And so can you!
It's official. Increased radio airtime of country music --> increased suicide rate. Apparently this isn't as much of a newsflash as it might be; the study was released in 1992. But it used regression analysis to control for all the other variables that affect suicide rate and demographics, and concluded that the more country music on the radio, the higher the white suicide rate.
I enjoy a little country now and then, but I've generally considered it best for my health to seek other modes of melodic entertainment. A techno song a day keeps the doctor away (and those voices too)
**click on the title of the post to see the study
Mar 28, 2010
Fanny Packs
I think fanny packs get a bad rap. Their unfortunately predominate use by obnoxious Western tourists in the 1990s lead to their, quite possible permanent, demise. When Weird Al is mocking fanny packs, you know they've gone from out to far out.
Disclaimer: I don't own a fanny pack, but I'm playfully reconsidering that decision.
Fanny packs may be the most useful carrying invention since pockets. They chafe very little (much less than holding everything in your cargo pants would), because they sit at the waist, which typically doesn't move a whole lot. Considering their versatility, I would say the fanny pack's major competitor is the small backpack (daypack-size). While the backpack requires the use of the shoulders, potentially tiring them out, and demands a full dismount in order to access its primary pockets, the fanny pack is perpetually accessible around the waist. Furthermore, if one wears a fanny pack frontways, then your stuff is less likely to get stolen than in a backpack that you can't see.
Apparently, fanny packs may be making a comeback. Obviously, they shall have to ditch that horrific name. Gucci has a "waist belt bag," and Rihanna was spotted wearing a Louis Vuitton "pouch."
Better than a murse, let's bring the waist belt bag pouch back!
Disclaimer: I don't own a fanny pack, but I'm playfully reconsidering that decision.
Fanny packs may be the most useful carrying invention since pockets. They chafe very little (much less than holding everything in your cargo pants would), because they sit at the waist, which typically doesn't move a whole lot. Considering their versatility, I would say the fanny pack's major competitor is the small backpack (daypack-size). While the backpack requires the use of the shoulders, potentially tiring them out, and demands a full dismount in order to access its primary pockets, the fanny pack is perpetually accessible around the waist. Furthermore, if one wears a fanny pack frontways, then your stuff is less likely to get stolen than in a backpack that you can't see.
Apparently, fanny packs may be making a comeback. Obviously, they shall have to ditch that horrific name. Gucci has a "waist belt bag," and Rihanna was spotted wearing a Louis Vuitton "pouch."
Better than a murse, let's bring the waist belt bag pouch back!
Mar 7, 2010
Want a cheap vacation?
I just wanted to give a plug to helpx.net. I've told a lot of people about this place, and everyone is always excited to hear about it, and probably a little surprised they never have before.
It's like CouchSurfing but generally less sketchy and more involved. People from across the world post if they have a place for a traveler to stay, and will give them room and board in exchange for some work (typically for free; if not then for a very small sum).
A lot of people have farms, either organic or not (although if you're looking to do an organic farm stay wwoofing may be better). Many have some kind of small business; and quite a few just want to share their lives and country with a traveler. From Bedouin in the Jordanian desert to rice farmers in Thailand to a friendly family in Fiji, there are places everywhere.
I'm going to Mancora, Peru for spring break through HelpX. We'll see how it goes.
It's like CouchSurfing but generally less sketchy and more involved. People from across the world post if they have a place for a traveler to stay, and will give them room and board in exchange for some work (typically for free; if not then for a very small sum).
A lot of people have farms, either organic or not (although if you're looking to do an organic farm stay wwoofing may be better). Many have some kind of small business; and quite a few just want to share their lives and country with a traveler. From Bedouin in the Jordanian desert to rice farmers in Thailand to a friendly family in Fiji, there are places everywhere.
I'm going to Mancora, Peru for spring break through HelpX. We'll see how it goes.
Mar 4, 2010
From Brainwashing to Terrorist Interrogation
When 20 US POWs chose to stay in Communist China after the Korean War, the US intelligence community went nuts. Reports of brainwashing had been floating around for awhile, but now it was a confirmed phenomenon. The CIA and various military branches were determined to replicate and improve upon whatever tactics the enemy had up their sleeve.
So they created MKULTRA and a number of other questionable programs that did unethical and illegal things to people to try to control their minds, their behavior. The most common experiments involved LSD or other drugs, sensory deprivation, and stress positions. They ended up working out ways to break people down, deconstruct personalities, and cause "regression."
