Wingding (a photograph of, and a conversation about)

When I asked Nick to think of an adjective to describe Wingding, he replied with, “Blue.” I was dissatisfied and pressed him for more. As I did so, she spread her wings and left his finger for the chandelier. “Flighty. Temperamental.”

“What about something nice?”

“People-friendly?”

“But that contradicts flighty and temperamental. And that’s not one word.”

“When she’s in a good mood she’s people-friendly. And her little chatter is cute to listen to.”

Wingding. One cannot sum you up with merely a single adjective, such a complex little being you are.

Wingding. One cannot sum you up with merely a single adjective, such a complex little being you are.

Published in:  on August 30, 2008 at 7:33 pm Leave a Comment
Tags: , , , ,

Two separate rants

Ok, two things have pissed me off so far today.

Fox News

I was at the gym today and some woman was walking on the treadmill and watching Fox News, specifically, their coverage of the DNC. In just ten minutes of watching, with no sound, I saw so much bias in their coverage, it was astounding.

Instead of interviewing a democrat, they were interviewing author David Freddoso about his book The Case Against Barack Obama. Turns out they’re also going to be interviewing Mitt Romney?! When was this ever “fair and balanced?” That slogan was up on the screen the whole time, by the way. Their adverts also are a telltale sign of their target demographic. Each commercial break there were ads for right wing hack magazines like the National Review and the Weekly Standard. Each advertisement assaulted me with characters of Democrats. It’s stupid, really. Oh, by the way, Freddoso? He’s a journalist for the National Review. Hmm.

Single issue voters (namely internet dorks & net neutrality)

On Digg and Gizmodo there’s an idiotic to-do over Biden’s history of opposing file-sharing and net neutrality. People are responding with comments like “Barack Obama’s lost my vote!” It’s just… really, really idiotic. Single issue voters with litmus tests ruin politics, and these people are no exception.

And when you look at the different candidates’ stances on this issue, Obama is the only one who supports net neutrality legislation in the first place (which I am a staunch supporter of, by the way—don’t get me wrong). His website’s Technology section lists “[ensuring] an open Internet” as one of his policy objectives. This is net neutrality. Meanwhile, McCain’s talks about keeping the Internet “free of unnecessary legislation,” i.e. opposing neutrality laws. Ron Paul, darling of these dolts, would oppose it on libertarian principles.

And Obama is the presidential candidate, not Biden. It’s not as if Obama is going to shift his declared policy positions because Biden disagrees with him.

When people exhibit this kind of stupidity, a sadistic part of me wishes that they would bring upon themselves the results of their actions and learn from their mistakes. Then I realize that their bringing it upon themselves would also bring it on me; plus, with good, calm debate, we may be able to convince them of sense without them needing to make a mistake. Unfortunately, the Internet isn’t necessarily right now the best venue for this. When reading blocks of text, we have a tendency to forget that there’s another human on the end of it and simply respond with vitriol and defensiveness. I’m sure it’s a similar phenomenon to road rage. ‘Net rage? How does that sound?

Published in:  on August 25, 2008 at 3:46 pm Leave a Comment

Shedding a tear for Cenozoic megafauna

Megafauna are what they sound like: large animals. Elephants, hippopotami, rhinoceroses and giraffes are pretty much the only examples still alive. However, until the end of the Pleistocene epoch (from around two million to ten thousand years ago), megafauna abounded across the world, to a much greater extent than they do today, and they were prevalent in a variety of locales. Africa is the last bastion of megafauna today, along with parts of Asia, but in their heyday, they were found across the world, even (and especially) in the Americas.

There exist a few theories as to why these creatures are no longer with us for the most part. As described in The World Without Us (the book that spurred me into writing this post), they are:

1. Over-kill. Early humans destroyed the species as they hunted them for food and other materials.

2. Over-chill. Climatic variations destroyed them.

3. Over-ill. Disease wrought their destruction. Of course, these diseases could have been ones we brought with us.

The book makes a very good case for over-kill. However, I’m not writing to debate the reason for their demise. I was fascinated by this period of prehistory almost as much as I was by dinosaurs when I was younger, and I am simply going to point out a few outlandish species that captivated me when I was younger, and still do so today.

