earth may be better served by returning to the incandescent filament. This is maligned as a more primitive situation, but be aware that the emotionally loaded word "primitive" is used deliberately to discourage such a development.
I'm certainly committed to progress, but not at the expense of the survivability of the human species and the planet. Those who are pushing the fluorescent bulbs, and the LEDs don't seem to be thinking far enough ahead to see that these technologies may be ultimately non-sustainable. We must place our safety and survival ahead of convenience and progress simply for the sake of change.
In this position, I part ways with the ideologies of the left-wing and right-wing paradigm. I risk getting labeled as a "crazy environmentalist" and being dismissed as a "fringe" ideologue. However, the "Principle of Enlightened Self-Interest" is, so far, the only means I have found to maximize and identify the "best" results for all concerned. Until everyone actually realizes this, the earth and all its life will remain at risk. It takes quite a bit of self-discipline to keep this methodology in focus, and I often fail; however, it is truly worth the effort.
So, honor the simple light bulb and realize that we may not have seen its demise after all.
During the Renaissance and since, with the development of the modern scientific method, the mechanics or rules of how it operates began to be recognized, and many of the famous names of electricity studied it. Volta, Ampere, Ohm, Faraday, Weber, etc. This first phase culminated with James Clerk-Maxwell developing the equations and formulating the mathematical basis of electromagnetic theory.
The second phase of advancement in electric theory came with the rise of particle physics and the development of quantum theory. This elucidated the actual mechanisms and causes of electricity, magnetism, and atomic phenomena. The original work on mathematical formalism for electricity has become the basis of quantum theory, relativity (Einstein won his Nobel Prize for work on the photovoltaic effect) and lead to recent developments leading toward a Theory Of Everything.
But all this theoretical work would be for naught were it not for the work of Thomas Edison in making electricity the most commonly used physical theory in the world today. And this huge use of electricity would not have happened except for the development of the humble incandescent light bulb. The whole electricity infrastructure underlying industrial society is a direct result of wanting to use and enjoy the light bulb.
The history of the development of industrial infrastructure is easily found by reading from Wikipedia, but the impetus and impelling factor in extending electric power to everywhere in the developed world is that folks want light.
The light bulb, since its invention, rapidly settled into its most common form: the incandescent tungsten filament in a glass enclosure. It stayed that way for decades without much fundamental change in the technology. As high tech developed, the original low technology was always present right alongside. Can you imagine them building the Large Hadron Collider without having light bulbs around to illuminated to construction and operation?
Even now, you are reading this blog (in all probability) somewhere where there are light bulbs providing illumination. Most likely, the basic technology behind the light bulb is providing the screen on which these words are being displayed.
But now the simple incandescent light bulb is in danger of extinction. This is because the basic incandescent process is too inefficient, converting only about 9 percent of the power consumed into desired light. the rest of the power is consumed in resistance to current flow and the production of waste heat.
The short-term successor to the incandescent bulb is the fluorescent bulb. However, it has to be short term for a variety of reasons. The chemicals involved in the fluorescent effect are toxic and will have long-term affects on the environment if they are not quickly replaced with less adverse alternatives. (It is worth noting that the fluorescent technology still uses heat producing filaments and plasma production in generating light.)
The longer term replacement is, it seems, the Light Emitting Diode (LED) technology, which efficiently produces photons with very little waste heat. The main disadvantage of LED technology is that current means of production involve low efficiency methods and more toxic chemicals. There are changes in the production technology coming along that may sufficiently mitigate these environmentally-unfriendly affects.
However, if the environmental disadvantages cannot be overcome, the earth may be better served by returning to the incandescent filament. This is maligned as a more primitive situation, but be aware that the emotionally loaded word "primitive" is used deliberately to discourage such a development.
I'm certainly committed to progress, but not at the expense of the survivability of the human species and the planet. Those who are pushing the fluorescent bulbs, and the LEDs don't seem to be thinking far enough ahead to see that these technologies may be ultimately non-sustainable. We must place our safety and survival ahead of convenience and progress simply for the sake of change.
In this position, I part ways with the ideologies of the left-wing and right-wing paradigm. I risk getting labeled as a "crazy environmentalist" and being dismissed as a "fringe" ideologue. However, the "Principle of Enlightened Self-Interest" is, so far, the only means I have found to maximize and identify the "best" results for all concerned. Until everyone actually realizes this, the earth and all its life will remain at risk. It takes quite a bit of self-discipline to keep this methodology in focus, and I often fail; however, it is truly worth the effort.
So, honor the simple light bulb and realize that we may not have seen its demise after all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)