Author: Mike

We try not to endorse products, or give away any secrets that give us an edge in life (we need all the edges we can get), but I'll let you in on the big news: Alka-Seltzer Morning Relief. Seriously.

Last night, as a result of a complicated series of events, I ended up drinking a bottle of (cheap, bad) white wine, a fair amount of Old Style, and shots of warm rail gin. This is a bad way to go about drinking. As you can imagine, I woke up with a headache. The type of headache that can only be described in Biblical terms. I still had one more day of class before break, so I hit the Morning Relief and started my day. Within 30 minutes my headache was gone, and I was a functioning member of society once again.

The way it works: it harnesses a natural, healthy way to repair the body – soluble caffeine and aspirin. Now I know what you are thinking: "Mike, I've been taking an aspirin and coffee in the morning for years to deal with hangovers." Fine and good. However, when dissolved in cold water, there is no irritation on the stomach (compared to coffee at least), and the aspirin kicks in right away. This has been optimally engineered to fight hangovers, and my god have the scientists won this battle.

The webpage is entertaining and a good read. Erik has pointed out how the box reads "Headaches / Fatigue / Hangover Symptoms"; the marketers are thinking that if you didn't get it on the first two tries, we'll just tell you this products' purpose. You won't find it at the drugstore; apparently it was the worst selling Alka-Seltzer brand ever. You can order it online, and I encourage you to do so.

If you aren't sold on it yet – three last facts. (1) "Morning relieved" has become a phrase used around my apartment. (2) When I first used it I was so surprised I wanted to Stress Test it, so Erik and I purposely got ourselves drunk in a way to induce hangovers, and we couldn't not feel great after taking the Morning Relief. (3) While packing for a trip to Mardi Gras, the first thing put in the bag was two boxes of Morning Relief. And it was triple-checked before leaving to make sure it was there.

So last weekend I attended a birthday dinner where the crowd was mostly people in Public Health. Several of the people I was seated with did outreach for STDs prevention in parts of Champaign. There was a lull in the conversation, so I asked "What is the most bizarre thing you heard of someone doing that they thought would prevent STD transmissions or pregnancy but clearly wouldn't.

"

One guy at the table said "Well, I have a story that is personal."
Me: "Ok, go."
Guy: "Well, in high school, a girl wanted me to use a baggie since we didn't have a condom."
Me: "Ziploc, or off-brand?"
Guy: "No, not even a seal. The kind of bag you fold over."
Other Girl at table: "You could have used saran wrap."
Guy: "We didn't think of that. She did suggest we use toilet paper.

"

There was a silence over the table, with a growing horror as everyone slowly realized what he was talking about. Getting people to accidently confess to this kind of stuff is probably why I'm not invited to more dinner parties.

Me: "You mean, like wrapping yourself in toilet paper?

[as opposed to plugging her up?]"
Guy: "Yeah. She wanted me to wrap my member in toilet paper and then have sex.

She was really smart otherwise, but she didn't make sense there."
Other Guy, friend of his, coming to defense: "Oh, I've heard of this."
Me: "I don't believe you."
Girl: "Hasn't she seen wet toilet paper?"

I know some people involved with the medical and health fields read this page – was he just dating someone with cognitive defects or is there really a problem with teenagers thinking toilet paper can work as a prophylactic? We've searched the hell out of google and found nothing about this at all, even as an urban legend.

And if you'd like to leave a comment of stories you have heard of where a person though something would constitute "safe" sex but clearly would not do any such thing, it would make for some great Valentine's Day blogging.

I unapologetically love the Fox action show 24. Like many left-of-center people, I tend not to get worried one way or the other about the torture scenes – it's television, it's a plot device, etc. Lately, with the way the show is being turned into a snuff film, the absurdity of it (does Jack have to torture his own brother to save America?!?!?) seems more real than it informing reality.

Evidently not everyone feels this way.

This week the New Yorker has an article about the show 24 and torture. The center of it is about a meeting between General Finnegan, the dean of the United States Military Academy at West Point, who "was accompanied by three of the most experienced military and F.

B.I. interrogators in the country", and the producers and writers of the show.

