World View: Life, Science, and the Ramblings of a Mad Man

Mitochondria, Real Midi-clorians

People who have seen Star Wars know what midi-clorians are: the microscopic life forms that exist in every cell and give Jedi and Sith the ability to use the "Force." They are, in a way, like our own mitochondria (the singular of mitochondria, by the way, is mitochondrion). This is how the real "Force" works:

Like the midi-clorians in Star Wars, mitochondria live in all multicellular and even some unicellular organisms. They also give us the ability to undergo cellular respiration. This gives us a major boost in power (well, energy, but I guess they're the same thing). Humans use ATP (adenosine triphosphate) as the main "energy currency." ATP stores energy in a form that most energy-requiring processes in the body are able to use: everything including growth, repair, reproduction, movement—anything you can think of that takes up energy probably uses ATP. When cells undergo anaerobic respiration (the making of ATP without access to oxygen) they are able to produce 2 ATP molecules per glucose molecule, compared to the 38 ATP molecules that they are able to produce when they can use their mitochondria and undergo aerobic respiration. This huge difference in energy production is the reason all multicellular organisms need mitochondria.

So, they're important, but what are they? Well, mitochondria are organelles (little "organs" inside each of our cells which perform specific functions; most, if not all organelles are bound by cellular membranes—phosopholipid bilayers). Mitochondria, unlike most other organelles, actually have two membranes. The external membrane is involved in breaking down adrenaline and several other processes. The inner membrane is the one responsible for the conversion of ADP to ATP. Mitochondria also have a plasmid, a small, circular chromosome with several genes. Plasmids were known to biologists, before the mitochondria, as bacterial gene carriers. If you've ever heard of mitochondrial DNA or mtDNA, that's what was being referred to. These genes all produce specific proteins that are needed by the mitochondria (for more info on transcription /translation—the processes of turning DNA into proteins—see my first article on DNA or check out the wikipedia articles on them). Embedded in the membranes are specific proteins which are involved in the production of ATP or in detoxification (mitochondria, on top of creating ATP from ADP and breaking down adrenaline, also turn toxins into less toxic materials).

If you think it's strange that mitochondria have their own cell membranes, their own chromosomes, their own ribosomes, etc., you're not the only one. When scientists realized this, they began to hypothesize that (many, many, many—estimated at 10,000,000,000 years ago) mitochondria were bacteria that were able to undergo aerobic respiration and that through a symbiotic relationship, became a part of other cells. Through natural selection, some of these evolved into the multicellular organisms we are so used to seeing and dealing with today. This is now known as the endosymbiotic theory.

Mitochondria are able to use energy to convert ADT (adenosine diphosphate—a lower energy molecule than ATP) into ATP by a series of membrane-bound proteins. They take NADH and FADH2 (high-energy molecules which are not very easily used by cells) and release the end hydrogen, using the hydrogen’s electron to create a proton gradient (a high concentration of protons (hydrogen atoms without their electron) in the inner membrane. Membrane pumps keep the proton gradient up, while ATP synthase (also known as the F0F1 particle) uses the gradient by allowing protons through and using the energy (like a dam uses the energy of "high concentrations" of water) to turn ADP into ATP. NAD and FADH are given off as byproducts, which are reused in the cell for Glycolysis (breaking of glucose into two pyruvic acid molecule).

Now you know much more about mitochondria than you ever wanted to know—and if I'm wrong in saying that, then leave me a message and I'll get back to you with more information, or look them up yourself. They're actually pretty cool little buggers. See you guys next week, and hope you enjoyed this little intro to how the real "Force" works.

Worthy of Attention: Taking Stock of Reality

Impugning Punishment

A couple wakes up from their shared bed in a beautifully decorated hotel-like room with windows over-looking the ocean. As they get up, they check their itenary for the day, which includes a visit to the massage parlor, the gym, a sauna, and a trip to the local museum. As they get ready for the day, they greet their neighbors walking by in the hallway outside their room, check the status of their e-business, and e-mail an application for parole to the parole board.

That's right; believe it or not, this scene is what the majority of prisons in Finland are like.

Thirty years ago, Finland became the first country to completely reverse its policy on handling citizens that broke the law. From its long-standing tradition of harsh punishment aimed at deterring crime dating to when Finland was still an apellate of the former Soviet Union, the people of Finland decided to switch tactics and follow one of the most liberal philosophies of justice in the world today.

In 1975, Finland passed its Sentences Enforcement Act, which stated in part that "the enforcement of sentence must be organized so that the sentence is only loss of liberty", and that "punishment shall be enforced so that it...promotes a prisoner's place in society." In addition, the Act stated that the conditions in prison must be similar to conditions in the rest of society. This dramatic turnaround changed Finland from one of the harshest to one of the most lenient of punitive systems.

But for the Finns, lightening the punishment of being in prison was not enough. They wanted to reduce their prison population dramatically.

