You may be familiar with the old adage 'you are what you eat', but you have to read it in the original German to really get the joke. It was originally coined by the nineteenth century German philosopher Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach. In his essay Concerning Spiritualism and Materialism, Feuerbach wrote:
"Der Mensch ist, was er isst." (The man is what he eats.)
It's a clever pun: in German, 'ist' means 'is', and 'isst' means 'eats'. Feuerbach, a firm atheist, was not trying to give dietary advice, but rather was making a fiercely materialist point about the biological, non-divine status of man.
25 February 2008
22 February 2008
How not to be an agent of germ warfare
YouTube: Why don't we do it in our sleeves?
If you think it's proper to cover your mouth with your hand when you sneeze or cough, you need to watch this CDC-approved video and learn the correct way to stop spreading germs.
If you think it's proper to cover your mouth with your hand when you sneeze or cough, you need to watch this CDC-approved video and learn the correct way to stop spreading germs.
16 February 2008
Witch
True story: once a rather pathetic man found that he couldn't maintain an erection, but he didn't want to accept his loss of virility as the due course of nature. So he accused a poor illiterate woman of being a witch, and blamed his impotence on her sorcery. She was sentenced to death.
In what year did this take place? 1440? 1693?
Try 2005.
BBC: Pleas for condemned Saudi 'witch'
The illiterate woman was detained by religious police in 2005 and allegedly beaten and forced to fingerprint a confession that she could not read.
Among her accusers was a man who alleged she made him impotent.
Witchcraft.
It's the year 2008, and people are still being sentenced to death for witchcraft.
Sadly, backwards nonsense like this can still pass as legitimate in certain parts of the world, thanks to religion's enduring power to advocate even the most astonishing kinds of ignorance and injustice.
It's no coincidence that the witch trials of Salem and the Spanish Inquisition were also motivated by religious belief. As H. L. Mencken pointed out, "Any half-wit, by the simple device of ascribing his delusions to revelation, takes on an authority that is denied the rest of us." Would accusations of witchcraft in the modern day be taken as anything but ridiculous, if it weren't for that they are sponsored by a religion?
In what year did this take place? 1440? 1693?
Try 2005.
BBC: Pleas for condemned Saudi 'witch'
The illiterate woman was detained by religious police in 2005 and allegedly beaten and forced to fingerprint a confession that she could not read.
Among her accusers was a man who alleged she made him impotent.
Witchcraft.
It's the year 2008, and people are still being sentenced to death for witchcraft.
Sadly, backwards nonsense like this can still pass as legitimate in certain parts of the world, thanks to religion's enduring power to advocate even the most astonishing kinds of ignorance and injustice.
It's no coincidence that the witch trials of Salem and the Spanish Inquisition were also motivated by religious belief. As H. L. Mencken pointed out, "Any half-wit, by the simple device of ascribing his delusions to revelation, takes on an authority that is denied the rest of us." Would accusations of witchcraft in the modern day be taken as anything but ridiculous, if it weren't for that they are sponsored by a religion?
08 February 2008
Atoms
"At sea level, at a temperature of 32 degrees Fahrenheit, one cubic centimeter of air (that is, a space about the size of a sugar cube) will contain 45 billion billion molecules. And they are in every single cubic centimeter you see around you. Think about how many cubic centimeters there are in the world outside your window - how many sugar cubes it would take to fill that view. Then think about how many it would take to build a universe. Atoms, in short, are very abundant.
"They are also fantastically durable. Because they are so long lived, atoms really get around. Every atom you possess has almost certainly passed through several stars and been part of millions of organisms on its way to becoming you. We are each so atomically numerous and so vigorously recycled at death that a significant number of our atoms - up to a billion for each of us, it has been suggested - probably once belonged to Shakespeare. A billion more came from Buddha and Genghis Khan and Beethoven, and any other historical figure you care to name.
"So we are all reincarnations - though short-lived ones. When we die our atoms will disassemble and move off to find new uses elsewhere - as part of a leaf or other human being or drop of dew. Atoms, however, go on practically forever. Nobody actually knows how long an atom can survive, but according to Martin Rees it is probably about 10^35 years - a number so big that even I am happy to express it in notation."
Bill Bryson, A Short History of Nearly Everything, p. 133-134
"They are also fantastically durable. Because they are so long lived, atoms really get around. Every atom you possess has almost certainly passed through several stars and been part of millions of organisms on its way to becoming you. We are each so atomically numerous and so vigorously recycled at death that a significant number of our atoms - up to a billion for each of us, it has been suggested - probably once belonged to Shakespeare. A billion more came from Buddha and Genghis Khan and Beethoven, and any other historical figure you care to name.