What was the meeting about? The army wanted them to stop writing torture scenes in 24. Why? In exhibit A of what is going wrong in the War on Terror, the Army can't find recruits, especially for command and intel jobs, who don't believe 24 is completely accurate and legal – ie, the Military can't find cadets who don't want to go out and immediately start torturing suspects a la 24 (bold mine):

In fact, Finnegan and the others had come to voice their concern that the show's central political premise–that the letter of American law must be sacrificed for the country's security–was having a toxic effect. In their view, the show promoted unethical and illegal behavior and had adversely affected the training and performance of real American soldiers. "I'd like them to stop," Finnegan said of the show's producers. "They should do a show where torture backfires."…

At other moments, the discussion was more strained. Finnegan told the producers that "24," by suggesting that the U.S. government perpetrates myriad forms of torture, hurts the country's image internationally. Finnegan, who is a lawyer, has for a number of years taught a course on the laws of war to West Point seniors–cadets who would soon be commanders in the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. He always tries, he said, to get his students to sort out not just what is legal but what is right. However, it had become increasingly hard to convince some cadets that America had to respect the rule of law and human rights, even when terrorists did not. One reason for the growing resistance, he suggested, was misperceptions spread by "24," which was exceptionally popular with his students. As he told me, "The kids see it, and say, 'If torture is wrong, what about "24"?' " He continued, "The disturbing thing is that although torture may cause Jack Bauer some angst, it is always the patriotic thing to do."

"The kids" is condescending rank-and-file military talk, so it is important to clarify that "the kids" are actually the Senior class of West Point – the best of the best, about to head off and fill the leadership and officer roles of our military for the next 50 years.

(I always think people on the pro-, and especially on the ambivalent-towards, torture side should take a quick walk through the chicago reader articles on police torture scandals. For every "ticking-time bomb" scenario you can imagine, the actual implication of your ambivalence is 100,000 "this guy probably doesn't know anything about this low-level felony, but let's make sure" or "he may not have done this crime, but he's guilty of something, let's get a confession" scenarios.)

Read about poor Kiefer, stuck between a great action show, a contract, and his conscience, trying to make "Don't Torture People Young Soldiers!" infomericals for young cadets. Watch an FBI expert who has participated in 12,000 interrogations try explaining how torture doesn't get you anywhere (ie morals aside, it doesn't get you anywhere as an interrogator) while the doughy middle-American staff of 24 goes "sure it doesn't, wink wink." It is good stuff.

The writers and producers are all Rush Limbaugh types (Rush hangs out at the studio). You already know the routine about how elites just don't understand real Americans, who want to feel safe and are willing to compromise. However, this caught me off guard:

["Path to 9/11" writer/producer] Nowrasteh said that he and [co-creator of 24] Surnow regard "24" as a kind of wish fulfillment for America. "Every American wishes we had someone out there quietly taking care of business," he said. "It's a deep, dark ugly world out there. Maybe this is what Ollie North was trying to do. It would be nice to have a secret government that can get the answers and take care of business–even kill people. Jack Bauer fulfills that fantasy.
buy medications online medications/ online no prescription

"

!?!?!? I'm pretty sure I've heard this one before. I love how quickly the "People are scared and need to be comforted" turns into "it's nice to have a secret government that can kill people secretly" (and to hear it from a LA writer/producer type no less!).

In case you are wondering if you can still like 24, this page of 24 sound clips should ease your conscience. The show is worthwhile if only to watch Kiefer do that thing where he repeats lines, just louder and angrier on the second time.

You'll all be happy to note that after three weeks of intensive therapy, Ted Haggard is 100% not gay (image of email at Slate).

One of four ministers who oversaw three weeks of intensive counselling for Rev. Ted Haggard said the disgraced minister emerged convinced that he is "completely heterosexual."…

"He is completely heterosexual," Ralph said. "That is something he discovered. It was the acting-out situations where things took place. It wasn't a constant thing."…

Haggard said in an e-mail Sunday, his first communication in three months to church members, that he and his wife, Gayle, plan to pursue master's degrees in psychology. The e-mail said the family hasn't decided where to move but that they were considering Missouri and Iowa.

buy neurontin online www.artforhealingfoundation.org/wp-includes/Text/Diff/php/neurontin.html no prescription

Another oversight board member, Rev. Mike Ware of Westminster, said the group recommended the move out of town and the Haggards agreed.

"This is a good place for Ted," Ware said. "It's hard to heal in Colorado Springs right now.
online pharmacy fluoxetine best drugstore for you

It's like an open wound. He needs to get somewhere he can get the wound healed.
online pharmacy premarin best drugstore for you

"

It was also the oversight board that strongly urged Haggard to go into secular work.

