although solidly defeated last year, smoking ban advocates are at it again. dc residents, please come out to support business and customer autonomy:

The DC Council is considering two bills that would make all indoor workplaces, including bars and restaurants, smoke-free.

What’s your opinion?
Ward One Town Hall Meeting
Thursday, June 9, 2005 - 7 p.m.
Lincoln Theatre
1215 U Street, NW
(U Street/Cardozo Metro)

the first section of the proposed bill (PDF) asserts that second hand smoke is unhealthy and uncomfortable. it also states that smoker/nonsmoker separations are not always effective ways of preventing the harms of smoke inhalation. the above assertions are debatable, but even if true one can recognize the ills of smoke while allowing people the choice to be around it anyway.

not surprisingly the bill's distinction between public and private seems a bit fuzzy:

“Public Place” means an enclosed area to which the public is invited or in which the public is permitted.... A private residence is not a public place unless it is used as a child care, adult day care, educational or health care facility.

nb: ban the ban
hat-tip: bill

Labels: personal

subliminal messages have been in the news quite a bit lately. must be all the star wars "force" hype unconsciously influencing media outlets...

according to a new study, consumers exposed to subliminal smiles poured and drank more of a beverage, with the reverse happening for frowns. those primed with happy faces also were willing to pay as much as triple what others were. most frightening, subjects were not aware of a change in their preferences.

in other recent news, researchers found a neurological mechanism for subliminal messages:

the visual cortex, the area of the brain tested in his experiments, has long been considered unchangeable in humans past 6 months of age. Watanabe found it could be "changed" and that the changes could last for a considerable period; individuals were tested again six months after the initial trials and show little or no deterioration....

scary, eh? but what is to be done? restricting subliminal advertising may be both prohibitively expensive and nearly impossible to determine and enforce, but subliminal tactics hardly seem ethical.

i guess the moral of the story is that eternal vigilance is the price of the free market, too, on more than one front. reducing access to advertising (via tv or magazines) and shopping with a list with prices and quantities are ways we can proactively reduce the influence of subliminal advertising. in addition, watchdogs can expose subliminal techniques to the press therefore making them less effective, and perhaps shame companies from using them.

Labels: neuroscience

cleveland amory may have been wrong when he said, "i can't take a well-tanned person seriously." bronzed may actually mean brainy – or, more exactly, the pallid may be at a slight disadvantage.

ohio state just released research indicating that our brains may shrink in the absence of sunlight. the report speculates that the loss occurs not in the areas receiving and processing visual information, but in those involved in learning and memory (in the hippocampus).

this may partially explain why many people get blue in the winter. interestingly enough, melatonin, produced in the hippocampus, has been previously linked to seasonal affective disorder (SAD), the ailment causing depression during winter months.

Labels: social

once upon a time, sunscreen only protected against UVB rays, the major cause of sunburn. however, scientists now believe that UVA rays may be the primary cause of skin cancer (and sun-related aging). most sunscreens available in the US still don't provide good UVA protection, however, even though the technology has been available since the early 1990s.

mexoryl sx, created back in 1993, may be the best uva sunscreen in existence. it's widely used in europe, south america, australia, and japan. there is only one acronym to explain why you can't buy it at your local store: FDA. it's unclear whether or not the FDA will actually approve it - if it does, it will likely do so this year.

FDAreview.org has a clear and concise explanation of why the FDA may be so cautious, even on simple items such as sunscreen: if i get skin cancer i can't really blame the FDA for it, because they have not done anything specifically to cause me harm. however, if mexoryl is approved and it causes me harm, i certainly can blame the FDA for allowing me access to dangerous chemicals.

what to do in the meantime? here are some links to sites where you can purchase UVA-protecting contraband now:

feelbest.com: canadian drugstore. all of the anthelios products have mexoryl sx in them.
candrugstore.com: another canadian drugstore.
skin care lab: a yahoo store (it's unclear to me why they can sell this stuff, as they're based in NY).

of course, the availability of these products online just illustrates the power of the internet revolution, and the further class stratification created by the government restricting access to products (i.e., poor people without internet access cannot get mexoryl, and are therefore arguably more at risk for skin cancer, even if they wished to prevent it by using sunscreen).

gracious hat-tippin' to vegetarian times magazine for the mexoryl sx info.

Labels: drugs, political

just as large aspects of one's social responsibility may be genetic, bbc news reports on a new study indicating that antisocial behavior may also have genetic ties.

unlike with eye color, genes aren't destiny where most behaviors are concerned. psychologists stress the importance of environmental factors to act as a buffer against this genetic predisposition, or conversely create antisocial behaviors in those without the gene.

this is great news, in many ways. individual children known to have this predisposition can be treated in specific ways to dampen their natural impulse. generalizing this recommendation to social policy has one huge caveat - many delinquents may not be genetically predisposed:

Professor Marian Fitzgerald, visiting professor of criminology at the University of Kent, said this early-onset anti-social behaviour was different from that seen more commonly among teens aged 15-17.

