of town until monday. i might blog while away, but it's not likely. have a good weekend!

after the tsunami hit, headlines repeatedly emphasized the need for therapists to aid traumatized victims. although surely most agree that resources should go to food, clean water, and shelter before all else, afterwards why not send bands of professionals to patch up wounded psyches while physical wounds heal?

the problem, of course, is that therapists burn resources. this trade-off may be justified if the aid brings real relief, but psychiatrist sally satel writes that such measures may not just unhelpful; they're often flat-out ignored:

Kenneth Miller, a psychologist in the Bosnian Mental Health Program in Chicago, saw much suffering among his clients - they had been placed in concentration camps before migrating to the United States - yet the most successful feature of his program was not therapy, which most clients rejected anyway. It was practical help like education and job training.

it may make us feel good to send psychologists to talk about feelings and repressed trauma, but most crisis victims in developing countries are at a different place in the hierarchy of needs than our therapy techniques were developed to address. we should recognize this, realize that psychology is not magic, and concentrate our efforts where they can help the most.

first cousins forbidden from matrimony in pennsylvania got their chance at marital bliss in maryland today. the groom admitted even his hesitation when he said that you just can't control who you fall in love with.

our society and lawmakers insist (no pun intended) on enforcing this restriction in a thinly veiled attempt to enforce what most of us recognize clearly as a cultural taboo. we do this even in spite of the knowledge that there is at most an extremely low risk of any kind of genetic defect for this particular kind of union. even a low risk is not good legal justification, as i'm aware of no laws banning marriage or reproduction amongst individuals with serious genetic risks. of course, few seriously try to justify this law based on science. i mean, it's gross. right?

Labels: social

charity marathon programs not only raise large sums and awareness for their causes, but apparently also have the unintended consequence of popularizing running. this not only raises money, but also presumably makes the population a bit healthier and therefore less susceptible to illnesses such as cancer.

of course, there are some sour grapes - serious marathon runners who call charity runners a "nuisance." i'm willing to bet these folks will likely amend their opinions if ever afflicted with leukemia, breast cancer, or AIDS.

read more.

aaaaand, now for the plug: if you're feeling left out, donate to my walk for the leukemia & lymphoma society.

Labels: social

involuntary committal is a contentious subject in mental health. recently i came across a story that nicely highlights its danger. this situation's extreme nature serves as a reminder that health professionals are just as likely to abuse power as anyone else:

A Longboat Key psychologist has been sentenced to ten weekends in jail for lying on forms to involuntarily commit a griping neighbor who later died. Holli Bodner had a yearlong feud with Jean Pierre Villar about street lights and dog poop before committing him to a mental health center in April 2003.

psychiatric hospitals are often frightening and dehumanizing places. they are similar to jails and should be taken seriously. if we must involuntarily commit, lawmakers should narrowly designate who should receive that onerous power or restructure the sentencing rules to allow more objective sentencing. even criminals get a trial by elected official, whereas the mentally "ill" are often "jailed" without due process.

actually, it is not clear to me that we must involuntarily commit at all. if we take seriously the concept of self-ownership (a dubious assumption), only those who willingly choose to enter such facilities, or those ordered by courts in lieu of or along with criminal punishment, would do so. even those individuals presenting a threat to or actually harming themselves could not be committed, as with total self-ownership comes the right to destroy one's property.

the rest of the cases would involve a citizen or official's feeling that the individual poses a threat to others. i've mentioned earlier that it's very dangerous to make legal decisions on grounds as subjective as feelings, but in addition this preemptive condition means we're jailing people who have done nothing wrong but instead look like they someday might. law has dealt with cases such as these before, in particular as regards stalking and threats of homicide. it is not clear to me why we should handle the mentally "ill" differently, except in their treatment if convicted.