So laws were enforced regulating how long offenders could spend in jail. Prisoners may be considered for parole after just fourteen days, and even those who violate parole and return to prison are eligble again after one month. And all first-time offenders are released after serving just half their sentences, with the rest let out after two-thirds.

But even more amazing is their policy of using fines in lieu of prison time. The vast majority of crimes which in the United States would result in a mandatory prison sentence are instead dealt with through a complex fine system which is based upon the offender's income.

In 2002, Anssa Vanjoki was forced to pay a fine of $165,000 -- for a speeding ticket. That's right; a speeding ticket. Doing 74 km/h (46mph) in a 50 km/h (31mph) zone doesn't seem like anything much -- after all, it's only 15 mph over the speed limit. But because Vanjoki is the multi-millionaire Vice President of the Nokia corporation, his fine was scaled to a sum that most would find outrageous. Yet the philosophy behind such scaled fines is one of equity; if a fine is imposed as a penalty, then the penalty should be equal under all who break the law. And whereas a $100 ticket might be a stiff penalty for someone of low income, for a multi-millionaire like Vanjoki, the only way to give a similar penalty is to increase the fine proportionally.

Some critics might think that all of this is nice in theory, but how does this kind of punishment affect the level of crime?

Before Finland's change, the state of the Finland law enforcement and prison system was similar to the St. Petersburg region in Russia. Their populations were similar, their law enforcement systems were simlar, they had similar crime rates, and their prison sentences were about the same. But today, whereas St. Petersburg employs 72,000 police officers, Finland gets by with only 8,500. Russian criminals are more likely to be punished with prison time, and their sentences are consistently far longer. Yet today Finland is much more safe: the murder rate in Russia is ten times that of Finland.

After thirty years of reform, crime rates are down. Repeat offenders are down, even for violent and sexual crimes. Finland's turnaround stance to rehabilitation rather than punishment worked, and the people of Finland are now blessed with one of the lowest rates of crime in the world.

(But please don't think Finland is by any means perfect in its dealings with criminals. Finland has compulsory service of citizens in its army, and has a habit of putting its own citizens in prison if they have conscientous objections to military work and are unwilling to work with any part of the Finnish armed services.)

It would be nice if other countries were to follow the Finns' example. But unfortunately, despite the mounting evidence that lighter punishment and a focus on rehabilitation actually helps to reduce crime, governments (and the people under them) have remained skeptical of such overly scientific theories.

To the Chinese, a common-sense approach of Striking Hard seems to obviously be much more effective, even though no scientific studies agree with the system.

Today, China kills more people than all other countries combined. The death penalty is imposed for murder, bank robbery, and even political corruption. There is no room for appeals; most executions come within days of the verdict.

The Chinese government calls this policy "Strike Hard". The philosophy is one of instilling fear -- those convicted are paraded in the streets before they are shot. And strangely, independent surveys continue to find that a large pecentage of the Chinese population actually supports these practices -- some reports find the approval rating of Strike Hard to be as much as 97%. But, if anything, crime has merely risen since the adoption of the Strike Hard policy.

Yet China is not alone in such practices. The United States has a history of severe punishment, which although psychological instead of physical, still ranks with many of China's unscientific policies.

The philosophy of justice in the United States is one of locking up criminals and forgetting about them. It is a long-standing policy that has much support from the American people. This philosophy is most easily illustrated in the case of supermax prisons.

Pelican Bay is a supermax is prison on the coast of California. Inmates at Pelican Bay are kept locked in solitary cells for twenty-three hours a day. By law, they are required to receive one hour a day of exercise, but this is done indoors with only a chin-up bar and a track for running, and as always, the prisoner is left alone there. Prisoners never receive eye contact with each other. The only time they have human company is when they are searched for weapons.

Prisoners at Pelican Bay may not participate in work or in furthering education. TV and radios are prohibited. Books are allowed, but only if someone sends them a book -- no libraries are available. Showers are limited to ten minutes three times a week. There are no windows. The lights are left on 24 hours a day.

Misbehaving inmates are sometimes put into 'strip cells', with temperatures left at fifty degrees and only boxer shorts to wear, with no bedding; but if they're really unlucky, they are chained spread-eagle and naked to concrete beds.

Inmates regularly go mad in these prisons.

It should be noted that crime in the United States has continually risen for as long as data has been collected, and at a faster rate than every other industrialized nation except China.

But supermax institutions, as horrible as they may be, do not have much force when spoken of, because we are so very used to the idea. More apalling might be the case of the self-proclaimed "toughest sheriff in America".

Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Phoenix, Arizona, has some pretty old-fashioned ideas of punishment. The jails he runs are specifically designed to break inmates through psychological torture -- but this is not a supermax, where only overly violent offenders are sent; this is the regular, everyday jail that the least offender in Phoenix is sent to when convicted.