First, I should give you a little background in the geological classifications of prehistory, for a little context. Everyone knows the Jurassic, Triassic and Cretaceous periods, which comprise the Mesozoic era. This is when the dinosaurs lived; it ended around 65 million years ago. The Cenozoic era, which follows, is divided into the Paleogene, Neogene, and Quaternary periods (The Paleogene and Neogene used to be classified as the Tertiary period—in this context, the name “Quaternary” makes sense). These periods are further subdivided into epochs, which run: Paleocene, Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene, Pliocene, Pleistocene, and Holocene, the most recent epoch which began around ten thousand years ago. Tangentially, some geologists think that we should delineate a new epoch, the Anthropocene, to indicate that humans have become the dominant environmental force on the planet, coinciding with the invention of the steam engine in 1784. Anyway, these epochs have differences in climate, geology, and different predominant flora and fauna. After the extinction of dinosaurs, pterosaurs, and their marine and terrestrial brethren, mammals increased in number and size. However, after the end of the Paleocene, climatic variations forced evolution to favor smaller creatures. The largest land mammal ever lived during the Oligocene, and until the end of the Pleistocene the world brimmed with a huge variety of huge and strange creatures. And on to the creatures we proceed:

Saber-toothed cats

One of the most iconic prehistoric mammals, everyone usually calls these guys “saber-toothed tigers.” They aren’t tigers, though. Most of them are a distinct scions of felines, but there were some marsupials which, in a showcase of convergent evolution, developed similar saber-teeth and bodily characteristics

Smilodon Fatalis, the most commonly known saber-tooth.

Smilodon fatalis, the most commonly known saber-tooth.

Smilodon is probably what everyone thinks of when they think of saber-toothed cats. It’s prototypical: somewhat more solidly built than modern big cats (they ambushed their prey), with the two iconic canine teeth. The species pictured to the right weighed around 160-200 kg; the largest, Smilodon populator, weighed around 200-300 kg (some may have weighed as much as 400!) Since saber-tooths’ teeth were fairly brittle, scientists think that, instead of strangling their prey by biting down on their trachea, like modern big cats, they used their teeth to pierce jugular veins, killing without the need for a prolonged struggle.

I mentioned above that some marsupials had similar characteristics. Thylacosmilus was one of them. Despite looking very similar to the saber-toothed cats, it was not a cat. Convergent evolution can lead to similar appearances between completely unrelated creatures; this is an excellent example of the phenomenon. Thylacosmilus’s Wikipedia page has some good images which show off its characteristic bone scabbards that jutted from its lower jaw, protecting the teeth when its mouth was closed (a characteristic that visually differentiates it from saber-toothed felines), and also a link to the convergent evolution article, if you’re interested to learn more about that.

Gomphotheres

Weird name, huh? Weirder creatures. Gomphotheres were a family of elephant-like animals common during the Miocene and Pliocene. Examples include the group’s namesake, Gomphotherium, and my personal favorite, Platybelodon. They were similar in bodily structure to elephants, but their faces were quite different. We think most species had trunks, but they also had four tusks, two on the bottom jaw and two on the upper. Gomphotherium’s lower jaw was elongated and its bottom tusks, while still thin and pointy, may have helped it shovel food into its mouth. Here’s a picture of one with a sexy lady (not to scale, unless she’s six or seven feet tall):

Gomphotherium

Sexy ladies were also common in the Miocene and Pliocene. If you search Google Images for Gomphotherium, you'll find a website which has more images of scantily clad women with prehistoric pachyderms

Platybelodon was odder. Its bottom tusks were literally shaped like shovels (it and similar creatures are colloquially known as shovel-tuskers). We think it lived in swampy areas and used its shovel-shaped jaws to trawl marshy goop for sustenance. It probably died because of climatic variations drying out the swamps it made its home. Without further ado:

weird and awesome.

Platybelodon: weird and awesome.

Terror birds (Phorusrhacidae)

Return of the dinosaurs! These dominant predators lived up to the standard set by their ancestors, the dromeosaurids, by being apex predators for millions of years. Imagine an ostrich. Now beef it up significantly. Give it a neck that can’t be snapped, powerful legs with claws that rend flesh, and replace its bill with an eagle’s beak three times the size of the ostrich’s. They range from a few feet tall to the largest, like Brontornis, which stood around nine feet. 

Paraphysornis is a typical terror bird

Paraphysornis is a typical terror bird

There were other huge birds that were part of prehistory. Dromornithidae had longer necks and smaller heads than Phorusrhacidae, and we aren’t sure if they were predatory or herbivorous. Haast’s Eagle had a wingspan of eight to ten feet. The eagle’s prey, the Moa (think of a twelve foot ostrich/kiwi bird cross) was hunted to extinction by Māori tribesmen, and this drove the great raptor to extinction. But imagine: if these eagles could take down such a huge bird as a Moa, they surely would have not thought twice about attacking grown men, just half the size of their ordinary quarry.

I’m going to draw this post to a close now. I could go on for pages and pages. I’ve been opening tabs of the Wikipedia entries for animals I find interesting, with the intention of adding them to this post, but there are currently fourteen open that I haven’t even mentioned. But if you’re ever in need of a megafauna fix, here are some Wikipedia articles to get you started:

Published in:  on August 24, 2008 at 8:16 pm Leave a Comment

A languid & sexy kitten

“She’s not a kitten, she’s a monster!” -Nick

Published in:  on August 22, 2008 at 10:29 pm Leave a Comment
Tags: , , , ,

I’m just testing out my iPhone

Hi, vast sea of readers. I know you avidly follow everything I write, trawling each phrase for meaning on your dreary little lives. This post is going to disappoint you. It is content-free, like the majority of our media. I’m just testing out WordPress for my iPhone.