Labels: decision making, misc. psych

john wrote that only a miracle (of the Christian variety) could save terri now, and thankfully he was right.

it seems that legally the schiavo case was blessedly clear-cut in favor of mr. schiavo. that the executive and legislative interventions were ineffectual in spite of the media frenzy and public outcry and that judges were able to hold their ground despite these pressures both say something truly great about the law here in the US. in far too many other countries, authorities might well have taken control regardless of law or precedent. one only needs to scan international news – particularly in africa and transition nations – to see flagrant abuse of power.

in contrast, florida’s governor, although guilty of the iniquitous crime of being a bush, stated he simply could and would not overstep his powers. it’s not because he didn’t want to.

people will be people, and power paired with empathy tends to make some feel they should step beyond the law. this time, however, it did not work. in the face of such a powerful story, we can uphold our court decisions – even in spite of intrusions from both other branches of government.

whether or not the outcome is morally right is a different matter.

religious activists have politicized the schiavo case as a war against immoral secular law and fail to mention any conflict inside Christianity. to me, the Christian perspective is even less clear than the legal case. it is not clear to me which of our unhappy alternatives - allowing her to die or artificially prolonging her life in that state - would really be “saving” her. the answer may very well be neither – perhaps we could not save her at all, no matter the ruling. although it’s a hard answer to swallow, it may just be the right one.

Labels: social

i’m optimistic about our human ability to navigate the world with responsibility and a keen eye on what's best for us, but at times the news calls this prejudice into question:

A Czech tractor driver died under eight tons of manure in a bizarre accident that has baffled his employers, local media reported.

i’ve submitted it to the darwin awards website.

and yes, the "load of shit" joke has already been made...

DC residents cringed in unison when police announced they would add more speeding cameras to their arsenal. it seems there are two standard oppositions to the camera program - the first that it is "unfairly" enforcing the law only to enrich police department coffers, and the second that it is a violation of privacy.

the most serious concern is one of privacy, but cameras actually ensure greater privacy. they do take an up-close picture of the license, but that's hardly a legitimate invasion of personal privacy as the license is government property. even if it is, it's far better than the alternative. cameras are used instead of flesh-and-blood police officers who would be nosier than an electronic optical lens. the officer would definitely see both the operator and the inside of his/her car if s/he where pulled over, which is a much bigger concern.

cameras are better for police department budgets, which may be better for taxpayers too. not requiring pensions, retirement, or health benefits, they're much cheaper. they're also less of a liability. a more efficient department is good for the citizenry because, theoretically, it will stymie tax hikes.

a faster and more convenient way to be fined, cameras also are more efficient even for the lawbreaker. those who have been pulled over recall that it's not a pleasant experience. although receiving a ticket in the mail is not fantastic, one can deal with at his/her convenience at least, and not have to deal with obnoxious officers.

by reducing the chance that punishment is subject to an officer's whims and prejudices, cameras help maintain a more objective rule of law. consistency in law enforcement should not be lamented, and any step to increase consistency and decrease subjective, erratic enforcement is good.

cameras are simply a way to cheaply enforce a law citizens and lawmakers feel is best for the safety of pedestrians and drivers alike. those who have problems with cameras should investigate their objection further and may find they really oppose speed limits - at least unreasonable ones.

you can always try civil disobedience if you don't like it.

update: tim points out that universal enforcement has another benefit: forcing people to reevaluate their (implicit or otherwise) support for silly laws. check it out!

i've been trying (unsuccessfully) to win an ebay item in the MAPS auction, and came across a really cool organization: missionfish.

this organization exists to verify that ebay profits are actually going to benefit the charity. to get the missionfish seal of approval, the nonprofit must meet certain standards, including that it can't promote violence or hate.

read the missionfish story.

dc councilmember catania wants to use eminent domain to take drug patents and license them to generic manufacturers. dc residents are being priced out of necessary medications by predatory business practices, he claims. this sounds like a first cousin of communism to me.

i’m skeptical that we really need patents to promote entrepreneurship in the first place, as many industries seem to survive just fine without them (coke and pepsi syrups being good examples). this drug proposition is far worse than simply allowing the private sector to create look-alikes by analyzing their competitor’s formula. it’s simply stealing for the sake of the public good. this is much worse because the competing companies won’t have to guess about trade secrets – they’ll get the exact formula.