Convicts work in chain gangs on the main streets of town, and sleep in tents despite the desert conditions. Recordings of Frank Sinatra are played twenty-four hours a day, and meals are served cold twice a day, consisting of bologna sandwiches day in and day out. Inmates are forced to wear pink underwear, and misbehaving inmates have to don pink handcuffs, too. Yet the cost of running Arpaio's jails are tremendous, costing millions in taxpayer money on settlements in court for overly severe conditions. And the crime rate has risen dramatically since the institution of Arpaio's tough jail policies.

But, to be fair to those who think such tough rules should follow the common-sense idea of lowering crime rates, it is possible that Phoenix's rising crime is more due to Arpaio's mismanagement of law-enforcement funds; recently, he spent massive taxpayer money on a publicity stunt rounding up prostitutes while twelve unsolved execution-style murders in the county remained unworked on the books.

But nothing said so far is quite so impressive as Japan. Japan has by far the lowest imprisonment rate in the developed world, and the lowest crime rate. The rate of armed robberies is a hundredth of the US rate.

The secret is that Japan uses shame as an alternative to jail, much like Finland uses fines. In Japan, for most crimes, one can get out of jail sentence by publicly apologizing to the offended, the offended's family, and the offender's own family. Communities are regularly visited by the local police, with at least two visits to each household twice a year -- not for inspections, but just as a reminder of how important law and order is in the Japanese community.

But when a prisoner does go to prison, conditions are harsh. Short, but harsh. The average sentence is only two years, even including violent crimes; but imprisonment includes such penalties as sitting for a week on one's knees for misbehaving. Leather belts and manacles are common, and inmates are marched for hours in parades around the city, forced to show their face to the society that they wronged.

I will leave you with words of wisdom from one of the most intelligent moral philosopher mathematicians that I know (in short, the closest thing to a hero that I have):

When a man is suffering from an infectious disease, he is a danger to the community, and it is necessary to restrict his liberty of movement. But no one associates any idea of guilt with such a situation. On the contrary, he is an object of commiseration to his friends. Such steps as science recommends are taken to cure him of his disease, and he submits as a rule without reluctance to the curtailment of liberty involved meanwhile. The same method in spirit ought to be shown in the treatment of what is called 'crime'.
- Bertrand Russell

Join me next week as I explore the wonderful world of shit. Yes, you heard me right: shit.

Be well.

Worthy of Attention: Taking Stock of Reality

Tackling Hedonism Head-On

Though there are many things in this world that are worthy of attention, only one issue may be discussed first in this column. And rather than using this initial pulpit to discuss politics, or the environment, or the subjugation of non-human animals, I wish to bring up the one issue that most directly affects all of my readers, regardless of their cultural background. It is the single thread that binds all peoples and transcends boundaries of time, place, and happenstance. In the view of many, it is the most important issue that we may ever discuss, and as such, I feel justified in dedicating my first substantial article to the idea. This topic, debated even back during the pre-socratics, is on human happiness.

Human happiness, as it is intuitively understood, is the individual state that all humans aspire to, regardless of their views on life. Plato argued that individual human happiness comes only with leading the good life, which he described as being part of a well-functioning (i.e., happy) society. Aquinas argued that this good life came about only through being pat of the most perfect well-functioning society: the kingdom of god. Rand argued that the good life comes only from living 'separately' from society, focusing on the individual as the largest unit capable of human happiness. Aristotle said the good life has nothing to do with it; the only way to truly be happy is to philosophize with friends. But in all these vastly differing opinions, one constant remains: achieving human happiness is always considered as one of the most lofty of goals.

The most likely reason for placing such emphasis on hedonism is that it is the only measureable moral entity that we may observe. Some, like Kant, have seemingly argued against human happiness as the most important of issues; but a more sophisticated view of human happiness soon reveals that even categorical imperatives that apply even when against the desires of the individual go against them are in actuality hypothetical imperatives in disguise: if you agree to follow my normative views, then you will do such and such, even if you do not desire to do so. In effect, the categorical imperatives that I believe in are in reality the same as the hedonistic values that I follow most closely. All morality, in fact, can be understood as nothing more than hedonism, albeit sometimes a sophisticated form of hedonism that takes into account more than just one's present state of happiness.

I've used a lot of loaded philosophical terms so far, but even though I need them in order to be completely specific with my words, please understand that it is certainly not neccessary to consult a dictionary of philosophy in order to know what I am talking about. Essentially, human happiness is a concept that we may all talk about, and, indeed, that we all should discuss.

What is human happiness? Clearly, it is what pleases us. But the word 'pleasing' is not exact enough to capture the true meaning of human happiness. True happiness arises from many different sources; not just the pleasures of the flesh, but also of the mind. Aristotle counted receiving respect from one's peers and even personal attractiveness in the eyes of others as qualities that contribute to human happiness. Maybe not all of us achieve happiness in the same way; personally, I do not think I could truly be happy without sexual gratification, for example. But others might disagree. Some might be perfectly happy as social outcasts, or even in being complete morons. But regardless of how we each achieve happiness, the achieving of it is certainly one of the foremost issues that we may each have to deal with.