Thoughts:

1) I need to get me one of these Evangelical wives; if they are willing to follow a guy to Iowa after he spends a good part of their marriage binging on methamphetamines and gay hookers, they'll no doubt find my "weekends begin at 5pm Thursday" and general disorderliness downright charming.

2) I always wondered what goes on at these 'therapy' sessions. Wikipedia has a nice article about the matter, perhaps a bit too much of the (obvious) ethical problems about doing this to teenagers and not enough on the nuts-and-bolts.

(I wonder how much the entire thing is in complete bad faith, with Christian 'healers' working to keep a straight face while explaining to parents how they'll stop their kids from being gay before immediately laughing the $200/hr to the bank. "Ok kid, sit here for an hour; your parents won't kick you out of the house, and I get to buy a new car.

")

2.a) I knew of a friend of a friend who, after coming out to his family during college, started seeing a "Don't Be Gay" therapist arranged through his parents (he, for whatever reason, was trying to meet them halfway). He was also, concurrently, seeing a separate counselor who was helping him adjust to becoming a gay male. Before you start thinking how sad and counterproductive this situation is, think of these three words: "Zany Network Comedy.

" ("Sopranos" meets "Three's Company.") Anyone want to work on a pilot with me?

3) Man, did they run that guy's ass out of town. So much for healing and forgiveness. Hope you saved your money man. Good luck with your online degree.

Not that long ago, Erik upgraded the apartment in Champaign to high-definition television-viewing equipment (a Circuit City open box special, no less). Since then, a lot of high definition television viewing has been going on. One thing that has been noted is how disturbing shows and/or movies with poor production values look in HD (I believe it was first noted with the bad makeup and lighting in Beauty Shop). So it was only a matter of time until this story arrived via the nytimes:

Pornography has long helped drive the adoption of new technology, from the printing press to the videocassette. Now pornographic movie studios are staying ahead of the curve by releasing high-definition DVDs.

They have discovered that the technology is sometimes not so sexy. The high-definition format is accentuating imperfections in the actors — from a little extra cellulite on a leg to wrinkles around the eyes.

…"The biggest problem is razor burn," said Stormy Daniels, an actress, writer and director.

Ms. Daniels is also a skeptic. "I'm not 100 percent sure why anyone would want to see their porn in HD," she said.

…Jesse Jane, one of the industry's biggest stars, plans to go under the knife next month to deal with one side effect of high-definition. The images are so clear that Ms. Jane's breast implants, from an operation six years ago, can be seen bulging oddly on screen.

"I'm having my breasts redone because of HD," she said.

The stretch marks on Ms. Jane from seven years ago when she gave birth to her son are also more apparent. But she deals with those blemishes in a simpler way: by liberal use of tanning spray.

A couple things to note.

(i) Porn actors look strangely awful on grainy VHS tapes. I can't even begin to imagine what they'll look like in high definition.

(ii) Have you ever been to LA? Have you ever noticed how all the women there look vaguely like transsexuals? Like the makeup and hair is so overdone it is almost like they are men doing an over-the-top impersonation of a woman? That's kind of how people look in high definition at times.

(iii) The green color of the grass for football in HD is how I imagine Heaven will be like if it exists. HD is most effective in sporting events.

(iv) For the porn actors above, the simulacra has become more real than the simulation. Their reality needs to start running to keep up with their simulation of their reality. (you should laugh there, it's actually a really funny joke).

(v) Kind of like went I first put on glasses or first did certain substances, watching things in HD feels like it is exercising a part of my brain I didn't know existed. That some previously dormant cluster of nerves in my optic chiasm are suddenly very active watching Boston Legal in HD does not worry me one bit.

Every since Reagan started filling his cabinet with people either too incompetent to do their jobs or who had agendas that ran counter to the actual purpose of the agency, it makes for a fun game to play "Cabinet Member: Incompetent or Dismantler?" Most of the cabinet members these days are jokes, but is it because they are bad at their jobs or because they are purposely trying to dismantle the framework of the Government? Brownie? Incompetent. Elaine Chao? Dismantler.

Keeping this game framework in mind, Alberto Gonzales qualifies for the bonus round of "Incompetent or Evil?" Is he actually this incompetent when it comes to the Constitution, or is he actively working to dismantle the Bill of Rights? I didn't believe this story when I first heard about it; Here is the video to confirm it:

GONZALES: I will go back and look at it. The fact that the Constitution — again, there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away.
online pharmacy premarin best drugstore for you

But it's never been the case, and I'm not a Supreme —

SPECTER: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. The constitution says you can't take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion.
buy zithromax online buy zithromax no prescription

Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?