Somehow, these organizations decided that the ability to cause a psychotic breakdown was a great technique in an interrogator's arsenal. Good enough to be pretty much the only one. So the KUBARK manual was created, explaining how to use stress positions, sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, circadian rhythm disruption and other techniques to disorient a prisoner. It also advised hypnotism.
The KUBARK manual (it came out in the early 60s) was then the basis for the next 40 years of interrogation manuals, including the ones used at the controversial School of Americas. It also was the basis for the SERE (Survive Evade Resist Escape) program, which was designed to put military officers and special forces operators through intense simulations of Soviet/Communist capture and interrogation (read: torture). The SERE students underwent the techniques described in the KUBARK manual, which were based on the research from MKULTRA.
When we started capturing terrorists post-9/11, no one knew what to do with them (except the FBI, apparently, but everyone decided to ignore them and go the unethical route). So the CIA hired SERE trainer and director John Mitchell to interrogate prisoners. Hence waterboarding, hooding of prisoners, disorientation, "rap torture"....all the specific techniques we saw used in Guantanamo, secret prisons, and Abu Ghraib.
This is just dumb. I don't understand how anyone made the leap between "research to learn how to break someone down" to "effective interrogation technique." There is literally zero research on the effects of these methods on convincing a prisoner with a secret to betray it. There is no reason to believe that the disorientation, humiliation, and physical stress that are still a standard part of interrogation procedure (see John Yoo's memos for this) have any positive effect whatsoever on the gaining of actionable intelligence.
So they created MKULTRA and a number of other questionable programs that did unethical and illegal things to people to try to control their minds, their behavior. The most common experiments involved LSD or other drugs, sensory deprivation, and stress positions. They ended up working out ways to break people down, deconstruct personalities, and cause "regression."
Somehow, these organizations decided that the ability to cause a psychotic breakdown was a great technique in an interrogator's arsenal. Good enough to be pretty much the only one. So the KUBARK manual was created, explaining how to use stress positions, sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, circadian rhythm disruption and other techniques to disorient a prisoner. It also advised hypnotism.
The KUBARK manual (it came out in the early 60s) was then the basis for the next 40 years of interrogation manuals, including the ones used at the controversial School of Americas. It also was the basis for the SERE (Survive Evade Resist Escape) program, which was designed to put military officers and special forces operators through intense simulations of Soviet/Communist capture and interrogation (read: torture). The SERE students underwent the techniques described in the KUBARK manual, which were based on the research from MKULTRA.
When we started capturing terrorists post-9/11, no one knew what to do with them (except the FBI, apparently, but everyone decided to ignore them and go the unethical route). So the CIA hired SERE trainer and director John Mitchell to interrogate prisoners. Hence waterboarding, hooding of prisoners, disorientation, "rap torture"....all the specific techniques we saw used in Guantanamo, secret prisons, and Abu Ghraib.
This is just dumb. I don't understand how anyone made the leap between "research to learn how to break someone down" to "effective interrogation technique." There is literally zero research on the effects of these methods on convincing a prisoner with a secret to betray it. There is no reason to believe that the disorientation, humiliation, and physical stress that are still a standard part of interrogation procedure (see John Yoo's memos for this) have any positive effect whatsoever on the gaining of actionable intelligence.
Niger
I'm on a bit of a news analysis kick lately. I'm not sure why.
There has recently been a coup in Niger. Another coup, that is, as the guy who was deposed in the most recent coup staged a coup of his own to get into power in the first place. coup coup coup coup. But no doves in this coup, it was staged by the military.
The thing is, I think this was a good coup. It was staged because the President (Tandja) refused to give up power, ignored the constitution, and attempted to disband parliament. So the military decided to try to reimpose democracy. They took over, surrounded the house of the general who opposed the coup, and installed one of Tandja's ministers until a new government could be elected. I think the choice of someone who was in the government to run it is pretty important - it wasn't a rebel or an opposition leader, but a politician with experience and who apparently wants democracy.
But the biggest issue is that standing US policy requires us to cut off aid to a government in coup-military-dictatorship form. Not just political or macroeconomic aid, but basic health aid and infrastructure. Like people are no longer being fed. This is a dumb US policy and should be replaced with something else more contingent on situation, and should generally continue to fight infectious diseases (because stopping treatment and prevention of malaria is hardly going to convince the coup-stagers to give up power).
Save lives. Not money.
There has recently been a coup in Niger. Another coup, that is, as the guy who was deposed in the most recent coup staged a coup of his own to get into power in the first place. coup coup coup coup. But no doves in this coup, it was staged by the military.