In the past few years, I've undergone a complete reversal in my personality and outlook on life. Activism has slowly grown to become an important part of my life, and spreading my own emotive views on normative judgments has become something of a personal quest. It is, in effect, my method of achieving human happines. Nevertheless, I have retained my strict philosophical viewpoint in dealing with such issues, and as such have been forced to reconcile with the fact that there is no particular reason why my personal brand of morality should apply to any other.

Retaining a responsible philosophical attitude while trying to get others to agree with my own moral beliefs is hard on my psyche, and ultimately damaging to my own happiness. But I cannot pretend that I know best when others could just as easily know better. Ultimately, my happiness would only be undermined if I were to ignore the philosophical examination that I by now am so used to participating in.

In the end, we're all hedonists. We have to be; there is no other moral-like property that we can observe. I personally believe that humans can never be happy unless nonhuman animals are justly treated. As much as I may wish this to be a categorical imperative, in the end, it is merely how I feel. And I must recognize the same for others.

How another feels life should be (the culmination of which would be their own personal happiness high point) is no better nor worse than my own, at least as far as can be observed. Whether it is Bush further entangling the federal government, big business, and the Christian right; or Plato sacrificing the wants and desires of the philosopher king for the good of the republic; or even the small business owner taking advantage of each employee, client, and supplier because the capitalistic system allows him no better alternative to succeed, the moral views (and thus the personal human happiness) of every being is no more nor less likely to be better nor worse of any other.

Human happiness is a laudable subject. But there is no way of determining which person's views on human happpiness we should follow, not even our own. But the one thing we do know is that in the end, it all is nothing more than hedonism. So if you ever find yourself in a situation where you are unsure of what to do, try to do what would be best for you. In the end, that is all we can do.

Until next week, where I will discuss the role of punishment in society, I bid you all adieu. Be well.

World View: Life, Science, and the Ramblings of a Mad Man

Are you opposed to cloning? Are you dumb?

Righto, so, pretty much everyone I've talked to on the subject of cloning has been pretty opposed to it. I have yet to understand why. I guess this is a little hard for me to write on because it's something I don't see as being wrong in any way, so it's hard to come up with counterarguments against arguments against cloning when I can't think of any argument against cloning, but here's my best shot:

A common issue I've heard brought up against cloning has been the idea that we are creating life (and that's bad... God told me so. HAHAHA). Well, that's just wrong. Let me enlighten you a bit as to what cloning is, and what it would primarily be used for (to be talked about more at the end of this rant, a few paragraphs down). Cloning as we know it today is the physical removal of a cellular nucleus (you know, the organelle of the cell that holds the DNA) and its reimplantation into a new ovum (egg cell). The new cell is then treated as thought it were a weak invitro: incubated for a while, and then implanted into a ready uterus. The cell implants into the lining of the uterus and begins to grow, as any baby would. This to me sounds an aweful lot like a heart transplant, except the donor heart is VERY small and the recipient is also VERY small. And I've never heard anyone complain about "creating life" when their grandfather got a heart transplant. The life was already there, both in the cell giving the nucleus and in the cell recieving it. So, as I stated above, the idea that life is being created is simply wrong.

Individuality is a big issue for many teens. I guess this is true for a lot of the people against the cloning argument because I've always heard it mentioned when I get into an argument about it. This one is more of a personal issue, so it's a little harder to argue against. I mean, who has the balls to tell me that it's ok for there to be more than one of me around? I want to be an individual, and that's that. Right? WRONG. First off, although you may have these sentiments, you don't have the right to impose them on someone else. Maybe I want to have another me going around. Maybe I don't want to be an individual. Even if this wasn't the case, and you could impose what you want onto other people, you would be off because clones aren't (or wouldn't be, I guess) the same person. They would be like identical twins that were born at different times—very different times, but they would be, as twins are, individuals. They would have their own feelings, ideas, perspectives, expierences and memories, etc. What makes a person an individual is not what they look like or what their DNA says; what makes them individuals are their experiences. So, although they may be the same genetically, they would be completely different people, with crushes on different people, different opinions on various issues, different tastes for foods, different scars (from learning to ride bikes or whatever), etc. The individuality argument is dead.