GONZALES: I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn't say, "Every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas.
online pharmacy vibramycin best drugstore for you

buy dapoxetine online buy dapoxetine no prescription

" It doesn't say that. It simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except by —

SPECTER: You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General.

I just returned from three weeks in Washington DC. If you are there, or you are nearby, I recommend checking out the Shakespeare in Washington 6-month festival. The program includes just about everything you could imagine, from traditional plays to movies to Skinhead Hamlet (will Hamlet be straight-edge?). The thing that takes the cake for me is this staged reading, which, if I read it correctly, will be a blending of LBJ and King Lear.

King Lyndon Lear and His Year of Crisis: A Staged Reading
SMITHSONIAN NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY
Jun. 4

Aging and willing to divest himself of his office and holdings, King Lyndon is beset by bad health, madness, and wars. Believing himself to be a great caretaker of his family of constituents and colleagues, he watches as those same constituents rise up against his policies and compel him to fight against mighty protests at home while he perpetuates an even larger war on foreign soil. Nan Tucker McEvoy Auditorium, 8th and G Sts., NW, Washington, DC. (202) 275-0570.

I can't find any additional details on this, and it may be quite bad. But if the Duke of Cornwall looks like Robert McNamara, or if Lear says something akin to "We are not about to send British boys halfway across the globe to fight in France" I will be so happy I'll explode. Take a good look at this man; he clearly wants his daughters to overstate their affection.

Poor National Review. It has to deal with getting written off as hacks by the older generation of conservatives:

Buckley once quipped, after Garry Wills, Joan Didion, and John Leonard had decamped, that he hadn't realized that he was "running a finishing school for young apostates."…

("[60s NR writer Jeffrey] Hart is clearly uneasy about the rise of the younger generation, which, under the editorship of Richard Lowry, has been generally enthusiastic about the Bush administration. "Perhaps surprisingly, none of these now prominent figures at the magazine had been known for books or even important articles on politics or political thought," he sniffs. "Where they stood on the spectrum of conservative thought–traditionalist, individualist, libertarian, skeptical, Straussian, Burkean, Voegelinian–was completely unknown."),

I don't know what they are talking about with not being intellectual enough. Check that second quote against Jonah Goldberg's FAQ about himself: "You'll note that the second I became quasi-famous for the French-bashing stuff, I all but stopped the French-bashing. Similarly, I cut wayyyy back on quoting The Simpsons once that became sort of my official shtick. " It's kind of like Maxim, but the only product to sell is knee-jerk fratboy libertarianism.

But let's take a peek at what all those brilliant minds were doing back in the day. Let's take a quick moment on Martin Luther King's birthday to go back and see what those important contributors of political thought at the National Review have told us over the years about the Civil Rights movement – the highbrow equivalent of fire hoses and attack dogs (hat tip to Brad Delong).

William F. Buckley, from the February 22, 1956 issue:

On February 6, Miss Autherine J. Lucy went to class at the University of Alabama, which admitted her by the order of a federal court. When she left the building she was assaulted by a mob…. It was the culmination of a weekend of demonstrations against the admission of a Negro…. [T]he nation cannot get away with feigning surprie at the fact that there was a demonstration by students, nor even that the demonstration became ugly and uncontrolled. For in defiance of constitutional practice, with a total disregard of custom and tradition, the Supreme Court a year ago illegalized a whole set of deeply-rooted folkways and mores…. The incident involving Miss Lucy is only one of many such incidents whose occurrence we had better get used to if we intend to enforce the Supreme Court's decision at bayonet point… the consequences of exacting of a whole region of our country compliance with a law that in the opinion of Southerners unsettles the basis of their society. The Supreme Court elected to tamper with organic growth. It must, under the circumstances, accept the fatherhood of social deformity.

Now to L. Brent Bozell, from the June 4, 1963 issue:

The… governor of Alabama, acting for his state, filed a suit in the United States Supreme Court that asked… whether the educated citizens of the Kennedy Administration are concerned with discharging this special responsibility [to uphold the law] or merely with gassing about it…. [D]id the President act within his authority in sending federal troops to Alabama in the wake of the Birmingham riots?…. Alabama's principal contention… is that the Act of Congress under which the President dispatched the troops is unconstitutional… that the 14th amendment… is "null and void"… that the President's actions did not comply with [the act's] conditions….