it will wipe out any incentive whatsoever to create new drugs. why would companies waste money to create a new drug if, when it’s found to be life-saving, they knew they would likely be forced to hand the discovery to the government? with no assurance that their work could be kept private, therefore profitable, i predict research and ingenuity in pharmaceuticals would plummet. some nonprofits and government-funded projects would plod ahead with AIDS vaccine and cancer research, but at current levels those alone cannot generate enough money to fund the extortionately expensive research going on now.

we’d do better to get rid of patent laws if poor folks are indeed unable to get necessary medications, which i sincerely doubt.

oh, and what is "necessary medication," anyway?

read doug bandow’s take.

thanks to scotty b. for the heads up on this.

psychology today features their top 10 most misguided ideas stemming from psychological theory. to get on the list, the ideas must be disproved but still widely used in practice. it's an amusing, though biased, read ("disproved," after all, is somewhat subjective). some remind us how far we've come in so little time. highlights:

• the idea that launched a thousand suits: recovered memories
• meanest: correctional boot camps (doesn't maury povich send kids there?)
• the pt barnum medal for mass-market potential: mozart babies

other awards include "most twisted" and "most bureaucratic." i wonder what things are now in fashion that will one day be on this list... adhd drugs, perhaps?

Labels: misc. psych

the new scientist writes on ernst fehr's research suggesting that altruism is actually inborn. this is a terribly interesting and controversial vein of research that investigates fascinating aspects of human behavior, including that we seem to have a set idea of what is "fair" and a willingness to punish the unfair even at a cost.

the article questions how altruism fits in with evolutionary psychology - why would we punish others for not being altruistic if it hurt us? one, um, interesting take:

One possibility, Trivers suggests, is that evolution actually is wiping these people out - it just hasn't finished the job yet. ... it is the benefits we gained from reciprocal altruism in our evolutionary past that lead us to behave with "inappropriate" altruism in experiments like Fehr's, Trivers says.

not everyone agrees with trivers' theory, and the article cites studies indicating that cooperation, which involves punishment of those not cooperating, was an important social goal in ancestral life, so:

...true altruism, far from being a maladaptation, may be the key to our species' success by providing the social glue that allowed our ancestors to form strong, resilient groups. It is still crucial for social cohesion in today's very different world. "Something like it had to evolve," Gintis says.

more on this research.

via (i think?) a & l daily.

Labels: decision making

drug substitution therapy (dst) is praised for weaning addicts off of highly addictive drugs such as heroin. methadone targets the same receptors as heroin does, satiating the heroin itch as well as preventing heroin use from inducing euphoria for a protracted period of time. it provides some, but not all, of heroin's euphoric effects itself. euphoria is not the only commonality between heroin and methadone. in fact, methadone is even more addictive than its illicit counterpart, and therefore makes cravings and withdraw worse when its use is halted.

methadone and heroin are so similar that it seems the main benefit methadone has is its legality. in truth, dst has been successful; it is linked to a decrease in overdose rates and involvement in illegal activity. however, most of these problems and others, including HIV contraction from needle recycling, stem not from the drug, but from its scarcity and illegality.

overdose often occurs with heroin because potency is not assured - there is no industry standard, no way of knowing what concentration the substance is. with methadone, its dosage is well labeled and there is legal recourse if the labeling is inaccurate. the price of illegal drugs is inflated by as much as 17,000 percent according to stanford's hoover institution, providing an obstacle to purchasing drugs without stealing, and creating big incentives for the illegal drug trade. the inability to enforce business contracts via legal mechanisms leads to gang wars and crime. although some may still claim the drug war is worth it, these reasons and more have persuaded me.

china just awarded its first set of licenses for psychologists, who will now be able to strike out and open clinics. that's good news for both chinese entrepreneurs and many in the population, as china's government press xinhuan reports that over 16 million chinese suffer from mental disorders.

i realized the utility of my new camera phone the other day while hanging out with my friend darrell in gettysburg, and had to share. we took some liberties with the very silly "return visit" sculpture at lincoln square, placed there in the early 90's by the lincoln fellowship of pennsylvania. although most of the pictures didn't turn out well (the technology isn't perfected) here are a few:

lincoln's friend isn't as honest as his cable knit sweater led us to believe. the image quality isn't great, but can you see he's taking the wallet out of my pocket? sneaky.

