Our science teacher friend didn't believe us that a shark gave birth without insemination, but it's true - DNA evidence has confirmed (how do they do that???) that a shark born in '01 had no daddy - a virgin shark birth.
National Geographic posits that it is the result of parthenogenesis - a real virgin birth - because there was no paternal genetic material. Earlier reports had speculated that the shark mama is essentially a hermaphrodite, capable of inseminating herself, but that's apparently not quite the case...
My cards group had fun with this one last night - it's the second coming of Jesus! Who knew it would be in the form of a shark? And a possibly trans shark at that? All hail the Transgender Jesus Shark! Hmm...
But then I looked up the article and found out that the Jesus Shark was killed on the day of its birth by a stingray, so it is apparently not going to save the world. Bummer.
Bad stingray.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Saturday, June 02, 2007
WikiPopes
From Wellington Grey, the master of contemporary social commentary in creative art forms, here's the one that made me laugh out loud today. (You maybe have to be a Wikipedia fan...)
George Will Does It Again
The man is brilliant - you have to give him that. And a darn great writer. Much of what he says is hogwash, but he says it so convincingly...
George Will's column "Balancing Freedom and Equity" (I love how you have to subscribe to the Wash Post to read it there, but the Strib reprints it free) paints an interesting contrast between conservatives' supposed love of freedom (except when it comes to abortion?) and liberals' supposed love of equity (which is not equality, mind you.)
What I dig: the notion that sometimes we have to choose between the two. It's individual rights vs greater good for the community, all dressed up. And yes, at its foundation, it seems to me that the tension between liberals & conservatives these days is about the balance between freedom & equity.
What I don't get: his baloney about how liberals are supposedly so into dependence on government. He points to all sorts of things to back up that assertion: support for public schools, aversion to privitizing Social Security, any hint of desire for universal health care. Not that these things have anything to do with welfare, which is the real issue conservatives are pointing at when they say "dependence on government."
Favorite line: "Liberalism once argued that large corporate entities of industrial capitalism degraded individuals by breeding dependence, passivity and servility. Conservatism challenges liberalism's blindness about the comparable dangers from the biggest social entity, government."
Dang, he's good. But still can be deconstructed.
First, was it liberals who worried about workers' dependence on big companies? Liberal refers to generous and accepting - it has nothing to do with this type of argument. So maybe Democrats, or Farmer-Labor Party folks got into it, but it's hardly a "liberal" issue and is amusing to see him so blithely paint it as such.
Next, since when is liberalism blind to the dangers of welfare dependence? Who's on the front lines, SEEING the needs of the poor every day? Not many conservatives...
Finally, I don't see conservatives often noting the difference between use of government welfare and dependence on it. It's all called dependence when many - most? - welfare users get on and get right back off. (See the Urban Institute website for some interesting statistics.)
So yes, I still think that much of what he writes is crap. But you have to respect his cleverness and persuasiveness. The man is a master.
George Will's column "Balancing Freedom and Equity" (I love how you have to subscribe to the Wash Post to read it there, but the Strib reprints it free) paints an interesting contrast between conservatives' supposed love of freedom (except when it comes to abortion?) and liberals' supposed love of equity (which is not equality, mind you.)
What I dig: the notion that sometimes we have to choose between the two. It's individual rights vs greater good for the community, all dressed up. And yes, at its foundation, it seems to me that the tension between liberals & conservatives these days is about the balance between freedom & equity.
What I don't get: his baloney about how liberals are supposedly so into dependence on government. He points to all sorts of things to back up that assertion: support for public schools, aversion to privitizing Social Security, any hint of desire for universal health care. Not that these things have anything to do with welfare, which is the real issue conservatives are pointing at when they say "dependence on government."
Favorite line: "Liberalism once argued that large corporate entities of industrial capitalism degraded individuals by breeding dependence, passivity and servility. Conservatism challenges liberalism's blindness about the comparable dangers from the biggest social entity, government."
Dang, he's good. But still can be deconstructed.
First, was it liberals who worried about workers' dependence on big companies? Liberal refers to generous and accepting - it has nothing to do with this type of argument. So maybe Democrats, or Farmer-Labor Party folks got into it, but it's hardly a "liberal" issue and is amusing to see him so blithely paint it as such.
Next, since when is liberalism blind to the dangers of welfare dependence? Who's on the front lines, SEEING the needs of the poor every day? Not many conservatives...