"Most people who get involved in crime and anti-social behaviour are not genetically predisposed.

"A lot of kids get swept up in their teens and there are many social, economic and environmental factors involved. Most grow out of it.

"Obviously, individuals with genetic factors that predispose them to this behaviour will be more at risk. But tackling this small number of people will not make a big difference for society.

i'm forever impressed by people's ingenuity and creativity, even in the wake of disaster. a cool "in the news" tidbit:

an entrepreneur in seoul is profiting from his recent tragedy. in mid-april, elephants destroyed his restaurant, but now he says that business is better than ever. the owner used his insurance money to remodel and put up a new name: "restaurant where elephants have been." he has renamed menu items to coordinate with the restaurant's new pachyderm persona.

it's proven quite profitable - sales have doubled:

"What can I say about the elephants? Thank you for causing the trouble? Well, that just might be right," Keum said.

read more.

Labels: social

while on vacation, i came across an interesting story of fraternal organizations for poor bajans, typically former slaves – friendly societies and the barbados landships. both served a valuable function in the lives of poor bajans.

friendly societies began as church-sponsored underground alternatives to traditional banking. members avoided the political and monetary structures controlled by middle and upper class collusion with government. the societies flourished, and by the early 1920s there were over 260 separate groups on the tiny island. not only serving as co-operative banks, the societies provided a safety net, entitling their working class members to a kind of insurance and even occasionally annual bonuses.

barbados landships emerged similarly in the late 1800s as a strong civil society group as an alternative to - and some say as resistance against - the church-run friendly societies. landships provided a safety net like their competing friendly societies. the landship founder was a member of the royal navy and used its uniforms and rituals as a model for the group.

although for a time forced to go underground because the government disliked the similarities to their navy, the landship still survives. it even has served as an alternate court for its members by settling disputes before bringing them to criminal court.

friendly societies did not survive government intervention as well, and few exist today. in an attempt of the ruling class, mainly plantation owners, to curb friendly societies' voting rights, which were tied to land ownership, legislation soon prohibited these friendly societies from owning more than an acre of land. even the few that still exist are heavily regulated (PDF).

the story of these groups is both heartening and frustrating. one cannot underestimate the ability of individuals to group together and form societies for mutual benefit and provide for each other during times of need. the desire of a ruling class to thwart such efforts, when given the ability through weak or nonexistent barriers between special interests and government, can’t be underestimated either.

Labels: political

the ny times reports that a rouge shade is strongly correlated to successful sports teams. my initial reaction was that it must be different for political philosophies. even if not:

This does not mean that a bad team can reverse its fortunes by wearing red, Dr. Barton said. The study applies only to closely matched competitors. "If you're hopeless," he said, "then wearing red isn't going to make you start winning."

someone had to say it!

Labels: ideology, social

in a suspicious turn of events possibly meant to create balance in the universe, my neighbor passworded his wifi connection while i was i barbados. alas, this is the explanation for the cobwebs at this address lately.

yesterday i submitted and got cable modem of my very own, and should therefore be back to blogging as irregularly as before, for better or worse!

Labels: personal

this week's economist has a fascinating article on mirror neuron research. mirror neurons fire when we do a particular activity - such as reaching for a pen - but also fire when we watch someone else reach for the pen. it's kind of like putting ourselves in the other's shoes, cerebrally. research indicates that this kind of brain activity is absent in those without the ability to empathize, autistics.

this really cool research may answer some questions about altruistic behavior.

yesterday, while walking around georgetown, i saw a cab driver motioning a competitor towards a fare he couldn't get the get himself (he was going the opposite direction, and we know it's impossible to turn around in georgetown). i wondered at first why the cab driver would give his competition an edge, and there are a host of possible reasons. perhaps and wanted to promote the image that georgetown is a good place to get cabs, therefore increasing the likelihood that people would go to georgetown for cabs. another likely possibility is that the driver was a friend, and we usually want to help out our friends because we like them to do well and so that they'll return the favor someday.

another possibility, though, is these mirror neurons. he saw the driver wandering sans fare and his brain literally felt his rival's pain, prompting him to point out a fare to him.

a good research question would be to see if nervous states - such as activation of the sympathetic nervous system ("fight or flight") - dampen the activity of mirror neurons, thereby promoting our survival instinct. it wouldn't be very helpful to feel empathy for the guy who's trying to fight us, would it?

