Jimmy Akin – Page 741

Scary Science Stories #1

While we’re listening to Michael Crichton talk about bad science, let’s add a couple of practical examples.

The story you are about to read is true.

Consider the following sequence of events:

Rhesus monkeys are out running around in the wild doing rhesus monkey things.
Somehow these monkeys develop a virus that we will refer to as Virus W.
Virus W doesn’t usually kill the monkeys, so it spreads widely in their population.
Humans come and capture some of these rhesus monkeys.
They are then turned over to scientists.
The scientists vivisect the monkeys to obtain their kidneys.
The kidneys are used to culture a vaccine to cure a disease that harms humans: polio.
Unbeknownst to the scientists who cultured the vaccine in rhesus monkey kidneys, the process they are using does not kill Virus W, which has not yet been identified by human science.
Virus W piggybacks on the polio vaccine.
The infected vaccine is given to tens or hundreds of millions of human beings, stretching over decades.
Virus W comes to exist in 23% of the human population (whether globally or in America isn’t clear).
Virus W is passable from one generation to the next and thus will persist in the human race for generations.
Fortunately, Virus W is not normally harmful to humans, though a slight correlation with a certain kind of cancer may exist.

It is not clear if Virus W was present in the human population prior to the polio vaccine distributions, but there is some evidence it was, though to a lesser extent than afterwards.

The real name of Virus W is Simian vacuolating virus 40, or just Simian virus 40, or just SV40.

This story is true, or strongly thought to be true and not very controversial so far as I have been able to determine.

This is probably because SV40 does not normally kill humans.

If it did kill humans, then the polio vaccine makers would likely be circling the wagons and impeding investigations of the matter–and possibly lying about their vaccine cultivation methods in order to cover themselves. All those would be very human reactions.

And they would serve to make the matter controversial.

Like Scary Science Story #2.

I’ll tell it that one to you tomorrow.

(N.B. People who can guess what Scary Science Story #2 is likely to be about, do not spoil it for others in the comments box below!)

But What Does The Former President Really Think?

Time Magazine reports:

“Michael Moore’s got to be the worst for me,” former President George

H.W. Bush tells TIME’s Hugh Sidey when asked about the low point of

this last term. “I mean, he’s such a slimeball and so atrocious. But I

love the fact now that the Democrats are not embracing him as theirs

anymore. He might not get invited to sit in Jimmy Carter’s box (at the

Democratic Convention) again. I wanted to get up my nerve to ask Jimmy

Carter at the Clinton thing (the opening of Bill Clinton’s library),

‘How did it feel being there with that marvelous friend of yours,

Michael Moore?’ and I didn’t dare do it.”

Gotta admire his plainspokenness!

Wish he had asked Carter, but I guess manners prevailed.

But What Does The Former President Really Think?

Time Magazine reports:

“Michael Moore’s got to be the worst for me,” former President George
H.W. Bush tells TIME’s Hugh Sidey when asked about the low point of
this last term. “I mean, he’s such a slimeball and so atrocious. But I
love the fact now that the Democrats are not embracing him as theirs
anymore. He might not get invited to sit in Jimmy Carter’s box (at the
Democratic Convention) again. I wanted to get up my nerve to ask Jimmy
Carter at the Clinton thing (the opening of Bill Clinton’s library),
‘How did it feel being there with that marvelous friend of yours,
Michael Moore?’ and I didn’t dare do it.”

Gotta admire his plainspokenness!

Wish he had asked Carter, but I guess manners prevailed.

Hitler's Pope's Author Gets A Clue

Professor Bainbridge teaches:

In the latest Economist ($) we learn that John Cornwell has recanted the charges he made against Pope Pius XII’s conduct during the Holocaust:

As he admits, Hitler’s Pope

(1999), his biography of Pope Pius XII, lacked balance. “I would now

argue,” he says, “in the light of the debates and evidence following Hitler’s Pope,

that Pius XII had so little scope of action that it is impossible to

judge the motives for his silence during the war, while Rome was under

the heel of Mussolini and later occupied by the Germans.”

It would be nice if Amazon’s editorial content for the book had some acknowledgement of Cornwell’s retraction of the very serious charges the book makes.

This is good news. Cornwell finally got a clue. Of course, it’s not much of a clue in view of his current book savaging John Paul II, but it’s something.

(Cowboy hat tip: Gleeful Extremist.)

Hitler’s Pope‘s Author Gets A Clue

Professor Bainbridge teaches:

In the latest Economist ($) we learn that John Cornwell has recanted the charges he made against Pope Pius XII’s conduct during the Holocaust:

As he admits, Hitler’s Pope
(1999), his biography of Pope Pius XII, lacked balance. “I would now
argue,” he says, “in the light of the debates and evidence following Hitler’s Pope,
that Pius XII had so little scope of action that it is impossible to
judge the motives for his silence during the war, while Rome was under
the heel of Mussolini and later occupied by the Germans.”

It would be nice if Amazon’s editorial content for the book had some acknowledgement of Cornwell’s retraction of the very serious charges the book makes.

