It's so cold!

I've been feeling the cold so much more acutely lately. It's not just because we're going through an unusually cold period -- at least, I don't think it is. Rather, I think it's also because I've dropped a bit of body fat, which makes me more sensitive to the cold.

I don't miss the extra insulation, but I do wish that I had more feeling in my fingers. Ugh.

R.I.P., Cheryl

I just learned that Mouseketeer Cheryl Holdridge passed away due to lung cancer. What a terrible shame. She wasn't a great singer, but she was a delightful dancer and she seemed to have so much fun on the show. She also went on to a pretty successful television career in her youth.

You will be missed, Cheryl.

About mendicants

Somebody recently shared the following perspective on panhandlers. I think that her wisdom is well worth sharing.

I know of several people who regard begging as their job. There's a community of such people out there, in fact one of the local newspaper columnists occasionally runs a story on some of them. For a while, a popular story was "My wallet got stolen, can you give me a couple bucks to help me get home?" I always offered to buy the "victim" a cup of coffee while I called the cops so that they could file a police report. The "victim" always remembered an urgent previous engagement.

I have also been quite poor, though not homeless. I took babysitting jobs, I worked several newspaper routes (walking them, and with my baby in a stroller with me). I was grateful if someone gave me a tip, or just money in general. However, I never begged, and I certainly didn't get up in people's faces about it. I knew that if I wanted any little luxuries, that I'd have to earn them myself, without depending on others to give them to me. At that time, a little luxury was a cup of tea...I had cut my food budget to the bone. In fact, I had cut all my budgets to the bone.

Some of us are more private than others. Many people, especially women, are not comfortable with a stranger, especially a large scruffy stranger, accosting us in public. Even if the stranger is not overtly threatening, it goes against all of our safety training. Sure, it would be nice if we didn't have to be wary about such things. But the fact of the matter is, that we do have to be careful. Men don't have quite the same worries, but I think that it's reasonable for even a large, strong, physically able man to be wary about a stranger approaching him out of the blue. As it happens, I am willing to physically defend myself, but I am not really in the best of shape to do so.

Some panhandlers are polite and laidback. Generally, I just shake my head without making eye contact. It's IMPORTANT for safety's sake not to make eye contact with strangers. Other panhandlers are more aggressive, and will follow their target for a while. They won't back off, and can be pretty scary. A polite panhandler can turn into an aggressive one if the target makes eye contact. With these folks, I WILL call the cops or notify the store manager or whatever. Obviously, the aggressive panhandler has problems recognizing other people's boundaries, and I don't know how far he'll go.

Basically, I feel that the vast majority of panhandlers could find other legit ways to make some money. I'm sure that there are some folks out there who have no other choice but to panhandle. However, I really don't think that I've come across them.

Yeah, I do give to some charities. In this way, I'm sure that most of my money is actually giving necessities to people, rather than funding another binge.

It is freezing!

Good grief! I have a lot of tolerance for the cold, partly because I work out a lot and have a revved-up metabolism. The cold weather this week is driving me nuts, though. I can barely shovel the snow in my driveway, thanks to these sub-zero temperatures. What's more, my fingers and toes get way too cold when I drive, to the point that I start to worry about getting frostbite.

And I can't close my garage door. I can't really work on this until the temperature gets warmer.

Whither Maylo?

Whatever happened to Maylo McCaslin? She's this fairly obscure actor that had a lot of TV roles back in the late 1980s. Did she just drop off the radar after marrying Willie Aames?

Also, what happened to Mark Thomas Miller of [em]The Misfits of Science[/em]? I know that Dean Paul Martin and Kevin Peter Hall both died, and Ms. Cox went on to major stardom. What about Mark, though?

Put your back into it! (Part II)

I've read articles which say that some people are overweight because they put very little effort into their day to day motions. Instead of bending down to pick something up from the floor, for example, they'll find a way to lean over and pick it up with much smaller movements instead. Instead of walking at a brisk pace, they saunter. And so forth. He looks like one of those guys.

Again, I try to remind myself that he might have some unknown, non-obvious physical ailment. It's kinda hard to think that when watching him move, though. He certainly doesn't appear to be disabled, and he didn't park in either of the gym's disabled parking spots. Who knows?

Put your back into it! (Part I)

When you see someone who's badly out of shape - and I mean severely so -- what do you think? That he's lazy? Or perhaps that he has some sort of physical malady?

I always want to be careful in this regard. After all, some people have disabilities or physical injuries that are by no means obvious. Having said that, when it comes to the vast majority of out-of-shape Americans, disabilities and injuries have little or nothing to do with their lack of stamina or energy.