Labels: personal

researchers have speculated that male and female aptitude test scores diverge because women are more influenced by test anxiety. a recent study at my alma mater finds that brainpower matters, too when it comes to the effects of anxiety:

...testing anxiety reduces the ability of very smart people to tap into what experts call their "working memory capacity."

These highly intelligent test-takers choked under pressure, losing their advantage over normally less-adept participants. On the other hand, stress didn't seem to affect the scores of less intelligent participants.

as working memory is the amount of information one can hold and process at a given time, intelligence and working memory have been inexorably linked. those with a large working memory tend to rely on this ability, whereas those without may rely on other strategies. so when stress decreases working memory abilities, the more intelligent feel it the most. this handicap shows that the standard view of intelligence reported on IQ tests is unable to fully predict performance.

"The bottom line," Gray said, "is that there's a lot more to what it means to be a person than raw computational power. If you think about that as being intelligence, that's a limited view."

so does this study, combined with the previous gender study, indicate that smart women are doubly screwed? perhaps, but the good news is that rehearsing the test can help prevent anxiety, and bulking up on skills such as educated guessing can help when anxiety does prevent your ability to work things out in your head.

update: just adding reference below.

source: beilock, s. l. and carr, t. h. when high-powered people fail: working memory and "choking under pressure" in math. psychological science 16, 2

from medical news today:

when researchers at the University of Pittsburgh discovered that immature rat brain cells could fire a simultaneous three-punch salvo - three neurotransmitters bursting out of a single cell -- it was a finding they knew would excite more than just neurons.

Just as surprising, they report in the lead article of this month's Nature Neuroscience, is that by definition these three neurotransmitters are seemingly at odds with each other. One, glutamate, is a textbook excitatory neurotransmitter; while the other two, GABA and glycine, are quintessential inhibitory neurotransmitters.

this discovery may not seem like a big deal to some, but it alters the traditional conception of neuronal communication. previously, the communication rule was: one signal, one neurotransmitter, one message. although this was simplistic, it made sense - how can one neuron communicate multiple messages at once based on an all-or-nothing signal from it's partner?

with this we understand that one signal can release both excitatory and inhibitory signals, potentially all activating the same receptor (NMDA). as this sheds light on how inhibitory signals work in the brain, researchers naturally hope it will aid understanding of disorders of those signals, such as epilepsy.

reference: deda c gillespie, gunsoo kim, and karl kandler. inhibitory synapses in the developing auditory system are glutamatergic. nature neuroscience 8, 332 - 338 (2005) published online: 30 January 2005; doi:10.1038/nn1397

Labels: neuroscience

the multidisciplinary association for psychedelic studies (whom i've blogged about earlier), is holding an ebay auction to raise money to support its operational costs. much of their time is spent finagling government agencies to let researchers work with unconventional drugs such as ecstasy and marijuana.

some of the items for sale are – ah - interesting…

wired reports

Labels: drugs

at-home genetic testing is now available from numerous companies. the benefits are great - they're cheap, convenient, and fast. results are available online, and aren't typically recorded in medical histories, keeping information private:

'We are empowering patients with knowledge,' said Ryan Phelan, who recently launched the San Francisco-based testing company DNA Direct."

genetic testing from a local doctor or hospital is expensive and limited. entrepreneurs want to bring this useful technology to more people, particularly those without good insurance to cover hospital testing.