This is good news. Cornwell finally got a clue. Of course, it’s not much of a clue in view of his current book savaging John Paul II, but it’s something.

(Cowboy hat tip: Gleeful Extremist.)

A Burning Question?

Down yonder, a reader asks:

Jimmy,

Do you think one could argue that cigars and cigarettes are immoral?
The Catechism states that Tobacco, used in moderation, is morally
licit. However, cigarettes and cigars aren’t just tobacco, but tobacco
laced with poison (literally).

For the record, let’s quote the Catechism on this matter:

CCC 2290
The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse
of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by
drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others’ safety on the
road, at sea, or in the air.

This passage relates appears to recognize that the moderate use of tobacco (like the moderate use of the co-named items food, alcohol, or medicine) is morally licit under the virtue of temperance. (Certainly the Church has never suggested a general anti-tobacco policy to its members, despite hundreds of years of its common use in Christian circles.) The conclusion one would draw from the Catechism seems further confirmed by the fact that, regardless of the claims made regarding "addiction" and cigarettes, many people only occasionally smoke pipes and cigars and with no apparent ill effects (some even smoke cigarettes only occasionally).

It may not be politically correct to point this out, but it seems to be true.

Recognizing that, what about the claim that commercially-available tobaccos are "laced with poison."

To be blunt, this particular claim seems to be propaganda of the anti-smoking industry.

Whether or not something is a poison depends on the amount in which it is received. If you eat a pound of salt at one sitting, it will turn out to be quite toxic to your system. But salt itself is essential for life. Similarly, drink five gallons of alcohol in one sitting and you will most certainly die. But drink alcohol in moderate amounts and it actually improves health.

Quantity thus is everything. Any substance administered in sufficiently small quantities would seem to count–in those quantities–as a non-poison. No substance I know of would kill a person if present only in a single molecule.

If (per supposition, though recognizing that matters here are likely way over-inflated due to political correctness and bad science) contemporary tobacco products are "laced with [substances that in sufficient quantities become] poisons," this would mean that the amount of such products whose use would be moderate would grow smaller (but not vanish in an instant).

It therefore seems to me that the presence of chemicals in contemporary tobacco products that increases their potential toxicity thereby limits the amount of such products which can be moderately consumed, but it does not eliminate it.

In addition, I am quite suspicious about claims made in such regards. We have already seen that the claims regarding "second-hand smoke" are highly problematic, and so are many other clearly propagandistic communiques in this regard.

Here in California, for example, the anti-smoking industry aired TV commercials advertising the "fact" that cigarettes release X-number of "chemicals" into the air, as if cooking popcorn did not release a similar number of "chemicals" into the environment.

Take Off! . . . To The Great White North?

Y’know all those bluestate Americans who were talking about moving to Canada after the election?

"NOT SO FAST," SAYS ONE BLUESTATER WHO’S ALREADY LIVING THERE.

Excerpts:

I moved to Canada after the 2000 election. Although I did it mainly for
career reasons — I got a job whose description read as though it had
been written precisely for my rather quirky background and interests —
at the time I found it gratifying to joke that I was leaving the United
States because of George W. Bush. It felt fine to think of myself as
someone who was actually going to make good on the standard
election-year threat to leave the country.

So I could certainly identify with the disappointed John Kerry
supporters who started fantasizing about moving to Canada after Nov. 2.
But after nearly four years as an American in the Great White North,
I’ve learned it’s not all beer and doughnuts. If you’re thinking about
coming to Canada, let me give you some advice: Don’t.

Although I enjoy my work and have made good friends in Toronto, I’ve
found life as an American expatriate in Canada difficult, frustrating
and even painful in ways that have surprised me.

In the wake of 9/11, after the initial shock wore off, it was common
to hear some Canadians voice the opinion that Americans had finally
gotten what they deserved. The attacks were just deserts for years of
interventionist U.S. foreign policy, the increasing inequality between
the world’s poorest nations and the wealthiest one on Earth, and a
generalized arrogance.

I heard similar views expressed after Nov. 2, when Americans were
perceived to have revealed their true selves and thus to "deserve" a
second Bush term.

Canadians often use metaphors to portray their relationship with the
United States. They describe Canada as "sleeping with an elephant."
Even when the elephant is at rest, they worry that it may suddenly roll
over. They liken Canada to a gawky teen-age girl with a hopeless crush
on the handsome and popular boy next door. You know, the one who
doesn’t even know she exists.

Part of what’s irksome about Canadian anti-Americanism and the
obsession with the United States is that it seems so corrosive to
Canada. Any country that defines itself through a negative ("Canada:
We’re not the United States") is doomed to an endless and repetitive
cycle of hand-wringing and angst. For example, Canadians often point to
their system of universal health care as the best example of what it
means to be Canadian (because the United States doesn’t provide it),
but this means that any effort to adjust or reform that system (which
is not perfect) precipitates a national identity crisis: To wit,
instituting co-payments or private MRI clinics will make Canada too
much like the United States.