Case in point: This one guy at the gym who sometimes participates in the cardio classes that I attend. He's pudgy, but he's not severely overweight; that is, nobody would refer to him as a beached whale. Still, whenever he moves, it's always with the slowest and smallest of motions. I've never seen him do a single jumping jack; rather, he always just kinda kicks his heel off to one side. When the instructor commands us to raise our arms into the air, he slowly lifts his hands up to shoulder level. And instead of kicking forward, he kinda steps forward slowly.

As I said, we have to avoid judging people too harshly, especially when we don't know their medical history. In this case though, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that he's just not putting any real effort into his motions. Why do I say that? Because of the way I've seen him move in the locker room. I've been stuck behind him as I was rushing to claim a locker just before our cardio class. Even though the class was schedule to start within a minute or two, he'd be sauntering very slowly... much more slowly than most normal people would walk. He walks at a painstaking, agonizingly slow pace.

Could this be due to a medical condition? Maybe, but it seems unlikely, especially since he doesn't walk with a limp or in any way that suggests pain. What's more, it's not just the way he walks, but all his other motions as well. Heck, there are times when our cardio instructor commands us to walk a few steps forward, and he just stays in place, as though the extra effort just wouldn't be worth it.

More on gym newbies

I wanted to follow up on my previous rant about New Year's resolutioners at the gym.

Having so many newbies around can be understandably annoying for regulars, who tend to view the gym as their own turf. I think we always need to be nice and welcoming to the newcomers, though. It's tough, especially since it's naturaly for us to feel somewhat territorial. Still, let's make the effort.

Not too hard, though. The gym really isn't the kind of place where serious people intend to socialize. In fact, it's often kinda annoying to have someone engage you in long conversation at the gym, especially when you're trying to concentrate on your workout. It can also be annoying to the people around you, especially if you're talking loudly.

So let's strike a balance. Be friendly to the newbies, but don't treat the place as though it were a venue for a gabfest.

Invasion of the New Year's Resolutioners

It's January, and my gym has been invaded by New Year's resolutioners. I was almost unable to find a parking spot at the gym due to the massive surge in attendance. Finding a spot was made even more difficult by the fact that some of these motorists clogged up the lanes by waiting and waiting and waiting for someone to pull out of their spot.... you know, as opposed to driving a little bit further to park elsewhere.

My cardio bootcamp class was overflowing with newbies. We were practically packed in there like sardines. Not a pleasant situation.

Please don't get me wrong. I have nothing against newbies; in fact, when they seem friendly, I like to meet them and introduce them to some of the regulars. I also routinely cheer them on when they need encouragement. It is very annoying, however, that they choose to come in droves right after the holidays. The gym simply isn't equipped to deal with these inflated numbers.

It's especially aggravating because you know that the vast majority of these folks aren't taking exercise seriously. How do we know this? Because if they were, they wouldn't be waiting around for January 1st to start getting into shape. This isn't just idle speculation, mind you. Rather, it's pretty obvious --- especially when you see how much attendance drops when February rolls around.

I'll say more about that later.

Zooey

I just learned that Zooey Deschanel, one of my favorite actresses, is starring in the Jim Carrey vehicle, "Yes Man." I have no intention of watching the show, but I am tempted to do so due to Zooey.

Mind you, she has her moments of serious clunkiness, as evidenced in "Tin Man." She can be pretty darned good though, and she's a spectacular singer. Throaty and enchanting and absolutely wonderful to listen to.

Another great answer

Here's another great answer to the question of whether we should always use the scientific method in our daily activities.

To me that shows why we CAN NOT use the scientific method in our personal relations. Suppose I have a friend at work who's usually polite and helpful. Then one day I notice that she's being rude, ignoring her duties, and so forth. If I insist on judging the situation based only on observation and logical deduction, I would have to conclude that she's somehow turned into a bad person. However, I also have another option: I can have faith in this person. And that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Her change in behavior may be resulting from something I don't know about, such as an illness, a family crisis, or something else. It may be something that I never know about. Nobody can ever observe another person thoroughly enough to completely understand all of that person's motivations, emotions, reasons, and thoughts. Hence, forming judgments about people solely by observation and logical deduction cannot truly be enough.

Again, slightly paraphrased. He's right. Human beings are too complex to be treated to a facile application of the scientific method.

Riptide!

This page reminded me of something... I so want to watch the second and third seasons of [em]Riptide[/em] on DVD. This was a great detective show from the 80s that was pretty darned funny at times. The humor was sometimes quite painful to watch, but it had a lot of genuinely amusing moments.