however, not everyone is excited about the blossoming testing business. although testing companies often employ their own doctors and genetic counselors, officials, no doubt at the urging of powerful lobbying groups, are concerned. they worry that there are not enough medical resources available to help patients interpret their results, and that the do-it-yourself flavor will cut primary physicians out of the loop.

doctor lobbies have unsuccessfully attempted to block home testing in other areas, such as for hiv, where the american medical association went so far as to call do-it-yourself testing a "public health concern." when medicine and government are tied so closely together, we inevitably get officials making rulings that stifle innovation and withhold technological advances from everyone.

university of virginia researchers have found more evidence for the nature side of the nature vs. nurture debate. research on mice found

evidence that an estrogen receptor in the hypothalamus called ERb regulates defeminization, a process by which males lose the ability to display female-type behavior in adulthood. Defeminization is believed by many experts to be the main neurological process that differentiates males and females before birth.

researchers hypothesize that the receptor acts to turn on and off other genes that determine critical neural structure. the political war on whether behavioral differences between men and women are largely social or biological may be resolved not in women's studies programs, but the laboratory.

more on the neurological differences between men and women.

via world of psychology

attention deficit hyperactivity disorder's symptoms include distractibility, forgetfulness, impulsiveness, and restlessness. as a child it can harm one's studies, and as an adult it can negatively influence one's career. blogging is also a manifestation of the disorder for many who capitalize off the significant advantages - yes, advantages - that adhd gives them to create diverse, frequently updated, websites.

in fact, adhd has many advantages when harnessed correctly, says psychologist lara honos-webb. adhd is often paired with "creativity, exuberance and intuition." in the same article at careerjournal.com, jetblue's ceo david neeleman claims the disorder has been a major positive driving force by helping him " think unconventionally." those seem like good blogger traits to me. really, they seem like good traits in general.

bloggers, adhd or no, can't seem to shake off a bad reputation in the workplace. employers should not write off their bloggers so quickly, and not just because of the benefits of their adhd-like traits. the ever-interesting zach lynch notes that practice helps promote analytical, creative, intuitive, associational, and analogical thinking, all of which can be help you become not just a better person, but also a better employee.

tip on careerjournal.com article via the week magazine.

i’ve always been teased for my “irrational” phobia of dams. to reinforce my neurosis, tonight on dateline i saw that recently a boat and its owner, dirk hoekstra, were literally sucked into a dam in texas after his boat’s engine stopped working. part of the boat remained with a woman trapped on it:

The woman, Monica Barnes, was pulled unhurt to safety as she clung to the boat. Hoekstra, 34, was swept out of the boat, through the dam’s floodgates and down a 60-foot waterfall to Town Lake. His clothes ripped off during the tumble, Hoekstra swam to shore and summoned help from a nearby apartment. He suffered only scrapes and bruises.

He told KEYE-TV, the CBS station in Austin, that he thought be was going to die. "It was like a horror movie," said Hoekstra. “I’m pretty beat up, but I’m here," he told the Austin American-Statesman the following day.

Video cameras were rolling as the boat was sucked under floodgates and completely destroyed. The TV report quoted officials as saying that all that was found of the boat was a 14-by-20-inch piece of wood.

HOLY CRAP, watch the video footage. and for those who enjoy sick interactive toys, estimate the loss of life online due to failure of a dam near you when one malfunctions.

private dam owners have a reason to maintain their dams because they can (or should be) held liable for life and property loss if the dam ruptured, a potentially bankrupting event. so at first i'd say it's better to have privately owned dams, and in fact, over half of dams are indeed privately owned in the u.s.

empirically, though, private dams may not be better. the state of alabama claims that many dams are private and in a state of disrepair (from looking at the maps they present, i can safely promise never to move to alabama).

so perhaps some things are just a bad idea no matter how you slice them. private may be cheaper and safer, but it's still not good. however in a pure private property system a dam may never even be built in the first place because the builder would have to get consent from each and every individual whose property was directly impacted by the change in water flow. by consent i mean real consent, not ikea-eminent domain consent. i can't imagine that happening very often.