The thing is, I think this was a good coup. It was staged because the President (Tandja) refused to give up power, ignored the constitution, and attempted to disband parliament. So the military decided to try to reimpose democracy. They took over, surrounded the house of the general who opposed the coup, and installed one of Tandja's ministers until a new government could be elected. I think the choice of someone who was in the government to run it is pretty important - it wasn't a rebel or an opposition leader, but a politician with experience and who apparently wants democracy.
But the biggest issue is that standing US policy requires us to cut off aid to a government in coup-military-dictatorship form. Not just political or macroeconomic aid, but basic health aid and infrastructure. Like people are no longer being fed. This is a dumb US policy and should be replaced with something else more contingent on situation, and should generally continue to fight infectious diseases (because stopping treatment and prevention of malaria is hardly going to convince the coup-stagers to give up power).
Save lives. Not money.
AIDS
Exciting title, huh? I'm going to make an argument that isn't very well formed, so take it as an idea, not an official opinion. This is just something that struck me just now.
Global health policymakers have few or no qualms about attempting to change other culture's social norms to conform with the health standards of a Western liberal democracy. Things like eliminating the stigma of AIDS, increasing gender parity, making condom use a topic of discussion, making medication acceptable (even if the person taking it would rather pray to Allah, for instance, and not take the medication) are all easily justified by their obvious positive health impact. I'm not saying these are bad or good justifications, merely that they exist. They exist to the point that there's not really much of a discussion about whether or not the WHO and American academics should be meddling in other country's social norms, but merely how to do it most effectively. Again, no value judgment, I just noticed that.
I feel like the best place to affect HIV in terms of social norms would be in terms of the number of sex partners. There is all this money and time and brilliant minds focused on finding a vaccine, promoting condom use, teaching people about how HIV is spread, etc. But I have yet to hear anyone promote the idea of fidelity as a solution to the problem. If everyone in a society had only one sex partner, their spouse, in their life, there would be NO problem with AIDS. The current cases would be addressed and HIV would disappear.
Granted, this is an idealized scenario, but it is the only 100% way to guarantee not to get AIDS. Condoms break (and only work 99% of the time - I've come into contact with one of those 1% cases). All the other prevention mechanisms are unsure as well. And it's not as though we couldn't continue doing other work. But why are we so unwilling to impose this cultural value on other countries?
Because we haven't got it. Having only 1 sexual partner is becoming less and less common in Western liberal democracies. And of course it's not us that needs to change, it's other countries that need to change to become more like us. We're not willing to impose cultural changes on ourselves, and we're not willing to impose cultural changes on others if it doesn't directly mimic our own culture (even though it is just as justified by health benefits as are all the other impositions of different cultural norms, like the examples above).
Basically, that's the idea: although the most effective way to combat AIDS would be to encourage fidelity and celibacy until marriage, it is not promoted because America no longer adheres to that value.
Global health policymakers have few or no qualms about attempting to change other culture's social norms to conform with the health standards of a Western liberal democracy. Things like eliminating the stigma of AIDS, increasing gender parity, making condom use a topic of discussion, making medication acceptable (even if the person taking it would rather pray to Allah, for instance, and not take the medication) are all easily justified by their obvious positive health impact. I'm not saying these are bad or good justifications, merely that they exist. They exist to the point that there's not really much of a discussion about whether or not the WHO and American academics should be meddling in other country's social norms, but merely how to do it most effectively. Again, no value judgment, I just noticed that.
I feel like the best place to affect HIV in terms of social norms would be in terms of the number of sex partners. There is all this money and time and brilliant minds focused on finding a vaccine, promoting condom use, teaching people about how HIV is spread, etc. But I have yet to hear anyone promote the idea of fidelity as a solution to the problem. If everyone in a society had only one sex partner, their spouse, in their life, there would be NO problem with AIDS. The current cases would be addressed and HIV would disappear.
Granted, this is an idealized scenario, but it is the only 100% way to guarantee not to get AIDS. Condoms break (and only work 99% of the time - I've come into contact with one of those 1% cases). All the other prevention mechanisms are unsure as well. And it's not as though we couldn't continue doing other work. But why are we so unwilling to impose this cultural value on other countries?
Because we haven't got it. Having only 1 sexual partner is becoming less and less common in Western liberal democracies. And of course it's not us that needs to change, it's other countries that need to change to become more like us. We're not willing to impose cultural changes on ourselves, and we're not willing to impose cultural changes on others if it doesn't directly mimic our own culture (even though it is just as justified by health benefits as are all the other impositions of different cultural norms, like the examples above).
Basically, that's the idea: although the most effective way to combat AIDS would be to encourage fidelity and celibacy until marriage, it is not promoted because America no longer adheres to that value.