Labels: neuroscience

barbados was beautiful. although i do love dc, it's not hard to guess where i'd rather be:


crane beach. voted in the top 10 beaches in the world.

the resort's pool wasn't half bad (our suite had its own pool as well).

Labels: personal

i'll be out for most of next week and will probably be posting again at the end of week. i'll miss you!

Labels: personal

there's a great new bill going through the tennissee legislature. it's called the "pharmacists freedom of conscience act" and would allow pharmacists do refuse to fill prescriptions for drugs that they morally oppose. birth control is the key issue in this debate.

forcing a businessperson to engage in something s/he feels morally wrong does not seem justifiable, so as long as pharmacy owners are allowed to fire pharmacists for refusing to fill prescriptions, this makes a lot of sense to me.

i'm not concerned with any negative effects of this law. most, if not all, towns have more than one pharmacy, and i am fairly sure at least one will be entrepreneurial enough to exploit the need for birth control pills. the withholding pharmacy will loose profits from those pills while, perhaps, gaining some of the other pharmacy’s clients who would prefer to go to a "moral" pharmacist. i bet it may even out in the end and allow people to act in accordance with their own beliefs.

and if there is only one pharmacist and he's a zealot catholic looney? there is no reason why one can't order birth control pills online or via mail. it's often cheaper anyway.

for more information, visit the protection of conscience project's website, a religious group pushing all kinds of laws against "force[ing] health care workers and others to participate, directly or indirectly, in morally controversial procedures".

via the fayette county review

Labels: social

it seems that mind over matter really is more valid than many believe. a new zealand study has found that:

some of the effects that people expect from alcohol can be produced by simple exposure to flashes of alcohol-related words on a computer screen.

teetotalers often abstain because they don't want a chemical do have influence over their actions, but this study seems to call into question the efficacy of their willpower.

the question is, though, if this phenomenon occurs for abstainers, having never been drunk, as it is for my more bacchanalian brethren.

if the concept of revealed preference is to be believed*, parents do have favorites - they love their pretty babies more. a new study, where researchers observed parent-child interactions at canadian grocery stores, shockingly found that parents take better care of their more attractive children.

from the new york times:

"Like lots of animals, we tend to parcel out our resources on the basis of value," he said. "Maybe we can't always articulate that, but in fact we do it. There are a lot of things that make a person more valuable, and physical attractiveness may be one of them."

correlations have also been made between attractiveness and intelligence. perhaps parental involvement (or lack thereof) is one factor in this?

*or bastardized...

Labels: social

the institute for higher education policy published the first-ever national study on nongovernmental college scholarships today. the study is surprisingly complementary of private scholarships:

This study also provides ample evidence of the deep commitment that exists in the private sector to help students go to college. The private sector’s support for scholarship aid must be better recognized and understood as a key element in the national goal of improving access to higher education, especially as private aid is combined with critical government and institutional financial aid programs.

private groups awarded $3 billion in scholarships last year (7% of total grants). these groups included local community initiatives, big corporations, small companies, philanthropic foundations, service & fraternal organizations, educational trusts, and more.

the report found that private funding sources "help students who slip through the cracks of other programs and facilitate choice and affordability for a wide range of students" and make "college more affordable for both low- and middle-income students."

check out the whole report.

thanks for the heads up, dan.

Labels: social

i just got an old email forward that begins:

Gas rationing in the 80's worked even though we grumbled about it. It might even be good for us! The Saudis are boycotting American goods. We should return the favor.

prepared for a rant on how awesome it would be for the government to forbid trade between consensual parties, i was instead pleasantly surprised to find it a call to voluntary action. the email proposed boycott of companies importing middle eastern oil and went on to list companies who do, and those that don't:

Shell............................. 205,742,000 barrels
Chevron/Texaco......... 144,332,000 barrels
Exxon /Mobil............... 130,082,000 barrels
Marathon/Speedway... 117,740,000 barrels
Amoco............................ 62,231,000 barrels

Citgo....................... 0 barrels
Sunoco...................0 barrels
Conoco...................0 barrels
Sinclair.................... 0 barrels
BP/Phillips..............0 barrels
Hess........................ 0 barrels

it seems the prevailing assumption is that most US oil comes from the middle east, so i was skeptical of these numbers. courtesy of uncle sam google i found that the information above is wildly inaccurate (snopes debunked it long ago anyway), but it's true that many companies don't import from the middle east at all, and those that do import much less than i expected. persian gulf imports made up only 24% of last year's oil supply.

would the free market alone provide such transparency? certainly not. however, it may allow us to make the same decisions. companies seeing a niche in pandering to those who don't want to support inhumane regimes would make their imports public knowledge. there we are - at nearly same place - without paying for a bureaucracy to record it.

Labels: economics