Published in:  on August 13, 2008 at 9:15 pm Leave a Comment
Tags:

This is a personal post about my life

In May I graduated from USC, with a B.A. in sociology. Now, I really like sociology, and was quite immersed in its study, and found it rewarding, but I don’t think it’s what I want to do with my life. It’s… in the vicinity of things I can imagine myself doing, but not the sole thing I could dedicate myself to. When I was in high school, I envisioned myself as a biology or history major—two very divergent subjects, but my favorite high school classes. I started out studying biology, but amid a difficult calculus class and second thoughts, I switched to history. I made the move to sociology when I desired something that could have a more immediate effect on the world and was less insularly academic.

So, here I am, three years later, with a degree in sociology. Where do I go from here? I see a few distinct possibilities.

1. I get a degree in public policy, or something political, and go from there. I’d work for a progressive think tank or an international governmental body, such as the UN. I’d work to promote human rights and scientific progress, etc.

2. I get a degree in medicine or biology. This would require me to backtrack a little, and take some more undergraduate courses, either to become eligible to study biology at the graduate level or to get my pre-med credentials. If I did that, the fact that those extra courses probably wouldn’t be from USC or an institution of the same caliber might impact my chances of getting into a top-level graduate school. If I did this, I’d love to pursue medical or biotechnological research.

3. I get a degree in public health. Harvard has an MPH program I’d probably be able to easily get into. This would be a nice intersection between science/medicine and politics. However, it might shoehorn me into something less desirable; I could end up working or an HMO or something equally distasteful. Or I could do something rad like advocate for science-based medicine on a governmental level. That’d be not just rad, but kickin’ rad!!! 

Option two would be the most difficult, but might also have the highest reward as I’d get to be doing hard science in a way that’d provide tangible benefits to society. And if I chose, I could still engage the public discourse like many popularizers of science I idolize (Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, etc).

This is where I am.

Published in:  on August 12, 2008 at 12:36 am Leave a Comment
Tags: , , ,

I’m sorry Ms Edwards (Ooh!)

Ok, I’m tired of hearing about John Edwards’ infidelity. Sure, he couldn’t keep his cock in his pants, he lied to the media, and he may well have fathered a child with his mistress. I see no reason why we should believe his protestations of non-fatherhood of the child, with his having lied—to me, it smacks of trying to grasp at straws of “at least I didn’t…” And sure, he’ll do a paternity test, but the mother of the child will not. If you want my opinion on what I think is most likely, I’ll tell you: She says she doesn’t want the test because Edwards is the father, but for him to remain credible, he needs to say he’ll acquiesce to the test. Thus, a deal was struck or an agreement was come to, and he’ll do the test, but she won’t. It also makes me angry that he was screwing around while going for the nomination; if this story broke and he was the nominee, we’d be screwed. Anyway, I’ve said what I think.

But it doesn’t matter! It’s totally irrelevant to what is happening on the electoral stage, save hypotheticals and people incensed over his betrayal of his wife during her recovery for cancer. But it gets at me that it’s discussed as politics. He’s a politician, and it’s naturally it’s going to crop up, but get this: I thought to myself as I was typing the previous sentence, “I bet he’ll be on CNN’s politics page somewhere.” And guess what?

Why the hell is Edwards's affair still the top story on CNN politics?

I would have been much happier to see Edwards's story swap places with something about VPs, or Georgia, or housing.

 He’s the top story! Can I call it or what? Why are any of the other more weighty stories not on the front page? And it’s not that I’m rushing to his defense because I’m a progressive. This angers me when it happens with Republicans too. Much as I was gleeful to see anti-gay Larry Craig turn out to be one of us, I would have been happy to scroll down a little ways or read a few other blog posts before getting to it (and besides, Edwards’s situation doesn’t smack of hypocrisy quite as much as Craig’s does). It’s about priorities, and reporting what is important, not what’s going to satisfy gossip-hounds. Sigh.

Published in:  on August 10, 2008 at 8:49 pm Leave a Comment
Tags: , , , ,

Back to the old theme

Beloved reader (one of you), welcome back Quentin!

I just started reading Dave Eggers’ You Shall Know Our Velocity. I have no idea what the book is about, and I like it that way. It’s an unknown; it’s fun to just leap in and be surprised completely by what you find.

Published in:  on August 6, 2008 at 11:15 pm Leave a Comment
Tags: ,