there's a new pill - progenitorivox - and it's designed to cure anything and everything. that is, if you can take the side effects which include male lactation, deportation, bankruptcy, and hallucinations of a warbling canadian moose. check out the ad.

but progenitorivox isn't real of course; it's the design of the “consumers union.” the consumers union's objective is not to mock consumers and their serious health problems, such as erectile dysfunction and clinical depression, but rather to push legislation forcing pharmaceutical companies to make the results of their clinical trials public. their effort has been dubbed

the FACT [The Fair Access to Clinical Trials] Act, requiring drug companies to make public all the results of their clinical trials so we’ll know about potentially harmful side effects. And it must create an independent office of drug safety in the Food and Drug Administration to ensure quick action is taken when safety concerns are raised.

on the face of it, the act sounds innocuous - why shouldn't we outlaw certain drugs, which the act would eventually lead to, based on the results of a clinical trial? even putting aside the privacy concerns this raises, the act seems like a bad idea. i am leery of unpublished studies and studies not published in peer-reviewed journals, as is the case with most clinical trials. in general, i believe researchers share in this opinion. so, if it's not good enough for science, why is it good enough for law? criminalizing a sick patient's treatment preference based on a study done by a private company that has neither been replicated nor reviewed seems unjustifiable.

the new york times thinks it’s a great idea though, but does give drug companies a few lines of defense:

"It's a catchy jingle all right and good for a laugh," said Jeff Trewhitt, a spokesman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, "but we really ought to be having serious conversations about how best to help doctors and their patients choose the right medicines."

via gawker, of all places.

Labels: drugs, social

one of my favorite people, michael munger, has an excellent article up entitled, intriguingly, "the thing itself" at the library of economics and liberty. he is dead-on with his exposition on the idea that the problem with government is, well, the government itself:

We are always tempted to reform government agencies, to fiddle with organization charts, creating new units and scrapping old ones. We hear the sirens' song: We could do good, things could be better. We simply need good government, good people, and sensible rules. Sure, we have problems now, but things could be good. The rules should be strong, yet flexible. Gravity should be reduced, and friction outlawed completely. (I never liked it, and I think a majority of people agree with me.)

Okay, the last two may seem silly, but they are no less likely than flexible rules or governments motivated by your peculiar and equally flexible conception of the good. If, as von Mises claimed, bureaucracy is the sine qua non of the territorially extensive state, then decrying bureaucracy's rigidity is wrong-headed. We can't make government more efficient, or more like business, because it insulates officials from such pressures by design.

this reminds me of a conversation i had the other day after watching busted, a great video by steve silverman's flex your rights, created to help you exert your constitutional protections against unlawful search-and-seizure (a must-see).

i have always wondered why we get so angry at cops enforcing the law. in the video, the "victims" were obviously upset at the cops when they were arrested for possessing illegal substances - and i got angry as well. however, it's important to remember that it is not enforcement of the law that is a problem; it’s the law itself. cops should be enforce the law always, and consistently – because, as mike points out, allowing for discretion “is a ticket on the train to tyranny” and allows the “representative of the state to indulge racism, or sadism, or blankism.”

there are two alternatives: we could have "blunt and mindlessly enforced" laws, or rely on a “mix of tolerance, common sense and private morality to deal with the fact that the world isn't quite the way we'd like it to be.” i prefer the latter.

read the whole thing here...

