Packaged Beliefs

What is the point of political parties? I don't think I can envision how a democratic system would fail if all politicians ran on their independent philosophy, rather than a subscribed party platform. Party membership allows us to lump a group of diverse individuals into a rigid set of ideological principles, making them all look alike. It makes it easier for us to stamp complex individuals with black or white labels before they even speak.

How is that good?

Politicians who want party support often find themselves having to conform by disavowing principles that may deviate from the platform package. And thus we have these silly bundles of ideology that we can take or leave. So if you're against abortion, then you must also like guns. If you're for gay marriage, then you are pro taxes. If you're a fiscal conservative, then you must also be a social conservative. Besides the word "conservative", what is the connection between spending restraint and nostalgia for old fashioned traditions? How does this make sense? Parties dictate your beliefs as much as your beliefs dictate your party.

What would happen if all members of Congress were independents in mind and title? Wouldn't public discourse actually be a reasoned debate in the absence of a party line to stand behind?

Is sugar really that bad?

If you can’t taste the difference between Coke and Diet Coke, or don’t care, why would you drink regular Coke? Why buy sugar-full gum when you can get sugar-free gum?

If the word Aspartame is unfamiliar to you, it is the artificial sweetener behind almost every “Diet” or “Sugar-Free” product in the world. Originally marketed as NutraSweet and the ingredient behind Equal today, it is 180 times sweeter than sugar and was initially approved by the FDA and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in the 1980’s. Since its accidental discovery in 1965 by the Searle pharmaceutical company, scientists have expressed concerns about its connection with brain tumors, brain lesions and lymphoma.

The official story is that no connection has been proven and that it is safe for consumption. The problem is that the official story is being told by the sweetener and food and beverage industries. Both the FDA and the EFSA approval processes are mired in politics and controversy, involving conflicts of interest and industry-backed studies. Jere Goyan, the head of the FDA, refused to approve it in 1980 citing its cancer connection in rats. When the new president Reagan replaced the FDA head with Arthur Hayes in 1981, aspartame was approved before the year was over. Hayes later joined Searle’s PR firm as a medical adviser.

The topic is so controversial that it has been investigated by almost every major health organization worldwide. It is one of the most tested food additives on the market. Yet for every study that finds a link, there is an opposite one to cancel it out. So where does that leave us? Let’s see.

Of 74 studies funded by Searle, NutraSweet or International Life Sciences (an organization representing hundreds of food and beverage corporations that was banned by the WHO from direct involvement) between 1976 and 1995, 74 found aspartame to be safe. Zero found adverse reactions. http://www.dorway.com/industry.html

Of 92 studies conducted by universities and independent organizations worldwide (including MIT, Washington University, the National Institute of Health and many more) between 1970 and 1998, 7 found aspartame to be safe, 6 of which were funded by the FDA. A stunning 85 found adverse reactions. http://www.dorway.com/nonindus.html

Surprised? Me neither. If the first page of a Google search on “aspartame” or a review of related YouTube videos aren’t enough to scare you, it should at least make you question the validity of the FDA and EFSA’s claims of safety. Throw Donald Rumsfeld in the mix (CEO of Searle in 1981 when the FDA approved it) and the scales of public safety vs. politics just tipped. Rumsfeld personally lobbied for aspartame directly to president Reagan, who had the uncooperative FDA chief replaced.

At which point, you have to ask yourself: is sugar really that bad?

The Word Guardian

I think it crept in when I began to skip the space in "anymore". I have a tendency to spell "eachother" as one word too. It's wrong. But if I spelled it thus here or anywhere else, nobody would have told me so. And I would have continued to think it was acceptable. Except when I type it in Word. Like a diligent parent, it leaves other important tasks like auto saving my work and ironing my towels, to gently point out the error. It doesn't chastise me; it gets back to the ironing, keeping one eye out for me. I dutifully make the correction and move on. It does this to me every time, until I stop doing it. It's teaching me.

Word doesn't have to do this. If it failed to print my paper, I might complain. But this is beyond its responsibilities. It's altruistic.

Not everyone is a well mannered child though. Others see spelling, grammar and structure as an oppressive force. One contrary to American ideals of freedom and self-determination. Like those who "invited Debby and I to the party" because "me" is out of fashion. Descriptivists may balk at Word's presumptuous declarations of fault, but so does every misbehaving teenager in response to parental intervention. Few of us could deny that rules exist for a reason, and that if not obeyed, parents should at least be heeded carefully, for they wish to apply experience and wisdom you don't have to your benefit. As this fact settles in as budding adults, we open ourselves up to criticism as a path to self improvement.

I submit that when an unfortunate soul happens to mention that his "wardrobe is comprised of a dozen raver pants", he is not marching to the beat of a proletarian uprising, asserting his democratic right to participate in raves and deface the English language. He is simply unaware of his mistake. A good parent would point this out (and ask before ironing those pants).

Perhaps when every attempt to misuse "comprise" or "it's", or even use "in regards to" or "as per" or "exact same thing" elicits a protest from your loved ones, the abuse might no longer be seen as an implicit right, but as the celery in your teeth that only those closest to you would care enough to tell you about. This subtle message has the power to restore dignity to us and our language, and effect (or control) change at a massive scale. I therefore suggest that perhaps the only hope left to stem the daily assault on our language comprising redundancies, overused apostrophes, gratuitous commas and fatigued clichés is the benevolent guardian within our desktops and laptops: Microsoft Word.