Some of the more interesting arguments against cloning have some theological background to them. I'm not a theologan but this is what I've learned, and what I believe. So everyone has a soul, right? And then through various messups in your life, you turn your soul to crap and go to hell. OK, bad joke. But really, the argument is that when you clone someone, there is already a soul for that individual so the clone does not get one. I can think of a few ways to argue against that. If it is true that clones don't have souls, then can it be said that twins don't have souls? Or that ones of the twins does but the other(s) don't? Could twins share a soul? I don't know how to answer these questions, and frankly, I don't think anyone that hasn't died can (and I'm not even sure if people that HAVE died can). But assume what you want: twins can either not have souls, they could share a soul between the two (or three or however many there are) of them, or they could each have a soul. In any case, it is what God (or whatever gives souls) decides and we can't know about it or change it. So, if someone were to be cloned, they would either not have a soul, have half a soul (shared with the clonee...if that's a word), or have an entire soul to themselves. What I'm getting at is that they are the same. Clones and twins would have the same chances of having a soul. Now assume the worst—they are born without souls. Then they will live a given life (whether it is shitty or awesome is up to the parents and/or the individual clone, for the most part), and then they will die. And that's the end. They won't miss heaven, because upon death everything will stop for them, and they won't fear hell for the same reason (assuming you believe in heaven and hell) Regardless, the clonee will either go to one or the other (again, assuming heaven and hell) and all will be just as well as if the person had never been cloned.

People also argue that cloning is messing with "God's creation", or whatever. I guess to even talk about this you have to assume God, and not only God but God as many Judeo-Christians understand Him to be. So we'll assume that, even though...yeah, let's not open that box. God creates in a week, takes the weeked off, you know the story—and I feel bad for anyone who takes this literally; who wants to live in a world without evolution? And to tell you the truth, this is probably the best argument against cloning that I can think of, because in cloning something we are, truly, messing with "God's creation." The problem with the argument is, we're messing with God's creation ALL THE TIME! Do you not take advil if you have a headache? Do you not take antacids if you ate too much? Hell, didn't we (as a country) bomb the living shit (literally) out of innocent people in Iraq, Afghnistan, etc? Do we not allow abortions? Do we not artificially inseminate the cows we feed on...or ourselves for that matter? What the hell, we even do it at the cellular level when test tube babies are "created" (as a scientist I should be saying "invitro fertilization," but I don't know how many people know what that is...) I don't think combining two cells, or parts of two cells should be limited because it constitutes "messing with God's creation," especially considering we don't take issue ending life or changing it with drugs.

This is pretty much the extent of semi-inteligent arguments I've heard against cloning. What follows is a discussion of some of the more silly arguments. Among these is the fear of some mad man (which, could, in theory, do this without regard to its legality) making an army of super-clones. This gets somewhat into the sci-fi relm because lets face it, we can't engineer super-people yet and even if we could, we can't mass produce people in bottles (or test tubes). But for the sake of argument, let's say we can. What then? Well, hate to break it to you, but this could happen whether you are for cloning or against it. If it were legal, however, it would be easier to keep track of legitimate cloning institutes and allow for more control in the system. We would be better off to have cloning legal in this type of scenario.

Another pretty dumb argument against cloning that I've heard is that it could be used to make children better; choose genes that make my little Jessica (or what ever name you have chosen for an offspring) smarter, faster, stronger, more resistant to diseases, less likely to get fat and/or suffer from cardiovascular diseases, more resistant to extreme tempratures, etc. SO?! Wouldn't this be a good thing? Obviously this type of technology is far from being readily avaliable, if it is even possible at this point. Some people see this as a possible way in which a breed of rich super-humans will eventually enslave/opress regular humans. I guess that is possible, but the same thing could happen with nanotechnology. Hell, the same thing happens now. If you know anything about US foreign policy, you should know that we have a way of keeping ourselves (not as individuals, and certainly not myself...I mean "ourselves" as in "the United States") on top, even if it mean stepping on others. And hopefully with time and good leadership, this type of technology could be used to rid humanity of some of the more crippling diseases we face: prevent trisomy 21 (down syndrome), sickle cell anemia, etc. It could even help prepare us for an alien invasion...haha.

But seriously, I don't see why cloning should be illegal, or considered wrong, immoral, etc. If there's anything that I have missed, please comment or e-mail me. I'd love to have a good discussion about it. You might even change my mind and my next article would have to be titled, "How (insert your name here:______) made my previous article on cloning obsolete." Ah, the beauties of being liberal; I love being able to admit that I can/could be wrong). Hope you girls and guys have enjoyed the read as much as I have enjoyed the write! 'Till next week!

World View: Life, Science, and the Ramblings of a Mad Man

Organic Chemistry is conquerable. It can even be—and don’t hurt me for this—fun and occasionally sexy.

Although organic chemistry has been called the Hell of College, the killer of premeds, and God-knows how many other hateful names, it can actually be kinda cool (ignoring the whole…"having to memorize equations and learn exceptions and learning to name things and organic lab"…thing). I’ll try to go through the most important concepts of organic in a not-so-painful way.

Organic chemistry (concepts) can be boiled down to three main ideas, concepts, forces—whatever you wanna call them. Here are the main ideas behind it:

Attraction (oh, God, she‘s SOOO hot!)