The rush to make comparisons sometimes prevents meaningful
examination of the very real problems that Canada faces. As a Canadian
social advocate once told me, when her compatriots look at their own
societal problems, they are often satisfied once they can reassure
themselves that they’re better off than the United States. As long as
there’s still more homelessness, racism and income inequality to the
south, Canadians can continue to rest easy in their moral superiority.

(NOTE TO BILLYHW & OTHER CANADIAN READERS: Present company is obviously excepted!)

Saddest Songs Ever

There’s a bit in the final episode of Babylon 5 where Vir recounts a time when he and Londo (who is dead now) once heard the Pak’ma’ra singing.

The Pak’ma’ra are a vile, disgusting, Cthuloid race that nobody likes, and nobody knew they could sing, but they do–rarely and for religious reasons. Vir says that it was the most beautiful sound he had ever heard,
full of sadness, and hope, wonder, and a terrible sense of loss. Londo was moved to tears.

He concludes:

When it
was over, Londo turned to me and said "There are
forty-nine gods in our pantheon, Vir; to tell you the truth I never
believed in any of them. But if only one of them exists, then God
sings with that voice." It’s funny. After everything we have been
through, all he did… I miss him.

I recently ran across a song that I hadn’t heard in ages: "Ashokan Farewell."

This song became famous in 1990 when Ken Burns used it as the main theme of his series The Civil War. It is a staggeringly beautiful theme, filled with sadness and hope and wonder and a terrible sense of loss.

Together with "Some Day Never Comes" by Creedence Clearwater Revival and "Will the Circle Be Unbroken" by the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band, et al., it’s one of the three saddest, most beautiful songs I know. (Though some of Mark Herd’s stuff comes close.)

Unlike the rest of the music Burns used in The Civil War, "Ashokan Farewell" is not a period piece. In fact, it was written in 1982 by a gentleman named Jay Ungar, who conducted a series of summer fiddle and dance workshops in Ashokan, New York. He describes how the song came about:

I composed Ashokan Farewell in 1982 shortly after the summer
programs had come to an end. I was experiencing a great feeling of loss
and longing for the lifestyle and the community of people that had
developed at Ashokan that summer. The transition from living in the
woods with a small group of people who needed little excuse to
celebrate the joy of living through music and dancing, back to life as
usual, with traffic, disturbing newscasts, "important" telephone calls
and impersonal relationships had been difficult. I was in tears when I
wrote Ashokan Farewell . I kept the tune to myself for months, slightly
embarrassed by the emotions that welled up whenever I played it.

Ungar’s tears have been mirrored in the eyes of thousands of others who have heard the song. Softer-edged than "Someday Never Comes" and "Will the Circle Be Unbroken," whose lyrics sharpen the sense of loss these songs convey, "Ashokan Farewell"’s lyricless-melody perfectly captures the bittersweet of nostalgia–the sense of beauty and loss, the desire to go back and experience things again–to see old friends and loved ones–as a rush of memories comes flooding back. Since the song in its original form has no lyrics, it is not bound to any particular plot. Your memories fill in the detail as the song moves you to contemplate what was . . . and no longer is.

But which may be again.

When Christ makes all things new.

LISTEN TO THE SONG (midi version, not fully orchestrated).

READ ABOUT THE SONG.

LYRICS TO THE SONG.

DOWNLOAD THE SONG.

Crichton on Overpopulation

Continuing excerpts from Crichton’s important speech:

In 1960, Paul Ehrlich said, "The battle to feed humanity is over. In
the 1970s the world will undergoe famines-hundreds of millions of
people are going to starve to death." Ten years later, he predicted
four billion people would die during the 1980s, including 65 million
Americans. The mass starvation that was predicted never occurred, and
it now seems it isn’t ever going to happen. Nor is the population
explosion going to reach the numbers predicted even ten years ago. In
1990, climate modelers anticipated a world population of 11 billion by
2100. Today, some people think the correct number will be 7 billion and
falling. But nobody knows for sure.

MORE TOMORROW.

READ THE WHOLE SPEECH.

That Dream!

You know that dream where you’re back in college and it’s the end of the term is almost over and you suddenly realize that there’s this class you haven’t been to all semester? (Or, alternately, that you showed up in class one days and there’s a test that you haven’t studied for?)

I HATE that dream!

And I still get it–years after college.

So do my friends.

This leads me to wonder: What is it about college that produces this dream? Sure, college is an intense experience at a crucial, transitional time of life. But why do people have this dream so many years after college is over?

(BTW, sorry for spoiling future nightmares for any college-folk who are reading this but . . . this is what you have to look forward to–sometimes, anyway).

Human psychology is fundamentally the same in every age, though culture and circumstance do have their impacts. This leads me to think that people in other ages–before it was standard to go to college–likely had an equivalent dream. But what was it?

Perhaps in tribal societies, people who had long been made men had nightmares about being unprepared for the rites of manhood or something (and some of those could indeed be disturbing–like adult circumcision). Perhaps in societies where there are arranged marriages, people have anxiety dreams long after the fact about meeting their predestined spouse for the first time.

But such a predictable equivalent doesn’t appear in all cultures.

So that leaves me with a question.

No answers, just a question.

Collective brainpower, anyone?