"So we are all reincarnations - though short-lived ones. When we die our atoms will disassemble and move off to find new uses elsewhere - as part of a leaf or other human being or drop of dew. Atoms, however, go on practically forever. Nobody actually knows how long an atom can survive, but according to Martin Rees it is probably about 10^35 years - a number so big that even I am happy to express it in notation."
Bill Bryson, A Short History of Nearly Everything, p. 133-134
07 February 2008
Dirty Money
In a simultaneous admission of weakness and betrayal of principle, Hillary Clinton pumped five million dollars of her own money into her campaign yesterday.
Blithely calling her massive self-donation a "loan," Hillary said that she wrote herself a check because "I believe in this campaign and I think the results last night proved the wisdom of my investment."
The subtext here is undeniable. She believes in her own campaign, but thinks the belief of others hasn't been sufficient. She considers her campaign a wise investment, but one risky enough that she needs to shore it up with her own cash.
But most outrageous is the message Hillary is sending: I can buy my way to the White House. If I'm not getting enough support from the people, I'll just make up the difference with my own bank account. I'll get to the Oval Office with or without you - I've got the cash to do it. The Presidency has a pricetag, and I can afford the down payment.
Barack Obama's campaign also got a financial boost the day after Super Tuesday. While Hillary cut herself a check for five million dollars, Barak raised six million. It came not from his bank account, but from hundreds of thousands of his supporters.
The messages of each campaign are clear. Hillary thinks that the White House can be bought. Barack is demonstrating that it must be earned through the support of the people.
Blithely calling her massive self-donation a "loan," Hillary said that she wrote herself a check because "I believe in this campaign and I think the results last night proved the wisdom of my investment."
The subtext here is undeniable. She believes in her own campaign, but thinks the belief of others hasn't been sufficient. She considers her campaign a wise investment, but one risky enough that she needs to shore it up with her own cash.
But most outrageous is the message Hillary is sending: I can buy my way to the White House. If I'm not getting enough support from the people, I'll just make up the difference with my own bank account. I'll get to the Oval Office with or without you - I've got the cash to do it. The Presidency has a pricetag, and I can afford the down payment.
Barack Obama's campaign also got a financial boost the day after Super Tuesday. While Hillary cut herself a check for five million dollars, Barak raised six million. It came not from his bank account, but from hundreds of thousands of his supporters.
The messages of each campaign are clear. Hillary thinks that the White House can be bought. Barack is demonstrating that it must be earned through the support of the people.
02 February 2008
Bag It
Every two minutes, one million plastic bags are used worldwide. That's 42 billion bags per month. Yes, you read that correctly. About 100 plastic bags are used yearly for every person on the planet.
Because of their flimsiness, most people dispose of plastic bags after one or two uses. Because of their chemical composition, the planet is stuck with them. You may have only needed it to carry your Cheerios, bread, and milk to your car that one night, but that bag will sit on the face of the Earth for a long, long time.
We live in a bagging culture. In America, there is a tacit understanding among all retailers that transactions only become complete when the purchased item is placed in a plastic bag for the customer.
It's always unnecessary, and sometimes it's downright stupid. You go into a music store, and buy a CD. They place it in a bag that is only slightly larger than the CD itself. Is it supposed to be easier to carry the CD in a little bag than it is to just carry the CD in your hand?
I was once in Staples, and bought a tube of superglue. It weighed 0.7 oz. They tried to give me a tiny bag for it. The bag probably weighed half as much as the purchase itself, and would have afforded me no advantage whatsoever in transporting the burdensome item all of the fifty feet to my car. (I put it - how did I ever think of this? - in my pocket instead.)
The fact of such prepostorous wastefulness is apparently lost on retailers, who will rush to bag any item, no matter what the size or shape or weight, once you've bought it.
It need not and should not be this way. Take the case of Ireland, as reported in this article by the New York Times:
In 2002, Ireland passed a tax on plastic bags; customers who want them must now pay 33 cents per bag at the register. There was an advertising awareness campaign. And then something happened that was bigger than the sum of these parts.
Within weeks, plastic bag use dropped 94 percent. Within a year, nearly everyone had bought reusable cloth bags, keeping them in offices and in the backs of cars. Plastic bags were not outlawed, but carrying them became socially unacceptable — on a par with wearing a fur coat or not cleaning up after one’s dog.