Lust (lets face it, some people just want more, others make YOU want more)

Size (well, it DOES matter, regardless of what small guys say…)

Righto, now that I have everyone’s attention, here goes. Attraction. You know, you remember that first crush in kindergarten. The way her hair looked when she was drinking from that milk carton…well, ok, so it has more to do with charges in organic. This is basic chemistry; atoms are made of a nucleus with protons (positively charged, with one unit of “plus” each) and neutrons (the charge of which you can hopefully figure out from the name, and if not, please stop reading) and of a “cloud” of electrons (minus one charge on those guys) that “fly” around the nucleus (quantum physics tells us they never know exactly where they are or where they are going, so we say “cloud” and “fly” cuz there’s no better way of explaining it without confusing EVERYONE.) Some atoms have more electrons than protons, so they are negatively charged. Some have less, and they are positively charged. Make sense? These atoms can be by themselves or they can be in a molecule with other atoms. So molecules, like atoms, can have charges. And, as you can see with magnets (although it’s a different type of charge with those), sitcoms, reality shows, and just life in general, opposites attract. Positive charges like negative and vice versa because they quench each other. When they are together, they are no longer charged, so they are satiated…hehe. I always loved hearing my teachers say dirty things.

So, now that everyone knows what attraction’s all about, how about we conquer lust? I’m assuming an older audience, now that you’ve gotten through my first paragraph, so let’s do it. Lust can be seen as a stronger, more sexual form of attraction, but really, it’s not lust until you’re ready to act on it. If the situation were to present itself, you’d jump to it, or on it, or whatever. Lust is actually being active about being attracted. So molecules, even molecules that are attracted to each other, might not react unless they have a STRONG, SEXUAL attraction to each other, that is, they lust each other. In chemistry, it is said that the negative molecules are the ones that do the “attacking.” They are the ones that go out and get the positive molecules. If a molecule is negatively charged, and it’s a very lustful molecule (electronegative for those of you who’ve had a chem class), then it will probably react with just about anything around it. If, on the other hand, a molecule is neutral, or even negative, but not very lustful (not very electronegative), then the molecule will be less likely to react. So far we have charges attract, and lustful negative molecules attack vulnerable positive molecules. Nothing too bad. On to size…

Sorry for you…ill-equipped guys, but size does matter. I mean, hypothetically, say you’re with a big girl. A really big girl. What happens? Haha, see what I mean? NOTHING. But if the girl is small, very small, then you can probably get away with…well, not much. So what the hell does that have to do with chemistry? Well, molecules, like humans, have reactive sites…places where they will attach to make a new molecule (or detach to make two new ones, or change, etc. etc.) If there are two molecules that are very attracted to each other and the negative molecule is very electronegative, then it is likely they will react (according to everything I’ve told you up until this point), but if they are both very big molecules, then their reactive sites can’t get close enough to each other to allow the magic to happen. They simply wont come close enough because of the volume the rest of their bodies take up, and they won't be able to react. This is called steric hindrance, for those of you who want to impress your parents at the dinner table, or something. Say there are a few molecules that are likely to react with a third molecule; if one of these is much bigger than the other, it is much more likely that the smaller of the two will be able to get close enough to the reactive site of the said third molecule and will be able to react. So, summarizing, attractiveness, lust, and size. All you need to know about chemistry (unless you’re dumb enough to be a chemistry major, biology major, premed/pre-professional, or just take chem classes for fun… then you should be reading Comus' articles on stupid people).

Now the ugly part: the partial list of stuff outside this… view of chemistry that you’ll proly need to know if you are one of those people dumb enough to call yourself an organic chemistry student. Naming—oh God, naming. You need to be able to look at a molecule and name it or take a name and draw a molecule. Stereochemistry (so size is important, but it’s not the only thing going on…) You need to know where the reactive sites of molecules are, which are more likely to react, and what will happen once they do; in other words, what the molecule will look like in space after the reaction. That’s the part where back-side attacks, spontaneous leaving groups, SN1, SN2 E1, and E2 reactions come in, and then your life starts to suck. You’ll need to memorize reactions…lots and lots of reactions. And then you’ll have to be able to line up reactions to form new molecules (a euphemism used by chemists for this is “synthesis”, and it’s fucking hell).

Oh, almost forgot, what good is knowing that positive and negative charges attract when you don’t know what molecule is positive or negative? And what good is it to know that size does matter when you don’t know how big something has to be for it to not be able to react? And how do you know if a molecule is lustful (electronegative) or if it‘s quite the opposite (electropositive)? Well, if you take Org, you’ll know. And I guess my English teachers would fail me for this, but I’m gonna go ahead and conclude by saying my intro was bullshit. Organic chemistry COULD be fun, but they don’t teach it remedially as I just did, so it sucks—a lot. For those of you who have been through this hell, I’m sorry. For those of you who haven’t, thank me for making it so easy on you (and NEVER take it).

NEVER!