Unfortunately, Netflix is only carrying the first season on DVD. I'd love to watch the remaining seasons, but I don't want to spend money on the DVD sets.

Assay principles

More about the ELISA Spot assay:

The ELISPOT assay can be done with freshly isolated PBMC or with PBMC frozen by certain specifications. Specifically designed 96-well plates are coated with a cytokine-specific monoclonal antibody (e.g., IFN-). PBMC (or purified T cell subsets) are pipetted into the coated wells, and are cultured with the test antigen(s). Control wells contain either irrelevant antigen, or media alone. T cells that are specific for the test antigen when activated secrete molecules that are captured by the membrane-bound antibody (Figure 3).

Induction of maximal cytokine production typically requires 24 h (IFN-, IL-2 and IL-3, IL-10 and TNF or 48 h for IL-4 and IL-5). After the activation culture, the cells are discarded (or transferred for further characterization/propagation), and a labeled cytokine-specific secondary antibody is added. Subsequently the plate bound secondary antibody is visualized via an enzymatic reaction. When ELISPOT assays are optimized (as is the case for ImmunoSpot® assays) each color precipitation (“spot”) represents the footprint of a single cell’s cytokine secretion. Spot number denotes the accurate frequency of the antigen specific T cells among the plated cells, spot size and morphology providing additional information on the magnitude and kinetics of the cells’ secretory activity.

Bravo to this guy

I love what this guy said regarding the profanity debate.

The reason you can't begin to understand is that you're misreading what I wrote. I said "swearing is a habit that lazy people *CAN* fall back on...".

This does not mean "lazy people ALWAYS swear."

This does not mean "all swearing is done by lazy people."

There is no prejudice, except in your mind. It's a very simple statement. If one doesn't want to take the time and effort to think of the right word (e.g., one is linguistically lazy), then swearing is an easy way out. Do you *really* disagree with that?

And, by the way, you said "People who swear do it because that's the way they've always done it; that's just how they talk." How is that not the definition of "habit"? How is that not "remotely similar" to my point?

Again, read the argument. Swearing *IS NOT* equal to lazy. Swearing is a tool for lazy people. It's also a tool for intelligent, erudite people who know just the right time and place for a good profanity, and they can make it really effective.

And some people use it as filler, like um, er, ah, and like. When someone says, "I f*ckin' went to the latest fuckin' Jean-Claude Van-f*ckin'-Damme movie at the f*ckin' theater night before f*ckin' last, but I was so f*cked up I can't f*ckin' remember the f*ckin' plot," the profanity adds nothing to the sentence (not even emphasis, because it's so overused). When such a sentence is uttered loudly in a public place I consider it rude, thoughtless, and obnoxious.

Mind you, I'm not trying to justify the use of profanity. I don't think we should use it. From a purely literary perspective though, I think this guy is exactly right.

Even more profanity stupidity

Here is one of the most idiotic things that I read in this discussion on swearing.

How can swearing be less accurate or whatever than the words they are replacing. How is "there was a lot of sh*t in his garage" any different from "there was a lot of stuff in his garage."? It's the same thing!

Does this guy really think that profanity cannot make a statement less accurate? This sounds like a knee-jerk rationalization to me. It's pretty obvious that using a more generic word does make the statement less accurate -- or more precisely, less specific. The two rephrasings certainly are NOT the same thing insofar as the precise meaning of the former is not as readily discerned.

As one guy responded,

You're assuming that the listener knows that "sht*=stuff" in the speaker's mind. Nothing in this phrasing automatically sugggests that, though. None of the verbiage tells you if the speaker is talking about stuff that's mildly annoying, stuff that utterly reprehensible, or just plain "stuff."

Again, I'm not arguing against the use of profanity. That's a whole nuther debate. I just think it's foolish to think that swear words are just as precise or accurate as the words they are intended to replace. They aren't, especially since the same bits of profanity are used in casual contexts, at times of mild annoyance, and in the depths of fury and hellfire.

Yet another excuse for using profanity

The following ridiculous claim was uttered in defense of using profanity.

If I don't understand what a Frenchman says to me, that means that I don't understand French, not that the Frenchman isn't being clear and effective.

One guy responded by saying,

Speaking French or a strong dialect isn't analogous to swearing in English. It's the use to which the language is put, not the language itself that counts here. Some confusion can arise when using swear words (and, indeed to many other imprecise iterations) because they often are used as 'blanket' words. 'Fuck you' is a imprecise blast, used with strong feeling to express distaste of a particular action. It would be more accurate to specify what caused that reaction. The precise response may be not as satisfying or be able to put across the strength of feeling, though.