“I used to get half a dozen with every shop. Now I’d never ever buy one,” said Cathal McKeown, 40, a civil servant carrying two large black cloth bags bearing the bright green Superquinn motto. “If I forgot these, I’d just take the cart of groceries and put them loose in the boot of the car, rather than buy a bag.”
Today, Ireland’s retailers are great promoters of taxing the bags. “I spent many months arguing against this tax with the minister; I thought customers wouldn’t accept it,” said Senator Feargal Quinn, founder of the Superquinn chain. “But I have become a big, big enthusiast.”
It's not hard. It really isn't. I started keeping canvas tote bags in my car a couple of years ago, and I haven't used a plastic bag since.
People are lazy, though, and have come to feel entitled to a useless bag as part of their shopping experience, so we need a tax like Ireland's. Of course, at the beginning, customers and shopkeepers alike will whine. But they will change their minds. Soon retailers can stop ordering bags, and shoppers will forget why they ever put up with the annoying things clogging up their trash in the first place.
America needs such a tax more than anywhere else. It's this country that puts a gallon of milk in two plastic bags, instead of having you just carry the jug by the handle (which is, presumably, designed for carrying). It's this country that puts items into a tiny bag when they could just as easily go into your pocket. And it's this country that will set the record in leaving behind these flimsy monuments to shortsighted indolence and stupidity.
Because of their flimsiness, most people dispose of plastic bags after one or two uses. Because of their chemical composition, the planet is stuck with them. You may have only needed it to carry your Cheerios, bread, and milk to your car that one night, but that bag will sit on the face of the Earth for a long, long time.
We live in a bagging culture. In America, there is a tacit understanding among all retailers that transactions only become complete when the purchased item is placed in a plastic bag for the customer.
It's always unnecessary, and sometimes it's downright stupid. You go into a music store, and buy a CD. They place it in a bag that is only slightly larger than the CD itself. Is it supposed to be easier to carry the CD in a little bag than it is to just carry the CD in your hand?
I was once in Staples, and bought a tube of superglue. It weighed 0.7 oz. They tried to give me a tiny bag for it. The bag probably weighed half as much as the purchase itself, and would have afforded me no advantage whatsoever in transporting the burdensome item all of the fifty feet to my car. (I put it - how did I ever think of this? - in my pocket instead.)
The fact of such prepostorous wastefulness is apparently lost on retailers, who will rush to bag any item, no matter what the size or shape or weight, once you've bought it.
It need not and should not be this way. Take the case of Ireland, as reported in this article by the New York Times:
In 2002, Ireland passed a tax on plastic bags; customers who want them must now pay 33 cents per bag at the register. There was an advertising awareness campaign. And then something happened that was bigger than the sum of these parts.
Within weeks, plastic bag use dropped 94 percent. Within a year, nearly everyone had bought reusable cloth bags, keeping them in offices and in the backs of cars. Plastic bags were not outlawed, but carrying them became socially unacceptable — on a par with wearing a fur coat or not cleaning up after one’s dog.
“I used to get half a dozen with every shop. Now I’d never ever buy one,” said Cathal McKeown, 40, a civil servant carrying two large black cloth bags bearing the bright green Superquinn motto. “If I forgot these, I’d just take the cart of groceries and put them loose in the boot of the car, rather than buy a bag.”
Today, Ireland’s retailers are great promoters of taxing the bags. “I spent many months arguing against this tax with the minister; I thought customers wouldn’t accept it,” said Senator Feargal Quinn, founder of the Superquinn chain. “But I have become a big, big enthusiast.”
It's not hard. It really isn't. I started keeping canvas tote bags in my car a couple of years ago, and I haven't used a plastic bag since.
People are lazy, though, and have come to feel entitled to a useless bag as part of their shopping experience, so we need a tax like Ireland's. Of course, at the beginning, customers and shopkeepers alike will whine. But they will change their minds. Soon retailers can stop ordering bags, and shoppers will forget why they ever put up with the annoying things clogging up their trash in the first place.
America needs such a tax more than anywhere else. It's this country that puts a gallon of milk in two plastic bags, instead of having you just carry the jug by the handle (which is, presumably, designed for carrying). It's this country that puts items into a tiny bag when they could just as easily go into your pocket. And it's this country that will set the record in leaving behind these flimsy monuments to shortsighted indolence and stupidity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