Worthy of Attention: Taking Stock of Reality

Coming to New Beliefs

The question of morality is always a sticky one. What is or is not considered to be ethical changes with each person you ask. Nevertheless, it is clear that the vast majority of human beings agree on a few so-called 'basic' moral judgments, such as the undesirability of killing one's own family without any professed provocation. Why there is agreement on such matters is not entirely clear. Some would say it is a product of evolution, while others would use it as evidence of a defensible moral standard. Bur regardless of how one views the evidence, it cannot be denied that such widespread agreement on some moral judgments does in fact exist, and it is the job of the ethicist to attempt a determination of what exactly these moral judgments may be reduced to.

It is in this spirit that my column is dedicated. Not because I wish to impose my own normative claims upon the world at large, but because what is most worthy of attention in this world of ours is to take stock of reality itself, which we all too often gloss over; and morality is by far the most important of all glossed-over ideas. After all, addressing moral issues, even if it is just in determining whether or not normative claims exist, is the pre-eminent ideal that comes before all else, even the concept of god. As Plato so astutely pointed out, if one places god above morality, then whatever god happens to consider good would be okay. Since we would not follow a god whose morality differs wildly from our own, then we must consider morality to be even above god.

The thing about morality, however, is that (assuming a sufficient level of sophistication) no matter how hard one tries, no one can ever change what you may or may not consider moral, unless they do so with social brainwashing (such as school, parenting, or the like). Certainly, I in particular cannot affect (or effect, for that matter) your normative standards merely by employng argument. Indeed, it takes something considerably more theistic in nature in order to manage another's views on ethics.

Nevertheless, by starting with the preconceptions and prejudices on morality one already has, along with an ideal of logical consistency, I can use 'mere' argument to force one into a logical contradiction that may only be resolved by 'working out' one's own moral system, and perhaps realizing that what they believed all along means something that they had never fully comprehended it to mean at all.

Effecting change in this manner is not an ability that only I possess. We all have the capacity to argue out of a logical inconsistency, and improve one's vantage point of morality in the process. In fact, if normative standards do exist, then it is of paramount importance that we educate both ourselves and others to the existence of such a moral standard -- so not only do we all have this capacity for introspection, but it is right and just for us to employ that ability at every opportunity.

In future editions of this column, I will be showing much of what is worthy of attention, yet goes unnoticed by so many. I will be taking stock of reality itself, and showing how the reality of the world you and I live in does not always jibe with the moral standard each of us claims to possess.

In the meantime, may we all look closer to our prime beliefs, and act accordingly each day that we live our lives.

Be well.

Words From The Exit Wound

Writing about stupidity is dangerous in that one runs the risk of becoming stupid oneself. Though this can, and probably should, be taken in a ‘Whosoever fights monsters…’ way, I would rather bring your attention to its self-perceptive/self-deceptive aspects. There is a tendency towards raging, purblind, against the evils of stupidity only to trip and fall over the untied shoelace of the fact that, not only are you stupid yourself, but you’ve compounded that plain and honest stupidity with self-congratulatory smugness, a more refined and potent form of stupidity. This, obviously, is the self-deceptive aspect; in the mad rush to chase down a jaywalker you’ve knocked an old lady to the sidewalk, causing her to break her hip and, a bit later, to die of complications resulting from that broken hip, you bastard. This happened, not because you’ve stared so long into the abyss of stupidity that you’ve assumed stupid thought patterns yourself, but because you were always stupid and used the war on stupidity as a defense against your own and others’ eyes. But what of the person who, having investigated stupidity, begins to find it lurking everywhere in his own life, in all those places he had believed safe? What is he to do with this stupidity that not only drowns the world around him but also flows from him, and, he realizes so late, always has? This is the problem of self-perception that everyone studying some abhorrent but highly contagious concept must face. It is no better to believe oneself mostly or entirely stupid than to believe oneself entirely free of stupidity. Both are instances of the unique forms of stupidity manifested by those who define themselves as its opposition.

It should be obvious by now that my understanding of ‘stupidity’ is somewhat peculiar, but I don’t think it’s wholly strange. Keep in mind, as we continue, that in considering stupidity as a subject here I am not at all trying to answer the ‘What is…?’ question that inevitably pokes in importunately as the unknocking roommate interrupting your latest sex romp as your partner’s just reaching orgasm and therefore most heightened in her sensitivity, partially because those aren’t the questions that interest me, and partially because I don’t think it can be done in a useful way. Stupidity is Protean and, as I said, highly contagious, and while its various manifestations obviously have a familial resemblance, I’m more interested in the differences—if I weren’t, this column wouldn’t be weekly; I could write one longish essay, or catalogue, detailing the earmarks of a stupid thing and never write again. Don’t think, however, that I’m admitting that I’ve got some unholy logorrhea compelling me to write publicly and continuously; rather, realize that stupidity, like a petulant child, does not sit still for its portrait, forcing me to give you constantly updated snapshots, taken at any available angle while it isn’t looking, if we want to know what that elusive-yet-ubiquitous fucker looks like. Stupidity can be ignorance, yes, but certain types of ignorance are much less objectionable than others. As said above, it can be both self-satisfaction and self-doubt; nor does this terminate the phrase.