The statute… a law the Reconstruction Congress enacted in 1871…. [T]he President can send in troops… only when… there must be some "domestic violence" or "insurrection," and let us agree that condition was met b the Negro rioters…. [T]he domestic violence must be the cause… [of] a denial of equal protection… [or] obstruction of federal laws. Now: how in Heaven's name–granted they created a certain amount of havoc–can the Negro riots be said to have caused either of those consequences? Finally, assuming it is a violence-inspired enail of equal protection… the local authorities must have shown themselves either unable or unwilling to deal with the situation. Yet the authorities in Birmingham [police chief "Bull" Connor and Governor George Wallace] apparently did have the matter under control before Kennedy pushed the button….

[T]he legality of the 14th amendment…. The argument that it was improperly ratified is historically irrefragable….

It is undoubtedly too much to hope that Alabama will win her case: the President's cavalier action is not likely to raise many eyebrows on a Court that handed down those sit-in decisions. But… Alabama's lawyers can help but the public straight on who is and who isn't concerned these das with working otu the nation's terrible racial problem within the framework of law.

And for my favorite, let's roll it back to Mr William Buckley to take us home. From 1959:

The soberly-dressed "clerky" little man… seemed oddly unsuited to his unmentioned but implicit role of propagandist…. Let me say at once, for the benefit of the wicked, fearful South, that Martin Luther King wil never rouse a rabble; in fact, I doubt very much if he could keep a rabble awake… past its bedtime… lecture… delivered with all the force and fervor of the five-year-old who nightly recites: "Our Father, Who art in New Haven, Harold be Thy name."…

The history of Negro freedom in the United States…

buy cymbalta online www.bridgebiotechnology.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/png/cymbalta.html no prescription pharmacy

according to Dr. King, is actually a history of Supreme Court decisions… in each of these decisions "the Supreme Court gave validity to the prevailing mores of the times." (That's how they decide, you see? They look up the prevailing mores–probably in the Sunday New York Times.)…

In the future, [according to King] the reactionary white south will try…. Nevertheless, victory is inevitable for the Good Guys…. The Negro must… expect suffering and sacrifice, which he must resist without sacrifice, for this kind of resistance will leqve the violent segregationist "glutted with his own barbarity. Forced to stand before the world and his God splattered with the blood and reeking with the stench of his Negro brother, he will call an end to his self-defeating massacre." (I don't think [King had] really examined that one, do you?)…

In the words of an editorial from next morning's Yale Daily News, "a bearded white listener rose, then a whole row, and then a standing ovation." Did you ever see a standing ovation rise?

buy stendra online www.bridgebiotechnology.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/png/stendra.html no prescription pharmacy

It's most interesting! Anyway, I rose and applauded heartily. I was applauding Dr. King for not saying "the trusth shall make you free," because actually it took the Supreme Court, in this case, didn't it?…

[A] discussion period for undergraduates followed the lecture…. Here was no trace of the sing-song "culluh'd preachuh" chant, the incongruously gaudy phrases…. Martin Luther King… relies almost entirely on force of one kind or another to accomplish integration…. [I]t seems curiously inconsistent to hear him, time after time, suggest power, or force–the force of labor, of legislation, of federal strength–as the solution….

If you are at all interested in the current state of labor economics research (and really, who isn't?), you should read this interesting interview with Berkeley economist David Card, where he gives a high-level overview of his research since the early 90s. He is a brilliant academic, and he has contributed some ground-breaking work to a large number of the important issues of the past 20 years.

You may have heard the name from the New York Times magazine article about economists' views on immigration (where he lead the "not such a big deal" camp; check out his research), and his name shows up in popular debates about the growing inequality. Some of the interview is a bit technical, but the parts on immigration, returns to education, minimum wage and skill-biased technical change are all worth a minute (or several) of your workday time. Excerpt:

[Card] For example, what does it mean for a firm to have a vacancy? If a firm can readily go to the market and buy a worker, there's no such thing as a vacancy, or at least not a persistent vacancy. During the early 1990s, when Alan and I were working on minimum wages, it was our perception that many low-wage employers had had vacancies for months on end. Actually many fast-food restaurants had policies that said, "Bring in a friend, get him to work for us for a week or two and we'll pay you a $100 bonus." These policies raised the question to us: Why not just increase the wage?

From the perspective of a search paradigm, these policies make sense, but they also mean that each employer has a tiny bit of monopoly power over his or her workforce. As a result, if you raise the minimum wage a little–not a huge amount, but a little–you won't necessarily cause a big employment reduction. In some cases you could get an employment increase…