Word somehow has a level of authority that peers don't. Perhaps because its suggestions are made in private, there is no ego play. In the interest of cultural decency, I therefore call for an expansion of the Microsoft Word grammar dictionary to cover abusive trends and expose mistakes for what they are. A friend did point me to this site, which seems well on its way along these lines. Try checking the culprits mentioned above. If only Microsoft would follow suit.
http://spellcheckplus.com/

Three

That's how many simultaneous layers of commentary NBC managed to stack on top of their live coverage of Yves Rossy's pioneering flight across the English channel with nothing but a strap-on jet-powered wing. It is also the longest pause in seconds I was able to detect from Matt Lauer and associates on the Today Show coverage.

Watching the video, I presume Layer 1 was the British film crew and engineering team. Layer 2 would be the National Geographic (NG) commentator, followed by our friends on the Today Show on Layer 3 (TS), who felt they could add more value to the conversation by drivelling, interrupting one another, and repeating what they (and the viewer) had just heard from Layer 2.

You can only enjoy watching this magnificent feat of flight if you focus your energy tuning everyone out. Here's a gem taken from 2:53 onwards.

TS: "...obviously they didn't put a camera on the, uh, device..."
NG: "...there's also a camera mounted on his wing..."
TS: "that's his helmet camera"
TS: "there's his helmet camera in the upper left hand corner"
NG: "...in the upper left of your screen. That is the view from the wing"
TS: "..oh it's from the wing"
TS: "the wing yea"
TS: "is it a view of his face or the horizon?"
TS: "i think it's the horizon"

If ever there was a moment to consider the wisdom of judicious silence...
http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-us&vid=8f17bf95-205b-45e5-b162-d39267a3a197&fg=rss&from=im_m_25-34

Why are you paying for ads?

There was a time when commercial television was free, entirely subsidised by advertising revenue. Generations of viewers were raised in the latter part of last century with a mutual understanding of the implicit TV contract: in exchange for free programming, you will accept interruptions for commercial advertising.

Then along came Cable, which introduced a fee for the privilege of clear reception and other premium services. Yet the ads did not relent. In fact, the ad-to-programming ratio steadily rose to record heights. Some measures estimate this today at an average of 74%. This means that for every 10 minutes of programming, you get 7.4 minutes of ads. Not to mention the 93% increase in cable rates since 1995.

So why is it that in return for a hefty charge, the TV viewer gets rewarded with more ads rather than fewer? The TV portion of my cable bill comes to $104.82 per month, or $1,257.84 per year. Is this not enough to cover programming costs?

Grammar Police fined to unfix sign

A pair of grammar vigilantes, who have been traveling the country correcting bad grammar on government signs, have just been fined $3,035 for removing an extraneous apostrophe and adding a comma to a sign at the Grand Canyon. The age of the 60-year old sign apparently graced these errors with historical significance.

Rather than rewarding these modern heroes with an Amazon.com gift certificate for saving their government from the embarrassment of linguistic ineptitude, the court ordered the fine to “repair the sign”. One would’ve thought that this is exactly what they did. I have to conclude that the money will be spent to reinstate the offending apostrophe and remove the comma.

When your government goes from passive disinterest in bad grammar to actively investing in it, you need to be worried. Lynne Truss, this country needs you.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26351328/

Roundabouts Rule

People close to me know that I am a huge proponent of roundabouts. They are safer and more efficient than traffic lights, yet they are few and far between in MA or the US in general. Instead, we see traffic lights popping up like mushrooms.

I found a refreshing review of roundabouts here:

http://www.rrstar.com/opinions/columnists/x1341946663/For-safety-efficiency-it-s-time-to-consider-roundabouts

A few key points:

• How many times have you sat at a red light, waiting for nobody to cross the intersection? The light is blind to actual traffic. That doesn't happen at roundabouts.
• The Insurance Institute of Highway Safety has found that converting traffic signals or stop signs to roundabouts reduced injury crashes by 80% and all crashes by 40%
• Roundabouts conserve petrol because there is no idling and hard stop/starts. Vehicle emissions are reduced by 21% - 42%
• More cars go through a roundabout intersection per minute than a traffic light

"Comprise" is becoming a weed

Before you read on, use the word "comprise" in a sentence...

I've noticed an accelerating trend of abuse of the word "comprise" lately. It was ok when the word was raped by the fringes, but the poison is penetrating unofficial linguistic authorities, like book publishers and the media.

A Harvard Business School case that I read recently was the latest such instance. Case # 9-701-132 by Giovanni Gavetti is about the story of Ducati motorbikes. The author's first usage goes: "Their typical distribution systems comprised two types of agents". Great, I thought. I'm happy to see Harvard upholding the lexical standard of a word under siege. Perhaps a reader or two will use this model of a sentence to correct an unconscious mistake of their own. I would not expect any less of Harvard.

But then came the sting: "The accessories and apparel business was comprised of three categories". Giovanni..... Why? Harvard, where were you when this happened? Oh look, what's this word gathering dust behind an unwanted pizza crust? It appears to be "composed". You poor homeless thing, why doesn't anyone love you any more? Were you not hip enough?

How did your own sentence do? When A is made up of B and C, then:

• A comprises B and C
• A is composed of B and C
• A consists of B and C
• B and C constitute A

• A is not comprised of B and C, just like
• A doesn't compose B and C
• A isn't consisted of B and C
• B and C aren't constituted of A

If you got your sentence right, treat yourself to a Wheat Thin™. If you didn't, bookmark this page for reference. You don't have to correct anyone else, though that would be wonderful. Just try to get it right yourself.

How are Somerville and Tylenol™ related?

You'll know if you've ever tried to drive in Somerville, MA. Setting out to purchase yet another piece of DJ equipment from craigslist, I briskly glanced over the google maps directions to this place and naively set out to drive there from memory. According to Google, it was a 15 minute drive.

An hour and ten minutes later, I am still aimlessly wandering around the sign-less spaghetti of streets that scream at all outsiders to leave, if they can, and never come back. And then I found myself trapped in the middle of this intersection. How many Tylenols™ do you need to just look at this picture?