The stupidity that most interests and repels me is the willful ignorance or deliberate obtuseness so common in every tier of education or class, or what-you-will. Virtually any group of people you meet (individual exceptions excepted, duly and obviously) will choose—choose (!), mind you—to be stupid about something. Inevitably. Whether it’s an academician deciding to examine his rosy glasses much more closely than the text they were donned to bring into focus, a rough pub-jockey getting that fight hard-on over some fruitbritches’ fancy words, or a child deciding not to pour clarifying light on an opaque word encountered while reading; it’s inevitable. However, it is more useful for allowing an examination of one of the major sources of stupidity: complacency. Or self-delusion, or self-bargaining, or the increasingly popular what-you-will. Except maybe the child, every subject of the above examples believed that he knew, not everything there is, but everything a decent person should know, by god! Ultimately, this amounts to the same thing as believing, as perhaps no man has done since the Renaissance, that one has entombed within oneself all knowledge, but with one major exception: unlike, say, Francis Bacon (who did not write Shakespeare, but that’s for another day), the professor with his glasses and the barroom pugilist are aware that there’s knowledge there—right there!—and decide it’s a priori useless, and choose to be stupid.

This is the kind of stupidity I intend to focus on, in whatever sphere I encounter it. Christian Science, Creation science, the ARI, Dworkin-bran feminism, Luntzspeak, and so on are all decent examples of what I’m talking about. There are many more, but I don’t want to shoot my wad in this paragraph.

Now for the tough part: I’m going to address my own stupidity. So, how am I stupid? Well, I’m fairly ignorant about most sciences (particularly an almost total ignorance when it comes to physics, except at its most abstract and philosophical), anthropological views of other cultures (especially non-Western), baseball, non-Western religions, 20th century philosophy (excluding Camus, Bataille, Cioran, and some others), politics, economics on any level, how to drive a stick-shift, knot-tying, and so on in both intellectual and practical veins, and, though I’m passively curious about almost all of it, I’m actively curious about very little at the moment. Though I’m unusually skilled at reading other people and picking up on all sorts of subtle behavioral clues, I make a balls of utilizing what I’m lucky enough to notice. I usually know the solution to my personal problems but let them fester secretly, like AIDS in Allan Bloom, instead of practicing the known solutions, which would, I suppose, be more like Magic Johnson. I exercise my rather excellent memory virtually not at all when it comes to the needs of other people, often finding their presence reminding me of what I left at home, or what I had never picked up, for this one or other among them. I think rather highly of myself and may have no cause to do so. I’m closed emotionally, and paranoid. I have no aim in life, no plans beyond next fall, and I may have forgotten how to be happy when I’m happy. I drink way too much and have the scars, stains, and burnt bridges to prove it. I eat poorly and exercise sporadically. I wanted to trim my beard as it was growing out of control, but rather than actually getting clippers I just shaved it off and am now watching fervently as the anemic stragglers struggle to restore my lost growth.

That’s enough about me, and will be the last you hear of me unless a personal anecdote is the seed for one of my future articles. As you should have guessed, the subject of these articles will be stupidity, as demonstrated by whatever I find, and especially of the sort I’m likely to encounter on one of the most intellectually circle-jerking campuses in the world. But things like world politics, pop culture, quotidian occurrences, and such will also be included. I’m probably most interested in aesthetic stupidity, but, no worries, I won’t limit myself. We’ll get a full portrait even if it takes this Cubist collage bullshit to do it. And, hopefully, I won’t end up an idiot myself while assembling it.

Welcome To Panangelium.tk!

The formation of a new website is always a tenuous undertaking. The 'net is already filled with sites directed toward every niche market that one can think of. Yet despite their abundance, very few have content worth reading once, let alone worth coming back to time and time again. And it is for this reason that Panangelium.tk has been created.

Panangelium.tk is our way of getting out the message -- all the messages -- to the people of the world. Our grand opening will mark the unveiling of four weekly columns dedicated to the ideal of bringing our thoughts to the world at large.

Every Saturday, Matt Blythe will present Worse Than Coleslaw: Collegiate Neurosis in a Brave New World, an ongoing treatise on the unique perspective of the author, told with his even more unique brand of humor.

On Mondays, be prepared for an examination of inanity in its most extreme form with Comus' Words From The Exit Wound -- life never before seemed quite so idiotic.

Then on Wednesdays, join David Mendoza in reality as he shares with us the latest and greatest ideas, concepts, philosophies, and inventions in World View: Life, Science, and the Ramblings of a Mad Man.

And every Thursday, come back with me, Garacan, as I take a look at what is right and wrong with this world in Worthy of Attention: Taking Stock of Reality.

All of us here at Panangelium.tk hope that you'll stay with us for a very long time to come. After all, the whole reason why we're here is for you.

Happy reading! And be well.