Labels: political

as part of my membership with the leukemia & lymphoma society, i’m trying to raise over $1,500 for the light the night walk on october sixth. to help, or just learn more, please visit my donations website.

the leukemia & lymphoma society, the world’s largest voluntary health organization, is exemplary of the power of philanthropy. the society’s founders, who had lost their son to leukemia in 1944, were frustrated at the lack of effective treatments for the disease. convinced that the disease was curable, they started the organization several years later to raise research funds.

since its inception the society has granted over $360 million to medical researchers and has provided valuable services to patients, families, and communities. in the 1940s, leukemia had a shocking 100% fatality rate. today the prognosis is not cheerful, but nearly half of all patients live at least five years after their diagnoses. although correlation is certainly not causation here, the society has done immeasurable good in raising research funds –and awareness- for the disease and should take no small part of the credit for this jump.

in my experience with blood cancers, it’s amazing how far we still have to go. it’s heartening that private citizens have organized voluntarily to help fight this disease and its deleterious effects on the patient, family, and community.

although marijuana is legendary for inducing temporary memory loss, it appears the drug may help prevent a permanent - and terminal- variety.

reasearchers have discovered that marijuana's active component thc, a cannabinoid, may help prevent alzheimer's disease:

"The findings showed that cannabinoids work both to prevent inflammation and to protect the brain, says researcher Maria de Ceballos in a news release. That may set the stage for [cannabinoids'] use as a therapeutic approach for [Alzheimer's disease]."

alzheimer's rats given cannabinoids not only were able to learn where the control alzheimer's rats could not, but they also saw none of the precursors to inflammation, which causes much of the degeneration in alzheimer's. it's a shame that marijuana also makes us feel good, or else it might be considered a viable component of preventative care.

more on: alzheimer's, memory, marijuana, drugs that could help us if they didn't make us happy too

reference: ramírez, b et. al, prevention of alzheimer's disease pathology by cannabinoids: neuroprotection mediated by blockade of microglial activation. journal of neuroscience, 23 feb.

Labels: drugs, neuroscience

the arlington health district's website publishes the results of restaurant health inspections online. although my favorite thai restaurant did not get a clean bill of health, i ordered last night anyway, albeit with a twinge of guilt for not informing my dinning partner of this discovery.

a sampling of the more innocent "critical" violations:

• The "Kenmore" freezer, "Panasonic" microwave, and the "Osterizer" blenders are not designed and constructed to be durable.
• The food contact surface of the plastic food container lids with holes in the middle of them are not finished to have smooth welds and joints.
• The operator is not testing the chemical sanitizing solution to ensure proper concentration of the solution (The wiping cloth solution was found to be too strong).
• Inadequate light was noted in the "Perlick" freezer at the server station.
• There are cracked floor tiles in the kitchen. There are some cracks and crevices in the kitchen walls.

the purpose of inspections is to prevent sickness. the current methodology, inspecting and tracking each restaurant, is expensive for both taxpayers and patrons. many of the violations, if fixed, may never even prevent anyone from getting sick.

why not drop this entire procedure and set up a penalty system for restaurants that actually make people sick? this will eliminate the entire inspection, tracking, and enforcement process. an even cheaper solution would be to publish each proven incidence of food borne illness and let consumers choose for themselves where they want to go. these approaches would be cheaper and focus on results instead of sometimes-arbitrary standards.

arlingtonites: search for your favorite restaurant. you might be surprised that dr. dremo's is one of the cleanest!

update: i am, apparently, magical! cool.

so, once again an online quiz accuses me of being a liberal, and we’re not talking “classical” here. my results from the “neoconservative quiz” over on the Christian science monitor’s website:

Based on your answers, you are most likely a liberal.

Liberal

Liberals…

• Are wary of American arrogance and hypocrisy
• Trace much of today's anti-American hatred to previous US foreign policies.
• Believe political solutions are inherently superior to military solutions
• Believe the US is morally bound to intervene in humanitarian crises
• Oppose American imperialism
• Support international law, alliances, and agreements
• Encourage US participation in the UN
• Believe US economic policies must help lift up the world's poor

Historical liberal: President Woodrow Wilson
Modern liberal: President Jimmy Carter

so, being against arrogance and hypocrisy is liberal, and only liberals grasp cause-effect relationships. does it often seem the reverse to anyone else? i suppose foreign and domestic policy do not have to be consistent.

thanks to john “libertarian” coleman for the link.

Labels: personal