Yet another person said,

That's a false analogy and you know it. We're not talking about situations wherein people are using unfamiliar words or grammar. Rather, we're talking about situations wherein words are used indiscriminately, thereby robbing them of their impact and the ability to accurately communicate shades of meaning and emotion.

The problem lies in the indiscriminate use of this language. If you routinely use the word "sh*t" to mean excrement, something detestable, and just plain stuff, then the word loses its impact. Far from enhancing accurate communication, it simply serves as a barrier.

This problem isn't merely limited to profanity, BTW. The problem exists even within polite language. For example, I knew a graduate student who routinely described software designs as "good." His use of the word may have been accurate, but it was imprecise. A more effective communicator would be more specific, describing the designs as elegant, or efficient, or perhaps highly maintainable. The descriptor "good" lacked those nuances of meaning, and its indiscriminate use only aggravated that problem.

That's why it's a cop-oput to say that profanity is an excellent means of communication. It's only advantageous if used sparingly. When used indiscriminately, it blurs the distinction between truly aggravating circumstances and minor annoyances -- or worse, the humdrum routines of life.

Obama coins? Commemorative plates?

They're shilling commemorative Barack Obama coins and plates on TV now. That's just insane.

Look, I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican, liberal or conservative. It's a colossally stupid move to engage in such wide-eyed adulation before the man even steps into office. Why not wait and see how well he performs before showering him with these types of accolades? That would just be prudent.

I'd say the same thing about anyone who gets elected to the Presidency. This is why I've always said that we should not erect public monuments or commemorative symbols to living politicians -- or at the very least, politicians who have not yet put in decently long terms.

Excusing profanity

I'm amazed at the lengths that some people would go to do defend profanity. I will heartily agree that profanity can be useful in communicating anger or disgust (though I don't condone its use). However, when people insist that profanity is the most effective way to communicate the depths of one's anger, or even the only way to do so, then that's just absurd. It indicates a complete lack of imagination on their part.

Consider the following exchange I saw in which this topic was debated:

Alright. So you come back from the garage upset about all the stuff in it. How would you express your anger about the situation?

One could launch a litany of insults against whoever caused the mess, or whoever created the stuff. One could wish the longest and most painful of torments on these people, their parents, and their progeny. One could describe the way one wants these people to be hung by their entrails, run through with fiery hot pokers, and forced to consume their own vomit. The list goes on.

I daresay that would be a more effective -- and far less ambiguous -- way of communicating anger than to say "This is all a bunch of sh*t!"

In discussing the use of profanity to convey anger, you said, "What else can convey that meaning?" With all due respect, I daresay that if a person cannot thinks there is no other way to convey the depths of his anger, then this is a reflection of that person's limited imagination and linguistic skill rather than any fundamental limitation of the language itself.

Preach it!

More on profanity

How about the following exchange regarding the use of profanity?

Really nothing conveys anger better than swearing.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you on those points. Since when did swearing become the ultimate means of expressing anger? If anything, I think it's the easiest way to do so -- not necessarily the most effective way. In fact, since a lot of people toss around the f-word and s-word at the drop of a hat, regardless of their emotional state, I'd say that makes profanity a decidedly less effective way of expressing anger.

Is profanity a good way to express anger? Certainly. Is it the best, the ultimate, the most effective way? Only for people who lack imagination.

Swearing gets really old

I like what somebody said about swearing and how tedious it gets to hear someone use profanity all the time:

My husband swears a lot and it's really getting old. S*t, d**n, *ss and an emphatic f**k (she dreamed!) don't bother me at all. But he CONSTANTLY uses f**ker, c**ks**ker and m*th*rf**ker. If you say c**ks**ker or m*th*rf**ker when you drop a piece of bread or burn your finger, you're tapped out. There really isn't much worse that you can say. What if you get hit by a car, or your house burns down, or someone shoots your dog? You've already used up the worst words. Believe me, I can swear like a trucker IF PROVOKED, but overusing curses just makes one sound unintelligent, like you can't think of a smart thing to say. It's like getting into a physical fight (unless you are in danger, someone is attacking you or a loved one, etc.) Gee, I really have nothing intelligent to say, I think I'll just punch this guy or say f**king c*cks**ker because my pills fell on the floor. When you swear a lot, you rob the words of their impact and you just sound like an impatient, short-fused ass. When you hear it every day, it gets old really fast.