Finally, I don't see conservatives often noting the difference between use of government welfare and dependence on it. It's all called dependence when many - most? - welfare users get on and get right back off. (See the Urban Institute website for some interesting statistics.)
So yes, I still think that much of what he writes is crap. But you have to respect his cleverness and persuasiveness. The man is a master.
Pink & Blue Reversed - Who Knew?
A comment on how arbitrary some of the things we take for granted in life really are - from The Ladies Home Journal in 1918:
"There has been a great diversity of opinion on the subject, but the general accepted rule is pink for the boy and blue for the girl. Pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl."
Go figure. :)
"There has been a great diversity of opinion on the subject, but the general accepted rule is pink for the boy and blue for the girl. Pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl."
Go figure. :)
Choice Anniversaries
Today, QueenMAB (my friend Melissa) reflects on the anniversary of the day writer Raymond Carver got sober, and asks:
What are my anniversaries? What small choices have turned large and the consequences, lingering, transformative? What decision or discernment created a shift in my own ability to be present on the planet and to my own gifts, as writer, artist, human being?
Great question for us all to consider!
I certainly have a couple - most notably November 20, 2001, the day my daughter moved in and became my daughter. Also the day in June 1992 that I both received my first college degree and quit smoking. Talk about feeling powerful - knowing for sure that I could do anything in the world.
Hmm...
What are my anniversaries? What small choices have turned large and the consequences, lingering, transformative? What decision or discernment created a shift in my own ability to be present on the planet and to my own gifts, as writer, artist, human being?
Great question for us all to consider!
I certainly have a couple - most notably November 20, 2001, the day my daughter moved in and became my daughter. Also the day in June 1992 that I both received my first college degree and quit smoking. Talk about feeling powerful - knowing for sure that I could do anything in the world.
Hmm...
Friday, June 01, 2007
'Tis the Season!
My schedule is getting out-of-hand - in the way that used to make my ex-husband nuts. Too many social events...
My potential schedule for tomorrow, literally:
* Chiropractor
* Aerobics
* Finish putting together final exams for next week
* Former student's graduation party
* Friend's surprise 40th b-day party
* Friend's 5th annual housewarming party
* Friend's CD release party
Any bets on how many I'll actually make it to???
But let's admit it - nothing on the entire list is a real obligation - it's all stuff I want to do on this particular Saturday. (And I am finding some time to myself this week - I just started the new Anna Quindlen novel this week & am already almost 1/2 way through.)
It'll wind down soon enough. A month from now I'll be looking at a wide-open weekend at the lake. :)
Maybe then I'll have time to write something interesting!
My potential schedule for tomorrow, literally:
* Chiropractor
* Aerobics
* Finish putting together final exams for next week
* Former student's graduation party
* Friend's surprise 40th b-day party
* Friend's 5th annual housewarming party
* Friend's CD release party
Any bets on how many I'll actually make it to???
But let's admit it - nothing on the entire list is a real obligation - it's all stuff I want to do on this particular Saturday. (And I am finding some time to myself this week - I just started the new Anna Quindlen novel this week & am already almost 1/2 way through.)
It'll wind down soon enough. A month from now I'll be looking at a wide-open weekend at the lake. :)
Maybe then I'll have time to write something interesting!
What's Your Question?
At first, the U of MN's "Driven to Discover" add campaign seemed cute but kinda silly - until I happened to find the question of the day interesting, clicked on the link, and found serious answers to all these random but unique questions, including:
* Why is it that the heart does not get cancer as often as other organs in the body?
* Why can’t we all use the metric system? (we will)
* Will we ever speak to dolphins? (kinda)
* Is peace in the Middle East and surrounding nations really possible? (not likely)
* Do we have memories stored from before we were born? (yes)
* Can we provide health care for everyone? (yes)
* Do the arts reflect society or vice versa? (both)
There are a bazillion questions - use the page numbers on the bottom to scroll back through them - each one with a short, easy-to-comprehend, but scholarly answer. Random but totally fascinating. Check it out!
* Why is it that the heart does not get cancer as often as other organs in the body?
* Why can’t we all use the metric system? (we will)
* Will we ever speak to dolphins? (kinda)
* Is peace in the Middle East and surrounding nations really possible? (not likely)
* Do we have memories stored from before we were born? (yes)
* Can we provide health care for everyone? (yes)
* Do the arts reflect society or vice versa? (both)
There are a bazillion questions - use the page numbers on the bottom to scroll back through them - each one with a short, easy-to-comprehend, but scholarly answer. Random but totally fascinating. Check it out!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)